• S E X
    L O V E +
    R E L A T I O N S H I P S


    ❤️ Welcome Guest! ❤️


    Posting Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • SLR Moderators: Senior Staff

everyone is bisexual

I agree with you that we are all different.

I even think that homosexuality can be explained as a natural occurrance in nature. I have no evidence for this, but it is a possibility that:

When as population density increases, that the precentage of non-breeding pair bonding traits within that population also increases.

That would explain the presence of the [anticipated] genetic trait (suggesting that sexual orientation is depiected by genetic switches), and demonstrate a critical function of homosexuality as a natural population management modality within our species.

I personally like the diversity!
 
Interesting theory. Can you explain something to me ? What do you mean by [anticapated] generic trait and genetic switches ? Im not being a smartass.
 
There is a good deal of speculation that sexual orientation is actually a series of genetic sequences contained within the human genome. And that depending on how they are activated and deactivated, results in a given set of sexual preferences. Of course, this would just be likened to a set of "primatives" and the expression of one's sexual preferences would further be shaped by environment.

Some people refer to this as the "gay gene," but I don't think that is an accurate way of looking at it, and does not provide a complete picture.

Many behavior traits can be tied back to genetics, and are further shaped by the environment.


This goes even further when looking at the difference between male and female sexuality. They ("we") are both very different sexually. The neurological profiles of female and male sexual response are different, and is not just limited to organ development. Different to the extent that one neuroscience researcher suggested that male and female sexuality is about a similar as are humans and apes.

There is something to be said about studying lesbian and gay social-sexual habits. They are very very different. And this difference appears to be present across all cultures which enable such studies.

Even looking at the common misunderstandings between the two reveals vast differences. :D


I'd just like to throw out a question (which I don't want to suggest an answer to). But, why is it that [some] females have a potential (are wired) for sustained sexual activity, and can go on and on having one orgasm to the next? Yet males are wired to lose interest in sex as soon as ejeculation occurs?

Please understand that in asking that, I am not saying that with special training (Tantra?) or that with drug agumentation that males can not at least sustain sexual arousal past ejeculation. But that is not a natural (out of the box, so to speak) state.

Nor am I saying that females are automatically multi-orgasmic. But, the natural wiring IS there for females, and is completely abscent in males.

Why? :)

.
 
Last edited:
^^ LOL!! Seems fair really! But seriously...

Invalid Usename said:

I'd just like to throw out a question (which I don't want to suggest an answer to). But, why is it that [some] females have a potential (are wired) for sustained sexual activity, and can go on and on having one orgasm to the next? Yet males are wired to lose interest in sex as soon as ejeculation occurs?
Click to expand...

.... I have heard it's because the act of female orgasm (and the contractions which occur) actually propells sperm further into the uterus, thus making conception more likely/possible. What else would female orgasm be for (biologically?). Multiple orgasms perhaps make it more likely that sperm reaches it's target.
 
Wow I really didnt recognise my own ignorance but hell Im learning a lot. I promise to read the whole thread before I shoot from the hip. Some interesting writing there Invalid , you obviously know your stuff. I was trying to say with my post that we could all be asexual that the assertion (question) we are all bi sexual had no merit. Basically I hark up when some tells me Im the same as everyone else, lol. if that makes any sense.
 
Strawberry_lovemuffin said:
.... I have heard it's because the act of female orgasm (and the contractions which occur) actually propells sperm further into the uterus, thus making conception more likely/possible. What else would female orgasm be for (biologically?). Multiple orgasms perhaps make it more likely that sperm reaches it's target.
Click to expand...
But if that were true, then conception would almost never take place because the male sexual response (stopping and loss of interest) would prevent it.

In fact, if that were true, one would assume that the male sexual response would be shaped so as to facilitate that resction in females.

But, that isn't the case. :)


There are definite reasons how males and females have evolved to the way that they are. And biology and evolution have no interest in fairness.
 
Last edited:
uTranceMe said:
Wow I really didnt recognise my own ignorance but hell Im learning a lot. I promise to read the whole thread before I shoot from the hip. Some interesting writing there Invalid , you obviously know your stuff. I was trying to say with my post that we could all be asexual that the assertion (question) we are all bi sexual had no merit. Basically I hark up when some tells me Im the same as everyone else, lol. if that makes any sense.
Click to expand...
There's actually a good deal published about it. Here's an interesting article on WebMD that's geared towards a general audience:
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/100/105486.htm

BTW, I strongly agree with your suggestion that we are all different. :)

The problem with generalizations are that they simplyu attempt to produce a consensus. But just because evenyone believes something to be true, doesn't make it true. Otherwise, we'd be sailing off the end of the earth. :D
 
The multiorgasmic potential of females could simply be a side effect of other evolutionarily advantageous traits. It could simply be due to the way female hormones work, or how the nerves of the female reproductive tract are wired overall.

