I'm not bisexual......but I'm confused.

Yeh Buy Kemal Has never done it with a Guy Or a Gal. But he says he fanices Men and Women. So he is confused to what gender he fancies more and would spend the rest of his life with.

SCIENCE IS RIGHT.......

This is horribly biased but hear me out.

I'd probably say that having no sexuality is as close to 'natural' as you can get... and what we know as "bisexuality" is probably the closest thing to that. That doesn't to me make gay or straight people any less valid. Different people like different things and we have to respect them for that - unlike Mr Science. But I'm strongly of the opinion that sexual orientations are a lot of the time, social constructs. Just look at the animal kingdom...

i did not find what he said that bad may be he will learn something and be all the better

I was appalling prejudice from Science and people are jumping on HMs like Maxwell for the same thing!!

For example?

What?

You're confused with sexual history and sexual orientation.
It's about who you're attracted to, not who you've got it on with. I knew I was bisexual before I'd ever even kissed anyone.

So Blade, who do you fancy more? People with brown eyes or people with green eyes?


http://worldpolicy.org/globalrights/...arine-gay.html

How comes lurcio ?

I believe that a lot of people who find themselves attracted to both sexes go through life sticking to the opposite sex only - in the closet, if you will.

ZP

I'd agree with that Zero. I know a few people who seem that way, but in the end, we can't really second-guess people's sexuality (it's not even a big deal anyway in the scheme of things) and just have to accept them for what they say they are not what we think they are.

I'm hetrosexual but that doesn't give me the right to critisize other peoples ways of life. I really do think he was out of order to say that.

I totally agree, which is why bisexual people (ie people who are openly bisexual) are lucky. They can follow their hearts (or their libidos) with no inhibitions about gender! That is what I meant when I joked about being greedy, I certainly wasn't meaning to hurt anyone's feelings or make any kind of negative comment about bisexuality! I think I'd be the last person on earth to knock a person for their sexuality!

What complete rubbish. I'm gay. I have no sexual attraction to women at all, whatsoever.

Ah OK, sorry I misinterpreted

The thing is, it's comments like Sciences' - which, reading it a certain way, are basically saying we don't exist - do sour the "lucky" thing a lot.

A bearing of 000 degrees then

ZP

Honey, it's people like Science who give hetrosexuals a bad name!

Eureka! I have the solution. Buy sexuals, get yourself down to Nadia's knocking shop!

I think in 2005, it is accepted that people ar either straight or gay. Bisexuality is often interpreted as a bit kinky & enjoying the best of both worlds when in reality it means no set preference.

I know some people are confused by their sexuality and not sure which way to go, unaware that it is ok not to go anywhere

The majority of people are comfortable with their preferences ( straight, gay, bisexual) . The problems occur with people who have one set preference and are unable to imagine the 'and' option in the 'either or' world they live in. In this context it does not mean prejudice but undecisiveness, hence the use of the term confusion.

I have no idea what that means, but transgender and bisexual are completely different.

Also, it's silly. You are whatever you feel like. Too much emphasis placed on labels.

ZP

I hate Sience, I am happy about being Bisexual anyways and sexually attracted to women and men..like Michelle (BB5) and Anthony (BB6) as examples

You get a bit of both with our Nadia.

Being bisexual is not an excuse for poor taste though!

You do not. Nadia is a woman. Let's not have all this cr@p again this year.

Have to agree there!

That article fails to actually advance your argument at all.

Firstly, you say, and I agree, that sexuality is a social construct - on the whole it is: most 'sexual' activity is defined by us people as being sexual - the only thing that you could definitely call 'naturally sexy' is the act of reproduction itself: that's the only time that the participant's gender is actually important: so what you should have produced is examples, which do exist, of animals that try to fornicate WITH THE SAME gender.

the examples you gave were simply HUMAN definitions of 'sexual' behaviour as applied to some animals - some of those things (such as 'life-long bond' are nothing to do with the gender of the animal involved) - so you've taken a human definition of sexual behaviour and applied it, meaninglessly, to animals.

In human behaviour we would define bisexual as finding both genders physically attractive - it is meaningless to apply this to dolphins etc, becuase they have no concept of what we call "sexual activity" - that article seemed to think for example that all males groups were necessarily homosexual (football anyone?), or that having a life-long bond with another male was 'sexual'. What rubbish???

Sorry to go on, there was so much wrong with that article it's hard to know where to stop!

Basically the closest thing to 'no sexuality' in humans is not being attracted to ANYONE.

Bisexuality is the next nearest.