I am reporting that the reason I am not employing a bisexual mating strategy is because of psychological hangups around men. I am suggesting that these psychological hangups don’t have any special status and can as such be treated, once they have been identified. Depending on what the actual hangup is, treatment would be different. You’d have to locate at what level of your psychology the hangup is and treat it there. I am basically suggesting that your sexual identity (which is what we are focused on) is malleable, which is not controversial. But I am also suggesting that the potential is already there biologically. Basically I am saying that your body is OK with more physical intimacy than your mind is, and that it is possible (and beneficial) to change your mind. Not necessarily all the way to becoming sexually active with another group (that’s not very important) but it would suggest that your social and emotional relationships with that group might improve if you removed the irrational fears of intimacy.
But that’s if you want to make an imperative of it, at this point I think the investigation is more interesting, and that is why I would invite people to look within and see if they find the same things. I suspect that they will, since there is nothing “special” about my “sexual identity” or how it developed. To me that is (currently) more interesting. Basically I want to solve “Is this the way it is and how it works?” before I get to “What do we do about it?”. I suspect that a lot of the resistance to the idea comes from people thinking that there is some sort of automatic agenda that will reveal itself if we agree that this is how sexuality works, but I don’t think that paranoia is warranted. Like I’m going to jump out of the bushes and go “Aha! Well you agreed with THAT so now you have to… XYZ”. I can see the rationality in that fear since that is how many people on this forum operate, but I don’t work like that. I don’t come to the meeting with an agenda that I want to push through, I come to the meeting with an idea I want to discuss.
Ok that was a VERY weird interpretation. I am talking about removing pathological fears in order to improve relationships between people. Basically about how if I remove my (hidden and repressed) fear of men, I will be able to live a more full life. I’m also talking about how we have normalized and institutionalized this fear. So as a contrast to your statement I would say that I have been brainwashed by my culture into seeing other men as threats rather than as potentials for intellectual, emotional and physical intimacy. Now that I have discovered that, I’m interested in finding out how they did it.
I’m not interested the in moral arguments, only you are. This is a straw man that I am not interested in engaging.
I have multiple times (seriously) stated that my definition is NOT the cause of ONE factor (what attracts you OR what repels you) but a combination of BOTH. Multiple times. Seriously. I now have to assume you are either not reading or not understanding it. So this is another straw man.
Interesting that you would chose a stone in this example, because a stone has no intentionality that I am aware of, due to it not being alive. It will only act according to forces that are acting upon it and has no real agency. The question ”Why?” is therefore not relevant to it, and ”gravity” is the answer to the question ”How” it fell. Physics does not deal in why (unless you assume a creator god with intentionality), it only deals with how. Unless you posit a god-like creator there can be no intent behind physical objects that are not part of a larger biosphere. Only when molecules become living cells does it make sense to discuss why from a rational perspective. And only when that biology develops a mind and creates reason can we discuss it. It seems to be as you confuse the rules of the physiosphere with those of the biosphere and the noosphere. But that is another argument for another time.
My conclusion is that your objections are mainly semantic (about definitions), and I think those have been dealt with properly now. If you don’t wish to use the definitions I suggested (even temporarily= we have no common ground and no common language, so we won’t be able to reach a conclusion. I’m happy to leave it at that if you don’t have any further questions or ideas.
Well I don’t really think it is my job to convince you by searching for whatever evidence it is that you would find convincing, nor can I say absolutely that my conclusions are true. They are the result of my own investigation and I am inviting people to share and discuss it, hopefully comparing it with their own insights and experiences. I’ll deconstruct my sexual identity and show it to you if you show me yours. Well… I already did, so I guess it’s up to you if you want to do the same.
It looked to me like he asked you to back up several statements of fact involving the changing of one’s sexuality. Since you were the one that made the claim(s), then it is indeed your job to either back up those claims, or back off from them.
