Psycological for women to enjoy same sex but not men?

If a person finds that they are sexually attracted to both men and women, and only men and women, they are bisexual. If a bisexual person thinks they are more strongly attracted to one gender than the other, they are unclear on their own sexual identity. The discrepancy might be caused by positive or negative reinforcement of either the adult male or female figures during childhood. It may just be that such a person has had better relationships with one gender, by shear coincidence, and developed a subconscious believe that that gender is more attractive than the other.

To be honest, I'm not bisexual and I can't speak for the bisexual as an individual or as a community. I can use an example in my life that allows me to relate myself to the bisexual's point of view on this topic though. I find women with dark features and curvy figures to be more attractive in general than women with light features and less shapely figures. I don't think I'm naturally inclined from birth feel this way. I recognize a number of influences, both culturally and personally, that would make it very clear why I find the first set of features more attractive than the second. Get it?

 

[QUOTE/] i don't have a 'percentage' for myself. i've experimented with women in the past, haven't done it in years, or wanted to. by your lights i would thus be hetero--many would say i am bi.[/QUOTE]
I don't think it really matters what anyone else (including me) decides is your sexual preference, because no one will ever be able to truely know what and how you feel and what your true motivations are. Why did you experiment with women? Do you feel a genuine sense of attraction to certain women, or can you just appreciate their beauty? Did you fool around with those girls because of a strong physical attraction or was it a thrill for you to test societal norms? You say you haven't been with a woman in years, so are you happy with men (I'll assume there are only two options here), or do you still pine for chicks a little? I can give my opinions on the broad spectrum, but for individual motivations, every person needs to dig a little into themselves. I certainly have.

 

ok, NOW you are using the term bisexual and telling me what your version is. it's not about me and my preferences, i was using an example to get you to explain yourself more fully.

 

It's in our genes.

 

This is a direct excerpt from the second paragraph on the first of my posts on this thread, where I acknowledged Bisexuality as a form of humansexuality. It would have saved us both, but me in particular, quite a bit of time and effort if you had been more thorough and focused while reading.

 

Slight, you're doing nothing but toeing the Freudian line, perhaps adding a little Kinsey in for flavor. It's bullshit. I was molested as a child and I have never touched a child, have no urges to do so, and in fact, as celtgrrl might tell you (if you drop the arrogant, righteous attitude) I'm very normal sexually (except for a minor foot fetish). Experience is not destiny. Character is destiny. Break a paradigm or two and pitch the Freud.

 

This is the first paragraph from my second post. This explains clearly my view on bisexuality. Now if you had actually read this instead of breezing through it, you wouldn't have to ask me the same question 3 or 4 times, and then get mad at me for not giving you the answer you want, when in actuality the answer you want is the statment that caused your ridiculous question in the first place.

 

Now this is Zoomie's first post, in which he bashed me and my views...

 

I think pretty much everyone here can read. But go ahead, keep digging...

 

slight---that exact quote confused me in the first place. you are clear in your own mind as to what you mean, but it's not so clear to anyone reading your posts. yes, you acknowlege bisexuality. BUT you then dispute the idea that someone could be sexually 'split'. therefore, i tried to find out just what you meant by bisexual, because to me, bisexual people are split. but to you--i think--they really aren't bisexual at all, they are confused, and should really be either gay or straight. it's the same word, it isn't the same meaning.
but now you're just trying to inflame by being rude.

 

Followed by this gem, where he clearly has seen that I am not some fucking idiot conservative reading and article out the Christian Science Monitor, but a real intellectual who *gasp* may not hold the same ethical or moral values that he does. So, instead of just basking me as a moron who doesn't deserve to be paid attention to, he decided that it must have been impossible for me to have actually had these notions on my own, he must have been just reciting what he read from Freud or Dr. Kinsey. In reality, I have very little knowledge of Dr. Freud or his work aside from his (mostly debunked) theories on the subconscious' causes of dreams in the rem state. And as for Dr. Kinsey, I know nothing at all of his work besides a movie trailor I saw with Liam Neeson a few months back. My ideas are my very own, regardless of your reluctance to accept it.

