Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
TheDailyBumbler vs. whiterussian
You start, girly girl.
Is it impossible to defend something without sympathising completely with it?
Saying your for bisexuality is the equivalent of being 'in favor of Father Christmas''...it doesn't exist.
It's a contived state of mind. It's psychosomatic...and it's a mental disorder.
there is no differentiation between the INAH 3 nucleus in a heterosexual and a supposed 'bisexuals'' brain. They just have an overactive sex drive.
They would probably try shagging a marble, if they could.
between hetero, homo and bi-sexuality anyway
it's slightly arbitrary outside of an ideological context
...not only have a cultural divide, but a very real biological difference. Neuroscience suggests the anterior hypothalamus of homosexual men is smaller than that of heterosexual men and the size of heterosexual women.
It's conclusive. It was announced a couple of weeks ago.
And if that's true,then why is either one or the other?Are there only short or tall people?
Your genes do determine your height to a great extent.
That's not the point though, there are infiniate possible heights, but we only name three possible sexualities; gaylord, straight and daring. I'm sure you have some people who are 90% straight but a little bit gay, but maybe not enough to class themselves as bi......
I think I just got your point, you are asking why bi doesn't exist in this research.
unless you start bringing animals and stuff into it.
In terms of men and women you can fancy either or both = 3. In the same way, instead of measuring peoples height to the cm or mm, you could just say petit, normal, giant.
I was going to go on to say sexuality may be less simple than that, for example if 0 were straight and 10,000 gaylord, you could be any number in between. But I stopped because I realised that I had mis-interpreted doodthatkicksarse's post.
bisexual can mean a lot of different things, two people could be on almost opposite ends of that scale and still both be classified as bisexuals, when in fact they might be closer to one of the extremes (ie. hetero/homosexual)
the same way somebody who is 6'2 might be called tall but so would somebody who is 7'8. Or two people might both be average height, but one is 5'5 and one is 5'9
The fact is, for sexuality, there are only three broad names we use.
Is it a fact that homosexuals are genetically different from heterosexuals: yes, possibly. Is it in any way relevant or helpful to dwell on it: no, not at all.
People have equated science with fact for decades in order to exploit people. It is NOT helpful.
PC may be quaint,but the foundations that all that is built on are not.
i've seen a documentary about it
gaylords have inapropriate genes.
you put them away.
lesbians anterior hypothalamus is much larger then heterosexual women, and has more in common with a straight man's brain.
And how attractive do heterosexual women and men find people of the same sex? I mean some people do. A LITTLE BIT.
Also yeah. Link plz.
more sex necessarily.
a person who is straight can have an overactive sex drive and not find the opposite sex attractive. i don't understand your point.
Bisexuals are hetero or homo sexuals with an impulsive sex drive that congests their train of thought, and cajoles them into shagging either sex. Though their true affection only lies in one camp.
And how do you define "true" affection?
GET OVER YOURSELF MR OMNISCIENT
...doesn't mean you have a cogent arguement. Instead of posting petulent remarks in Caps Lock, how about you formulate an intelligent opposition.
As have yes_ and myself,along with most other people on this thread.Now if you wouldn't mind,answer each and every one
1."Freud's theory is like astrology to a physicist".Bullshit,untill someone backs that up with an extensive essay outlining why it's not bullshit,I consider it bullshit.
2."While men tend to be either heterosexual or homosexual, with little evidence for true bisexuality, women show more mixed preferences."
Does that not refute your claim,without having to get any deeper?
but their not TRUE bisexuals.
Theres a thriving sector of the psychologist coummunity who still take Freuds essays as gospel.
it's common knowledge i would say.
Henry the Eighth didn't actually have 7 wives...another fallacy dispelled by QI.
"An example is Freud's notion that women suffer from a lack of self esteem or self worth all their lives because of penis envy. Freud's assumption could have been a product of the times he lived in. It was a time when women were treated as second class citizens. Today, the idea of penis envy has lost its worth. Freud's assumption that sex is the driving force behind everything could also be a product of his times. Sexual feelings were often repressed. The problem with paradigmatic assumptions is that each person grows up in a different culture and some theories don't apply to everyone. The problem with psychology remains that it is not an exact science."
You have to cite your references.
i studied freud, but have forgotten most of the important details. this is more or less what conclusion i came to though.