You don’t understand my point and as far as I can tell you are not interested in reasonable discussion. I have clearly stated my definitions, what is my personal experience and what is my reasoning. You have contributed nothing, seriously nothing, to this discussion except for a bad attitude. As far as I am concerned, you can shove off and start your own thread. I’m not your research monkey and if you want to refuse to think for yourself it’s not up to me to help you get over it.
These comments are way too close to the sort of personal remarks that Jonathan Chance already noted needed to stop.
Do not make any more personal comments about any poster.
Do not characterize any other poster’s position as crazy, incoherent, etc.
Do not imply that another poster is less than intelligent or not an adult.
How does your hypothesis account for heterosexuality in cultures that don’t discourage “cuddling, kissing, hugging and even holding hands” between men?
Ah, see, now that’s a *much *more interesting discussion. I can well believe that you, personally, may be naturally bisexual, and have formed a culturally determined aversion to men that makes you functionally heterosexual. I can further believe that some others have this experience. I can believe that without evidence, because at the individual level, you’re talking about your experience, which I have no reason to doubt. I can believe it of a portion of the population, because there’s a wide range of sexual expression in the human animal, so the idea that *some *people are like X is probably true, no matter what X is. I also happen to believe that bi erasure is a very real phenomenon, and that more people might be bisexual if they felt that being bisexual was an okay thing to be.
But when you start to expand that theory beyond yourself, beyond a subset of the human population, into a theory of humankind’s sexual development, now you’re moving outside the realm of anecdote and into dataland. At the macro level, you’re going to need evidence. And as this is an *extraordinary *claim - one that, as this thread shows, doesn’t immediately resonate as true with a lot of people’s own personal experience - then you need not only evidence, but *extraordinary *evidence.
I’m not sure I agree that homophobia has much to do with the yuck factor. (I agree it is not a true phobia.) I have a significant yuck factor about eating beets, but I don’t want to ban other people from doing so. If I personally feel that gay sex is yucky. but realize that some don’t, that’s not homophobia - just as gay people who think straight sex is yucky are not heterophobes, to coin a word.
As for the OP, would you consider that not being interested in gay sex comes from lack of interest, not aversion?
I don’t think gay sex is gross or “yucky”. I simply have absolutely no interest in it whatsoever. It’s not appealing or arousing in any way, that doesn’t necessarily mean I must find it disgusting.
I agree. As a teen I thought it was gross, but that was just social conditioning and peer influence. Now, seeing a gay sex scene in a movie doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
I think this is an excellent point.
I find the conclusions (Note that I said his conclusions, not him) laughable. ‘Because I have found something true for me (by dubious means), it is true for all people’.
It doesn’t usually work that way.
Judaism really resonates with me. Therefore, all people must be Jewish.
I enjoy Weird Al and Ozzy Ozbourne. I feel they should team up. Every human on earth must also be waiting for that album.
I don’t like Apple. Therefore, nobody ever buys their products.
Actually, the logic seems completely invalid. What “nature cares about”, from an evolutionary standpoint, is reproduction, not sexual fulfillment.
Obviously it makes much more sense for a sexually reproducing species to have its predominant sexual orientation be heterosexual rather than bisexual. While there are some good evolutionary arguments for the development and persistence of homosexuality and bisexuality among comparatively small subsets of such species, same-sex pairings do not result in offspring (even if they can increase the survival rates of the offspring of other pairings).
So it’s not difficult to see why the human species has evolved with most of its members exclusively or mostly heterosexual (and also with a strong bias toward comparatively young and healthy potential mates). You need your mating population motivated enough to seek out fertile members of the opposite sex, rather than just enjoying themselves with whoever happens to be handy regardless of gender.
If any individual wants to maximize their personal sexual opportunities by deliberately cultivating their openness to bisexual attraction, that’s up to them and there’s nothing wrong with it. But it seems pretty absurd to ascribe that to any species-wide evolutionary strategy. Reproductive success, from an evolutionary point of view, does not favor having more than a small amount of same-sex noise in an overwhelmingly heterosexual signal.
Actually, the logic seems completely invalid. What “nature cares about”, from an evolutionary standpoint, is reproduction, not sexual fulfillment.