As for your personal situation, I once again ask you to go back, and instead of just going over my posts and picking out random sentences that you disagree with, just attempt to digest the posts as a whole. Maybe if you would stop condemning certain misconstrued elements of my viewpoint, you would see my true meaning.

If that is too hard for you, I'll just simplify it for you and put it in bold so you don't have to strain your mind by reading more than a few hundred words at a time:HUMAN SEXUALITY IS DETERMINED GENETICALLY.
HOWEVER, IN SOME, NOT ALL CASES, PEOPLE BECOME CONFUSED ABOUT THEIR OWN SEXUAL IDENTITY DUE TO EXTERNAL SEXUAL PERSUASION, SUCH AS MOLESTATION.
SOME PEDOPHILES ARE BORN WITH AN INHERENT ATTRACTION TO ADOLESCENTS. Do you get it now?

 

Celt, I am not trying to inflame anyone. The only reason i am getting upset is because you and zoomie, among others, refuse to take the time to read my post thoroughly, and you post responses that incite me because they misconstrue my meaning or just miss the meaning entirely. I have, from the very begining of this thread, accepted bisexuality as a form of human sexuality. I disputed that a person could be born predisposed to attraction towards one gender moreso than the other. Ok?

 

i never said you didn't accept it, either. i don't believe you are reading too throughly yourself. and if you don't want to have a debate why are you posting? we're 'wasting your time'? this is a bulletin board! it's supposed to be a waste of time! this is entertainment! relax, man.

 

You are absolutely correct. I called you a moron, an accusation that I now retract in full. You are decidedly not a moron. You are an arrogant ass. Your writing is disjointed, hence, people do not fully understand your point. In clarifying, you are self righteous, self-serving and insulting.

Incite you?

You're arguing with YOURSELF ass. Explain. And get mad again. You're fun to watch. Here's a hint... tell me I'm taking these two statements out of context. Based on your writing style (or lack thereof), I just might be.

 

Thanks for all the posts, BUT a lot of this has gotten away from what I was trying to focus on.

My biggest idea is that male and female sexuality may not be polar opposites.
This MAY mean, among other things, that women are tollerant of sexual pleasure if it is from another women.

Perhaps if women were nuetral they would not repel each other, but still be attracted to men ofcourse. Since they are not repeled by each other they could enjoy sexual pleasure physically and not get the gross factor that two men would get.

In both case I'm talking about heterosexual men and women.
These women are not attracted to the other women, but they are not repeled like two men would be.

So they would like the feeling of touch from a women, but they would enjoy it intrinsically just as they would from a man. But since they are not repeled from the same sex as a man would be they can enjoy the sensation instrinsically, while a man would be unable to because of the repulsion of the same sex.

Do you understand what I am asking and suggesting?
It is if women are tollerant of other women as friends,but men identify each other as enemies.

 

Human sexuality is determined genetically, and it is possibly to be born bisexual, and it is impossible for those genetics to cause a bisexual person to be more attracted to men than woman, or vice versa. The only reasons why a bisexual person would find either gender more attractive than the other is that cultural stigmas, childhood issues or sheer coincidence in finding mates has influenced such a person. How is that for an explanation? Now, if you if you could explain how any of these notions conflict the other, or how any of what I have typed (aside from typos) is contradictory, I would appreciate it.

Now, as for the arrogant asshole comment, I'm not arrogant, I'm confident. If you don't like it, prove me wrong.

 

sorry about that, razer. your thread was rather hijacked.
but i have to say, i think it's societal. there's more of a 'gross out factor' for men because we say there should be. what about the ancient greeks and persians? male homosexual love was not only common and accepted, it was praised as a higher form of love.

 

you couldn't be more correct, celtgrrl.

 

I am aware of that part of history. Young boys etc.
I found that quite odd and realize that could be good evidence of the current society influencing people.

I seem to remember being told it was quite common.
BUT so is homosexuality.

So how do I know that homosexuals weren't the ones that had these servents, and they were rich and powerful so it was then perceived as a classy thing to do. I don't remember what these people were called so I can't research it more now.

 

haha why must we be bisexual or homosexual or heterosexual?

cant we just be sexual?



peace love and laughter
amanda