First it's commonly believed he had 6 wives. Second, it is bascially true that he did have 6 wives unless you start looking into the technicalities of 500 years ago.
now is that a typo or is that two week old "research" actually 3 years old?
so you have to stop and think and consider it before concluding that you're straight?
IT IS NOT SOMETHING TO BE FOR OR AGAINST
IT IS NOT SOME THEORETICAL IDEA
IT IS FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS AND PHYSICAL DESIRE
AND THAT'S IT
rebellious teens. it's just a phase. also, why can't they stick to the same colour? its silly to mix and match
It aint my doing.
I know, petal.
your threads- try and get people to argue about politics, and when you cant answer, you dont, then claim you just do it to wind people up.
i know your game
watch out TDB.
okay... watch out CG.
as much as id like to help you out, ive got loyalties with TDB too.
we made up! kinda.
The existence of bisexuality?
Surely that can be solved by a simple exercise in empiricism.
that's like, 100% more people to be jealous of
I've definitely read claims that it doesn't really exist in the sense that few people who classify themselves as bi are anywhere near equally attracted to both. Not that bi implies being equally attracted to both, but there should be significant numbers of people who this is true of. They are usually basically straight and end up displaying that in the long-run.
So assuming this is correct, on the supposed spectrum of sexuality there aren't many gay people who ever have many opposite-sex partners (out of choice) whereas there are lots of straight people who have the odd same-sex partner but end up in more straight relationships. I have no idea if that is true.
That people are capable of having sexual relationships with and being sexually attracted to both sexes
and I don't think that is arguable. It's just if you want to categorise (which a lot of people do for a multitude of reasons, I personally don't really see the point), whether there is predominantly clustering around the heterosexual and homosexual ends of the spectrum becomes a significant issue.
Are straight people natural showboaters? or do they find polygamous, metrosexual attitudes more acceptable the gay folk?
Is this because gay people have been combating adversity all their lives, they feel they need closure by gaining assurance of their identity?
now that 'homsexuality' has won 'scientific support'.
its sad that the gay lobby went down this route...i understand why it was done, but it is sad, instead of challenging the the feasibility of 'empirical' research into sexuality, it encouraged the public's blind trust in its methods.
It is in main ideological, and fucking the odd person of the same doesn't make you bisexual in terms of praxis/practice.
in the first place does
you can be attracted to members of the opposite sex and not be bisexual.
or even dick them.
bisexuality is a label attributed to a number of thoughts,actions, feelings that we have all felt but certain of these thoughts and feelings have been amplified and codified into a culture.
I'm working off of wildly different definitions than you,and good point.
I'm not saying that bixesuality is part of a persons identity.I'm saying that feeling the urge to sex someone of the same sex,whether under regular circumstances or not,and this applies to your post as well bumbler,shows that a latent bisexulaity is present,but not manifested.
Bringing us back to the definitions front,I've never said being bi is an identity,more a sexual attraction.
Also,I'm not saying that you need be equalt attracted to both sexs to be bi,as everyone has preferences.
then that makes the label meaningless
well eh 'bi' bit.
sexuality can be directed at anything or anyone..surrounding culture guides that sexuality
was it kevin spacey who said when he got caught cottaging "i am neither homosexual nor bisexual..simply sexual" or something
I think I agree with you.I mean,where does bestialty and paedoism fit into the bi debate
and so many psychological and cultural factors are involved in what defines our 'public' sexuality its hard to say
Even though I've never felt these impulses, prisons are breeding grounds for the this manner of against-type attraction. Men, who are 100% straight, may get an urge to shag an effeminate male due to years of isolation from female contact. It doesn't make them 'bi''.
if they are 100% straight?
What does this mean, that they settle down with one person in the end? So basically they are faithful and thus heterosexual?
but I'd like to just say that all females are bisexual to a certain extent
and when drunk...
or just a bit curious. Girls: like 'dial' in gayness (1,2,3,4,5). Guys: like a 'switch' in gayness (gay/not gay). GENERALIZATIONS I KNOW
you're welcome to start a countdown
I've already won.
I'm already 40 posts ahead of her...and she isn't really an acute thinker.
She's going to have to do alot of internet browsing to gather speed.
it's a rough estimate.
