So when I was working today my openly gay boss came back while doing some back of the house work, and naturally we engaged in some conversation. I just found out he was gay the other day, and I just couldn't believe until he told me.  A matter of fact, he even called himself a "fagot" never ever thought I'd hear that.  I have theory onto where the word fagot came from.  Possibly humorous in nature or offensive, but that's a different story for a different day.

Anyways, I am a new born Agnostic I guess you could say, still kinda fence sitting betweem Atheism and Christianity, but I feel more drawn to Atheism every day...and Gary's case only solidifies it.  Gary was once married, had kids, and in fact married to this woman longer than he was openly gay.  He says always kinda knew he was, but just kinda ignored...but his mid life crisis rolled around and thats when he told her what was up.  I can't really imagine what it would be like to go through all that, on his wife, kids, and even Gary. It'd be difficult situation, especially considering they were married for 15 years.  

Anyways so me and Gary got into the topic about Gay marriage...and we both agree it's not so much the word married that grinds our gears, but rather the "rights" part of it.  Why shouldn't a partner be beside each other when one is about to pass?  Especially after 30 years of partnership, these kinda things came from Gary, and I heartfully agree with him.  Because marriage is a religious thing, and chances are even in East Tennessee, a homosexual person isn't going to be super religious (however with the slight growing acceptance of homosexuality among some denominations, that could change).  So therefore the word marriage is meaningless, it's simply the rights part of it.  He said he could care less about a tax deduction. Love is love.  Agreeable.

Anyways I'm getting off topic, so I told him I'm accepting of gay, lesbian people in my community, however I can't quite wrap my head around the bisexual thing...and he said that's good but disagreed about the bisexual thing and stated "Lot's of creatures are homosexual, take the mental part out of it...what are we Nathan?" I just looked at him, confused as if he was insinuating something "Animals!"
So true so I reply "Yeah but the difference between us and dog is the ability to reason..."
then this truly was an interesting " I guarantee you evolution wouldn't fail on this one, if I go out there grab...well your an employee, if i go out there and grab a male customer by the balls, he's going to get an were technically bisexual by nature" By the way this mainly came up because I asked him if he enjoyed sleeping with a woman...apparently he did, because as far as I'm concerned, pressure is pressure. be it being a woman's part, male's buttocks. or your own holy hand.

But the notion that we are all born bisexual kinda left a note on my mind. I'm in fact a heterosexual male, and gary stated while we may not like mentally, our body most likely would not be able resist such actions, and reactions...what do you guys think? and sorry I know this is a mouthful.

Views: 2341

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

LOL, since daters in Canada are not biologically different from those in the USA, even tho most of English Eastern Canada comes from 'Loyalists-Royalists' stock fleeing the young USA... LOL... I'd say on the issue of sexuality, since Canadians are less religious, we are more honest. pfew!

In the USA, because people are more religious, even those who claim to deny god, they're less likely to admit to even the possibilty of being intimate with the same gender...
LOL! But I read from a reliable source (was it that only idiots use dating sites. So perhaps bisexuals are three times smarter. Or something like that. I don't have my calculator with me.
LOL and I know some daters are lying cuz I've never once seen a stat saying the average experience number is the same for men and women: 6 mua ha ha aha ha ha ha

Maybe it's the way they worded that question.... X or fewer partners... hm, that would mean 1 included in 2 and fewer, included in 3 and fewer, included in 4 and fewer! ha ha ha
yes but the topic is not 'really' orientation but lack thereof ;)

When Kinsey proposed his scale, he thought of bisexuals meaning only 50-50, that would almost mean there are no bisexuals in society???

I take the complementary view (not opposing), that in truth 0% and 100% are non existent, just as a perfect 50-50 is non existent. That leaves everyone somewhere on a scale ranging from .01 to 99.99, or .oo1 to 99.999 or whatever decimal we'd like to take it to, up to the billions of us on earth. I just don't believe in zeros
When Kinsey proposed his scale, he thought of bisexuals meaning only 50-50, that would almost mean there are no bisexuals in society???

I read that when he proposed the scale he viewed sexual orientation as falling along a continuum. A seven step scale wasn't perfect, but still a better representation of human sexuality than the binary hetero/homo division. 2, 3, and 4 were all scores that would classify a person as characteristically bisexual, indicating a significant attraction for both genders. I don't know off the top of my head how absolute 0 and 6 were supposed to be on the scale.

I don't have a direct quote or reference on hand for that, sadly.
Got the wording from here.

I think the original publication is Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Not sure if that's mentioned anywhere obvious.