Or perhaps multiple orgasms are in place in women to prevent THEM from losing interest after the first orgasm, if they come before the man does. It is obviously vital biologically that the man orgasm, so if the woman came first and simply rolled over after that, it would be a dead end. However if the woman can keep coming, she has an incentive to keep having sex until the man has ejaculated.
 
At risk of getting a little philisophical here, why can't people simply comprehend the fact we're all just sexual? Anything else is just a label..
 
fairnymph said:
The multiorgasmic potential of females could simply be a side effect of other evolutionarily advantageous traits. It could simply be due to the way female hormones work, or how the nerves of the female reproductive tract are wired overall.
Click to expand...
The ability to do this appears primarily brain based, and is a primary rather than a secondary, effect.

fairnymph said:
Or perhaps multiple orgasms are in place in women to prevent THEM from losing interest after the first orgasm, if they come before the man does. It is obviously vital biologically that the man orgasm, so if the woman came first and simply rolled over after that, it would be a dead end. However if the woman can keep coming, she has an incentive to keep having sex until the man has ejaculated.
Click to expand...
I think that this is the best suggestion that I have heard to date!

In fact, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to call this The Fairnymph Hypothesis. :)

I've been struggling with this question for a little over a year now. And the conclusions that I've drawn (taking into account both biological function and evolution), simply do not address all of the factors (especially those of a socio-sexual nature).

Your's is simple, and offers a comprehensive explanation. Excellent! :D
 
ValeTudo said:
At risk of getting a little philisophical here, why can't people simply comprehend the fact we're all just sexual? Anything else is just a label..
Click to expand...
Isn't that like just saying, "we all eat food?"

It certainly leaves out any notion of cuisine and dietary requirements. ;)
 
i came to this board just so i could start a thread on this same topic and then i saw i was a little late!

i really believe that every girl is bisexual. i wish i could find the links to the articles i read in my sex, eating & addiction class on this topic, but i think i might only be able to access them from school. anyway, basically they ahd some pretty good data to show how permeable the border between infatuation and love is. the data was more convincing in the case of females, which is why i am only talking about girls right now. infatuation is kind of like the girl crushes we keep reading about in cosmo. i'm not making this very clear, but I think that the only reason that girls aren't getting with girls more is because of the social stigma.

i think males might all be bisexual as well, but there is an even stronger stigma in their case (at least i can get away with kissing my girl friends or grinding with them in a bar....i'm a girl.) i hate it when people say 'everyone isn't bisexual because i'm not.' i think that how willing someone is to accept or act on their feelings for someone of the same sex is ttoally dependent on how much they care about seeming 'normal' and going along with the flock.

plus, thinking about sexuality in terms of heterosexuality and homosexuality perpetuates the male versus female divisions our society has set up. but i probably shouldn't get started on that...

last night, i showed my mom all the pictures from the parties i had with my friends, of which there were several of modest girl on girl stuff involving me (think: fully clothed, mainly.) she said something like 'it seems like you're getting really into that' all worriedly, and i said 'so what?' and she was, like, 'well, it seems like you're a lesbian' like she was upset about it, which pissed me off so much (grrrrrrrrr) that i just shrugged and smiled and wouldn't answer her. i'm not a lesbian, but i hate the damn implicit homophobic attitudes that even some very liberal people have (my mom is very liberal.)
 
chrissie said:
I've heard theories that there is a scale from 1-10 for your sexuality. 1 being totally heterosexual and 10 being totally homosexual and that most people are somewhere in between. The idea is that if you can see someone of the same sex as being attractive, even though you yourself are not fully attracted to them, then you are slightly bisexual because you can see the attractiveness of that person. Make sense?
Click to expand...


I totally agree with this. This is what the Kinsey Scale was all about. He actually rated sexuality from 0 - 10 with zero being exc hetero behaviour and 10 being exc homo behaviour.