I have to go,but I think countzero already won
you can't have it all
the "any hole's a goal" train of thought is greedy.
pick a hole, stick (with) the hole.
pink or brown.
how many people do you know that have been bisexual for over 10 years?
it's such a phase thing. they get a bit flustered and confused for a while, then realise which gender they genuinely like.
Heterosexual and homosexual people do that anyway.
I don't think anyone is really either of these, I think they are pretty much just categorical identifiers for something that is more gradual and changeable
In other words, by that logic, bisexuals don't fall in love?
my first post was a joke.
the 2nd one wasn't, retort to that pls.
First question: Don't know, I don't really ask people about their sexuality on a regular basis, they can do whatever they want, I don't care.
Rest of post, see this: http://www.drownedinsound.com/articles/3615777
but these are my basic views on bisexuality (warning, it's all very idealistic and stuff) :
I don't believe everyone is attracted to only one of the sexes. I believe that most people are attracted to a PERSON rather than that person's gender. But of course we all have different preferences, and some like men more than they like women, and vice versa.
I do not believe that this is a static thing that never changes or that you are only ever at one point of that "scale" of straight/gay at all times.
Most people who disagree with this are straight men, because it is still less acceptable (in their eyes, and i am generalising here obviously) for men to be attracted to other men then it is for women to be attracted to other women.
Mention women having sex and a lot of straight men will be like "OH THAT'S SO HOT" (and even if women call themselves lesbians, the man will think that he can get them interested in him regardless, because he's the man, he's got the cock, and surely the poor women wouldn't want to be without him, but that's quite a different discussion). Present them with the idea of two men having sex and the reaction will in most cases be a quite different one. Why? There could be so many reasons for this, but a lot of it is probably (whether or not he will admit it or is even consciously aware of it) down to prejudices that are still rooted deeply in most of us.
But I digress.
The most common thing people have to say "against" bisexuality (as if it's some kind of political idea that you can vote over) is what the Bumbler has indeed said several times tonight: "Make up your mind. It's just greed. Overactive sex drive", etc etc etc. These kinds of statements are based on the idea that everyone is in complete control of their own sexuality and that we can all make a conscious choice as to whether we are one thing or another, or a third or a tenth for that matter.
I find this idea laughable. If I'm attracted to someone, it's not because I stop and think "hey, this person fits the theoretical criteria that I have set for a potential love interest". Does anyone think like this? And if they do, would it really be attraction anyway, or just some kind of interest or fascination if you will?
If you consider yourself straight, can you honestly say you have never in your life seen a member of your own gender and thought to yourself "hey, (s)he's well hot"? If you have, I'm sure you'd also be able to see that by definition, someone who is ENTIRELY heterosexual would never have that kind of reaction to someone of their own gender? Basically, all I'm asking of you is that you try to not be so horribly narrowminded and maybe even realise that everything isn't always black and white. I'm not saying that we should all go be hippies and live in a field and sleep with everyone regardless of their gender (not that this is only about sex anyway, did you even consider that?), I'm just saying that you should accept the fact that some people manage to see beyond the conventions of traditional gender politics and actually think about how they feel rather what what they think they should feel.
Now, with all that PC stuff out the way, I see you've labelled me a bisexual and would like to say that I'm not some kind of raging lesbian, I prefer men by far.
I couldn't care less about social taboo's (exactly the reason I openly discuss scatology, self mutilation, bestiality, child molestation etc.) but I can honestly say I have never felt a sexual allure to another man. There is hero worship and idolisation, but this veneer is never put in place due to any cock-jerking sensation. Your assertion that our interests can never lie in a specific gender is absolutely ludicrous.
Don't band round this pseudo-liberalism and socio-political mentality to make your own sordid interests seem more normal. Massive fail.
the lady doth protest too much
and I sometimes am in awe of the exaggerated sense of manliness of others...but claiming that no one is really straight?! come on now...stop playing silly buggers.
(or silly buggery for that matter)
who would claim that there is no such thing as straight at all. i'm not saying i agree with this, but i just thought i'd put it out there, see if you can possibly grasp it?
i know heterosexual men who have had dreams about other men. that isn't a conscious decision now is it?
you've got it all ticking again aint you?
little scamp. i just convinced a taxi driver to quit his job to focus on his music career.
eek. his kids tummies are on my conscience.
p.s. whats with all the bi hate? i thought you loved a bit of this and that
willy in the mouth?/ no harm done/ fanny in the mouth?/ no harm done/ both together?/ that's just silly
Here's a Panda Pop, little scruffy. Off you pop.