Concerning patterns of sexual behavior, a great deal of the thinking done by scientists and laymen alike stems from the assumption that there are persons who are “heterosexual” and persons who are “homosexual,” that these two types represent antitheses in the sexual world, and that there is only an insignificant class of “bisexuals” who occupy an intermediate position between the other groups. It is implied that every individual is innately—inherently—either heterosexual or homosexual. It is further implied that from the time of birth one is fated to be one thing or the other, and that there is little chance for one to change his pattern in the course of a lifetime. It is quite generally believed that one’s preference for a sexual partner of one or the other sex is correlated with various physical and mental qualities, and with the total personality which makes a homosexual male or female physically, psychically, and perhaps spiritually distinct from a heterosexual individual. It is generally thought that these qualities make a homosexual person obvious and recognizable to any one who has a sufficient understanding of such matters. Even psychiatrists discuss “the homosexual personality” and many of them believe that preferences for sexual partners of a particular sex are merely secondary manifestations of something that lies much deeper in the totality of that intangible which they call the personality. . . .

The histories which have been available in the present study make it apparent that the heterosexuality or homosexuality of many individuals is not an all-or-none proposition. It is true that there are persons in the population whose histories are exclusively heterosexual, both in regard to their overt experience and in regard to their psychic reactions. And there are individuals in the population whose histories are exclusively homosexual, both in experience and in psychic reactions. But the record also shows that there is a considerable portion of the population whose members have combined, within their individual histories, both homosexual and heterosexual experience and/or psychic responses. There are some whose heterosexual experiences predominate, there are some whose homosexual experiences predominate, there are some who have had quite equal amounts of both types of experience. . . .

Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. Not all things are black nor all things white. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories. Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into separated pigeon-holes. The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. The sooner we learn this concerning human sexual behavior the sooner we shall reach a sound understanding of the realities of sex. . . .

That last paragraph is cited in the wiki link as well.
I don't disagree with any of this assessment, which is why I brought up my disagrement with the limited bisexual understanding of the Kinsey scale per se. Where I diverge with you and some others here is in the understanding of "Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into separated pigeon-holes. The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects" which I apparently read more literally than you, and undertand to minimize to an infinitely small amount the actual extremities, the 0% and 100% to mere specs and placing EVERYONE, somewhere in between.

Placing EVERYONE somewhere in that spectrum, the sprectrum being varying doses of bisexuality, and practically no one in the 'absolute' 0% and 100%, is the very essence of why I state everyone is bisexual. I concur 100% that it is the human mind wich seeks to box people in the categories of hetero or homosexual.

Some people agree to disagree, I feel we both disagree to agree? :)
which I apparently read more literally than you, and undertand to minimize to an infinitely small amount the actual extremities, the 0% and 100% to mere specs and placing EVERYONE, somewhere in between.

I never actually made any statement on this. I'm simply saying that the Kinsey scale probably took that format for pragmatic reasons; I don't think he was suggesting with that scale that people fit neatly or perfectly into that seven point categorization.
It was written in the 50s. It might have been before the term 'sexual orientation' had even been coined.

In a half century, our thinking on human sexuality has changed considerably, but there seems to be a long way to go in terms of actual understanding. Studies surrounding the biology of sexual orientation don't seem to come up before the 90s. Before that, it was a study of behavior and psychology.
(Sorry for the delete and repost. Once again, I missed my edit window by a minute or two.)

(Cass said) While I agree with what you're saying, I think the natural level of posturing and physical aggressiveness for BOTH genders would be much higher in a more primitive culture. I also think the difference in levels between sexes would be much less. In any case, I just don't see how this relates to sexual orientation.

So I think we agree that culture plays a big role in shaping personal behavior. As an aside, some subcultures (e.g. gangs) would also display higher levels of posturing and aggressiveness. I'm not sure I agree that the difference between male and female behavior in primitive culture would be less. E.g. men would still dominate the hunting expeditions, at least.

How this relates to sexual orientation (IMO, but which I think you disagree with) is that gender biology plays a big role in our baseline behaviors, including sexual orientation, and with normal, phenotypic variation. I.e. even while (IMO) sexual orientation is largely biological, nature still allows for biological/neurological variations of behavior among us.

I'm not saying that culture and personal choice don't matter. I'm saying that biology/neurology still matters for humans, in the big picture. You cannot eliminate epigenetics from this picture (yet), either.
aha, that opens a new window... maybe we could say that Homo sapiens is bisexual as a species but not all persons consider themselves bisexual ... :)


Blog Posts

Kids Logic

Posted by Mai on February 28, 2015 at 5:33am 3 Comments

Forever Cursed

Posted by Nerdy Keith on February 25, 2015 at 8:00pm 4 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service