*looks thoughtful*

Nov 30, 2004 12:20

Something that came up in conversation last night over beer was bisexuality. I tend to consider that my sexuality is skewed largely towards being attracted to males, whereas Dave thought that in fact my bias was fairly strongly the other way - at which point I acknowledged that my perception of it was largely based on relationships rather than ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 8

omentide November 30 2004, 04:47:42 UTC
nevecat November 30 2004, 04:50:15 UTC
Yes and no.

I tend to be attracted to people regardless of gender - but I certainly express that attraction differently, so maybe there is a difference there.

Reply

ashekenaz November 30 2004, 04:59:02 UTC
I'm always wary of concepts like that. I've seen it used as an excuse way too often.

I don't even pretend to understand most of the concepts of attraction, but I do know that it's irrational and not logical in the slightest, which is why I also don't agree with the pigeonholing and putting people on a scale of 1 to 10. As far as I'm concerned, there is no pattern. One exception, in this case, can break the rule.

Reply


bateleur November 30 2004, 07:06:12 UTC
The other factor is, I guess, that attraction covers a multitude of sins (and even some things that aren't !).

For example, there are certainly blokes I find pleasing to look at, blokes who I feel close to and blokes who give good hugs. But I can't think of any blokes I want to shag. I would never describe myself as bisexual, obviously.

But then, a subset of those who do describe themselves as bisexual seem to actually be something like:

Interest in blokes: 10%
 Interest in girls: 10%
 Interest in friendly company more than actual sex: 80%

Must be pretty irritating for actual bisexuals.

Reply

nevecat November 30 2004, 07:57:27 UTC
Erm...I'd say most people, within those they find attractive, have those they consider somewhere in the range between the 'You, my bed, now' reaction and the rather quieter/saner 'OK, major crush, but so not acting on it, because of X/Y/Z ( ... )

Reply

astatine210 November 30 2004, 11:49:02 UTC

“...yet there seems to be an unspoken expectation that one has to have experienced every kink in the book to be a 'real' [whatever]”

I've found few certainties in life, but one of them is that when someone goes 'round categorising people as a ‘real’ or ‘true’ something-or-other - especially if it's something they themselves claim to be - they're usually talking out of their arse.

Reply

bateleur November 30 2004, 13:11:15 UTC
Yeah, true, though that expectation makes little sense to me.

I wouldn't say it's about what you've tried. The distinction I was trying to make has nothing to do with crushes from afar vs. bedtime action scenes. It's about the fact that some attractions don't aspire to sexual contact.

When people are 'going out', everyone assumes they're all over each other in private (assuming they aren't in public too !) - but sometimes not so.

What's the relevance to bisexuality ? Simply that if you're not too fussed about hot sex, it's therefore of potentially little importance what gender your partner is.

Reply


goldrose November 30 2004, 12:54:21 UTC
a lot of people think i'm a lesbian. immediately. i dunno why. but then again, when i tell them that i'm pansexual, all i get is a look of confusion...

Reply


Leave a comment

Up