That's comedy, dear. It's why i'm the funny, endearing, interesting and clever one, whilst you're the creepy sociopathic nutter that people on here are not really all that sure about.
your a terrific character.
The whole point was to use 'pop'' as a verb...a verb to show that your 'popping'' with your 'pop''.
Should have left it to you, though...comedy is clearly you're fortay.
I'm also good at french.
I'm all about the fans.
This victory's for you, fans.
It's not the gays I'm lambasting either...it's the ones in the grey area.
so you admit there is a grey area?
Hopefully when you grow up you will realise you don't know everything.
live and let live, mr omniscient
You tell me, Mr Omniscient
i'm not a fucking hippie you wannabe fascist. great for you that you're comfortable talking about like, totally controversial stuff. well done.
of course you can prefer one gender, but you can say what you want, i simply don't believe that "most people" never feel even the slightest attraction to someone of their own gender. i just don't. i would never call myself bi, i identify as a straight person just as much as most other straights (someone tried to turn this into a debate about identity earlier). Why is it ludicrous? Are you honestly going to go up to someone who is openly bisexual and say "NO, YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE NOT BISEXUAL, NO ONE IS, JOKE'S ON YOU" and completely discredit all of their experiences and feelings? because you refuse to accept that everything isn't as fucking black and white as you would like it to be to feel comfortable with your surroundings?
And my own sordid interests? That's a fucking good one. It doesn't really work that well to make it "personal" when you don't know anything at all about the other person you know.
It discredits your argument. Secondly, I would happily give that response to someone who categorizes themselves as bisexual. Sure - people might have momentary lapses, urges, twinges...but no deep desires for a member of a group that bodes against your orientation.
I don't think anyone could strike up a deep, meaty, bone-bonding relationship with either sex.
Now, I'm bored of playing the adversarial figure...in my mind I've won, and there is nothing anyone can say to make that subside. Sorry for being pig-headed.
and in my mind, i've won.
that there are still QUITE a few of my posts and questions you have not answered, and i think that really speaks for itself, i mean you basically abandoned the thread once i actually started arguing with you.
Is your adhering to a philosophical, spiritualistic doctrine...whereas I'm taking a more stoic, logical stance.
We are just at different ends of the spectrum.
and thats at both sides of the fence.
Don't you deny it.
i'm pretty sure you distanced yourself from "logic" a long time ago.
but have yet to put in a cognitive perspective?
Keep to your endearing jokes, boyo. Then you'll be saved.
Here it is again, just incase you missed it: In the scheme of people considering themselves or being considered "bisexual", "genetics" is a completely irrelevant issue. Discuss.
I also made points about why "science", the little ditch you seem to be firing your mortars from, shouldn't be equated with logic and truth.
The fact that the whole objective of science is to prove itself wrong is justification for this.
The objective is to prove theories otherwise wrong yes, but if no objection can be found then it is pretty safe to say it's factual. The pursuit of truth this way does not somehow negate everything.
quite the opposite. Experimental science is always conducted by humans, and humans always have motives. It was "pretty safe to say" that the model of the atom was "fact" at one point, then Bohr came along and changed it. And it's undergone numerous changes since then. And half of the scientific community wouldn't accept Einsteins quantum theory when it was proposed, many still don't.
I recommend "the meaning of it all" by Richard Feynman for more information on objective truth, "fact" and how it relates to scientific discovery.
A few years ago we though this, a few years later we think that. That doesn't mean you can just throw it out the window though. I'd much rather my source of proof was science, the thing that's been keeping you alive successfully and explaining the universe for a long time. Haha man, I don't need a lecture on science, I'm a 3rd year student of neuroscience. I will check out that book though, Richard Feynman has a funny face
but you havn't displayed any interest or understanding in the philosophy of science.
what we know today does not equal "the truth".
Whilst it may be true for todays rules, it may change tomorrow.
ps We have explained nothing of the universe, we have a couple of hunches.
must be seen in light of its times and surroundings, who did the research and why they did it.
But for actual concrete science 2 + 2 is always 4.
just saying, yes there's a lot that can be messed up in their findings so they're not really comparable with hard science.