The basic premise is that none of us are either hetero or homo, sexuality is fluid and we can move back and forth along the scale depending on certain external and internal stimuli on our lives at any one point in time. And I totally agree with this:D It's really stupid to categorise sexuality because it does change and just because you like cock one day doesn't mean that you won't like a bit of pussy the next as well:D :)

I have always thought people, predominantly 'hetero', seem to categorise sexuality to assert their own morality, usually because it is heterotsexual people who are more opposed to this theory as opposed to GLBT people. Not that I am attacking my breeding buddies, you understand, just making an observation.:D
 
Invalid Usename said:
OK, so let's see:

Anyone that is hetrosexual, and believes that some percentage of the population is hetrosexual-only, are attempting to force a moral, homophobic agenda.

Whereas, anyone who is not hetrosexual, and believes that no one is hetrosexual, is "liberated" and is not attempting to force a moral hetrophobic agenda.

And, of course, all we need to arrive at a "truth" is for everyone to simply agree.

And Santa Claus and the Easter bunny does exist! Billions of children world wide agree. 8(
Click to expand...

I think you are intentionally taking a rather simplistic view of what I am saying. All my post suggested was that sexuality was fluid and that the people most likely to get taken aback at this suggestion are typically heterosexual people.

Where did you get homophobia from???
Maybe the same place where you pulled the Easter Bunny/Santa Claus line from as well???:D :D :p :D

No seriously, I am not one of these 'you don't believe you might be gay therefore you are homophobic' people. I was just making a simple observation.
 
OK, so let's see:

Anyone that is hetrosexual, and believes that some percentage of the population is hetrosexual-only, are attempting to force a moral, homophobic agenda.

Whereas, anyone who is not hetrosexual, and believes that no one is hetrosexual, is "liberated" and is not attempting to force a moral hetrophobic agenda.


Yep! No double standard there, is there? 8(
 
Invalid Usename said:
OK, so let's see:

Anyone that is hetrosexual, and believes that some percentage of the population is hetrosexual-only, are attempting to force a moral, homophobic agenda.

Whereas, anyone who is not hetrosexual, and believes that no one is hetrosexual, is "liberated" and is not attempting to force a moral hetrophobic agenda.


Yep! No double standard there, is there? 8(
Click to expand...


And, IU, while you may consider it a double standard, perhaps you should consider that given heterosexuality is the dominant sexual paradigm throughout Western society, people who question heterosexuality are typically more likely to be 'liberated' if only because it is typically a sign of liberation to question dominant societal structures.

Necessarily, people who choose to believe in the exclusive nature of heterosexuality will then have a vested interest in doing so, ie maintaining power imbalances.

This is obv not the appropriate place to get into a queer politics discussion but there are quite a few good arguments arguing this double standard is exactly what IS IN society.

Crazy, non?
 
candyslut said:
And, IU, while you may consider it a double standard, perhaps you should consider that given heterosexuality is the dominant sexual paradigm throughout Western society, people who question heterosexuality are typically more likely to be 'liberated' if only because it is typically a sign of liberation to question dominant societal structures.

Necessarily, people who choose to believe in the exclusive nature of heterosexuality will then have a vested interest in doing so, ie maintaining power imbalances.

This is obv not the appropriate place to get into a queer politics discussion but there are quite a few good arguments arguing this double standard is exactly what IS IN society.

Crazy, non?
Click to expand...
That's fine, but you are talking about politics and I am talking abotu biology.

I could care less if hetrosexuality was dominent or not. I've even offered a biological explanation as to how homosexuality may arrise in nature, and why that is health.

Go back and read my posts. I'm a monosexual who is only sexually attracted to the opposite sex. At one time I also was the only straight guy living in an otherwise gay household. Even further, I perfer to the company of women (gay or straight) to men (socially), and I prefer the company of gay men to straight men (socially).

On top of that, more than half of my close friends are also gay.

Let me take this a step further, OK? I also have twins who are now 13 years old. One of the things that I bothered to think about was what I should do if one of my boys discovered that they were attracted to other males. So I talked with a lot on my freinds [who were gay] and asked them what they would have wanted (and took a lot of notes) in terms of their parents being supportive of their sexual orientation.

I have talked with my kids ever since they were little about some people being attracted to the opposite sex, and some being attracted to the same sex. And when gay couples have come over, it is obvious that they are a couple and this has not been hidden from my kids.

My kids are both fine well adjusted people with a complete and openminded understanding of others.

No how freaking political is that? Huh? 8)


The problem that I see here is that these arguments do nothing but give fuel to the sick bastards who claim that homosexuality can be cured. After all, if this is all that fluid (and just political) then these guys have a case for a "cure." That's exactly what their arguments is.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top