2+2 is only 4 if you're working in base 10, remember.
but look at the "actual concrete science" that has been researched (on humans, mostly) during wars and such. obviously the selection of people they've researched on will not have been actually representative and thus the results are not valid or transferrable to the "real" world. the same thing's happened with research on homosexuality: research has been carried out for example on people who are admittedly gay but want to be "cured", etc. so the results aren't really going to be WRONG as such, but that doesn't necessarily make them right.
Sure, there are major flaws in it...but everything is imperfect.
Look...I don't want to keep up this little charade with you. I've been winding you up, you’ve given as good as you’ve got...let’s tie it up, ay?
but I'm really not prepared to submit when you're making really quite dangerously wrong arguments.
But I stand by my opinions. You can clearly see I'm stubborn about this...this would go back and forth indefinitely.
As for 'dangerously wrong arguments''...there is no need to resort to melodramatic phrasing to spice up a bickering match that has been failing from the start. It's not dangerous...there are no repercussions. It's a ridiculous internet squabble...billions are sprinkled across cyberspace. Now, I'm ending it here.
Argue amongst yourself.
because it's MY ball and i'm taking it HOME.
science is not the foundation of logic. That is so fucking obvious I am astounded. Are you insane?
SCIENCE RELIES ON LOGIC. IT IS NOT ITS FOUNDATION.
The rest of us are retiring.
Good work, though.
but i don't want to touch their willy
but there are those that want to touch their willy, and i think they should be allowed to. yeah? yeah.
i don't see what impact it has on anything. at all. anywhere. it's a non-issue.
Courtship and sexual relations dominate everything.
The subject of bisexuality.
Reason: because courtship and sexual relations dominate everything.
Do we have do go through this again?
thats my friend the bumbler
cue cheers theme
'where everybody knows your name...de dee...'
More opportunity for air-punching.
That one never really took off, did it?
cabaret is on bbc1, watch that. you stand corrected
COME WHERE THE MUSIC PLAAAAYS
LIFE IS A CABARET OLD CHUM
COME TO THE CABARET!!!
has actually convinced me I'm straight. This is why the internet is good, it makes you think about things you'd otherwise not waste your time thinking about. yeah, so I'm straight, come and get me boys, and all that. You would have got a different answer a couple of years ago, along the lines of some of the other comments.
You are pretty childish
I don't think you've used it at all.
You seem to be getting more confused, probably bed time now little one.
It's well-worn. Put it back in the closet.
I've just realised...I heard Mumsa saying that to Daddy-dumps the other night.
I can't see you've said that anywhere.
Goodnight, sleep tight
'You are a childish bore''
Let's not resort to stock-phrase punditry, ay?
You were never involved in the debate...don't fire these weak rounds of ammunition from the sidelines. Ok, naughty lad?
ps I like your attitude, I think I fancy you.
From TheDailyBumbler | 09 Jul '08, 00:35 | Reply
You are aware I'm a man aren't you?
and I still can't see where you used it.
You devlish scamp you.
Not only am I the resident prick...I'm also a healer!
you're alright by me
right back at you
I was replying to "you're alright by me" lol
It don't make me bi, though.
And Im not really that bothered.
a) I am unaware of scientific evidence as the daily bumbler has quoted, but i have no reason to doubt this,,,,just as I have no reason to doubt that slight diofferences can be found in many other physical attributes that could be linked to other personal traits.
b) It doesnt really matter that much because.....well it doesnt, Im not bothered really what people are. Im sure that there are individuals who buck the 'physical difference trends' (nature) because of their mental and emotional experiances in life (nurture) just as much as people picking any partner might be influenced by what else has gone on in their life. Its really difficult to catagorise because humans are too varied.
c) although I kind of go along with quakerstoy, I agree with someone else who says why are there only 3 types then........you see ***uality is not only measured by the gender of the partners that you select. It is much more varied than that.
I think a lot of people want to catagorise becasue it is humans attempt to try to order the world so that we can trt to model how it is so that we can try to predict how it will behave and we can thus have more control over it.
I dont want any control over other humans ***uality. (apart from wanting to encourage them to have less children) (and wanting them to not force others by either physical monetary or power advantage or emotional blackmail)
but i'm happy with my own boobs thanks.