northern Uzbekistanish

Didn’t you mention that SSA was accepted in your country? I thought you were going to say Denmark.

Uzbekistan? That country is 90% Sunni Muslim. Your people accept homosexuality?

Gaaaaaah…….

I do often wonder if our ideas about nature and self would hold up if tested through time – past or future.

If your attraction flux causes you no interruption or distress in work, life, etc…then why does it matter what or who you prefer? It sounds like you feel like bisexuality is who you are…and if so, good for you – no need to convince anyone of anything.

Thank you for your comments.

I used to be exclusively attracted to the opposite sex. SSAs only kicked in after I become isolated from my gender peers, due to the fact that all my male friends left town and I was left with female friends for socialising. After two years I already forgot how to play football and do physical stuff with my male friends.

Yikes…. so do a number of hen-pecked husbands within marriages but they don’t develop a homosexual orientation. I’ve always had male friends and the associated male activities (late-nite poker games, basketball, fishing, hunting) but my homosexual orientation wasn’t because I lost male contact. Perhaps you do have a reason to worry about your SSA as a psychological problem because loss of male companionship isn’t normally what “brings it on” – one usually just grows up that way.

You must think that nature made you want to be penetrated anally to no natural use.

And where did I discuss my own sexual proclivities or that of gay people, in general? That which you seem to hold in so much ignominy is not a pervasive activity among all gay men. Besides sexual attraction when first experienced as a young person has little to do with choice of sexual activity. If I were to suffer an opinion, I’d say that face-to-face frottage would be the first more preferred sexual activity. But that’s just me.

And also feel overwhelmed by invulnerable males and physically indifferent to females and that’s your healthy state you have to promote and society adjust to, so that you can feel comfortable with your vulnerability. Is that the picture nature projected for you?

Huh? Me, physically indifferent to (or than) women? Vulnerable to & overwhelmed by men? Either way it’s all a laugh. While I may have a sexual response which may have certain similarities to that of a woman’s or which you might equate to that of a women your assessments do not apply. I very much like my testicle (only one since the cancer), prostate, and penis. Don’t you?

I agree that people that feel this way should not be object to any kind of hate or discrimination, but i seriously doubt it’s a natural plan to not be able to feel the necessary instinct for reproduction to such an extent. Or to get wires mixed up to such an extent that reproductive behaviour can be disconnected from opposite sex identification.

I don’t think there is such a thing as reproductive behaviour although biologists might categorize it as such (reproductive behaviours of birds, for instance). There are however behaviours which result in reproduction. In other words, if sexual contact were not pleasurable, no mammal, including man, might engage in it to the degree needed to sustain the species. Thus there is no “natural plan” or plan of nature. That is a decidedly religious viewpoint, not one from the standpoint of science. There is some early data which indicates that male homosexuality is a by-product of a process which results in greater female fertility (yeah, more research is needed). So I have come to see myself as living through my numerous aunts and their children, my cousins. I have a large extended family which is important to me. Seems pretty natural to me.

You realise that you don’t have headquarters in the neocortex… Or do you? Where is the seat of you for you? Is the body an extension and instrument for you qua brain or indelible part of you? When you have your universally accepted and empirically replicated answer for these questions, i know you will feel at peace with yourself. /I hope I was not as “brutal” as you.

Where am I? I’m everywhere! I’m in the pain I feel in my left leg, I’m in my hands as I type this, I’m in my R-complex and midbrain, and I am in my neocortical lobes….. I am an integrated whole within my entire brain and feel at one with my body. I have no problem with my base sexual responses to those attractive qualities I enjoy, because it is all me.

If you do not feel “integrated’ then perhaps you need that counselling.

Your English is pretty good. I’m just curious what is your native language?

Comment by jayhuck
What you describe sounds exactly like how many of my bisexual friends have described their experiments – we are often so focused on the extremes we forget that most people fall in the middle somewhere

You might be right. But ask yourself: would you have been right 300 years ago? Do you assume it will hold another 100? This classification of sexual orientation and behaviour is recent, and we tend to obscure any possibility that we may find a new paradigm for defining what is called sexual orientation, which now is at odds with the scientific assumption nature that nature builds all the necessary tools for reproduction, except for rare congenital conditions. This is also supported by a political and social context that tends to assert that it corrects nature according to human standards. To what extent can this go without affecting our animal instincts? Any recent demographic decrease or aging population? Any incresing sexual dysfunctions? Are we used to give stress an elegant name and identify politically correct causes for that? I hope it doesn’t sound conservative or something, because it is not my intention to assert that. But we must not expect science to find out only things that are politically comfortable. I’m sure we can find ways to adapt to that.

Jayhuck, take a minute to think about this issue. We keep talking about inborn and established ways in nature of doing things that cannot be and should not be changed, because they were dictated by nature. But you know, most animals die stupid and do not have the slightest idea what killed them, even if it’s a common and mild disease. We managed, as humans, to find the most unexpected of tools and solutions to the trickiest situations, including diseases. And we usually take pride in that. Now, when we discuss “sexual orientation” “natural dictates”, we tend to sleep over politics first. It seems to me we are closing our possibilities that made us what we are.

There are many people who feel unwanted attractions and are not the victims of internalised hatred. Maybe it’s an animal instinct to feel that something happened along the way that now prevents you from pursuing your reproductive behaviour. Why should the be locked in other people’s sexual politics?

PS. Sorry for the complicated reply, but my informal English is not as good as that of a native speaker right now.

Let me ask you another thing. What if you study a problem that some people go through but you cannot get very good descriptions of that condition because the people you investigate cannot tell you what may be relevant or they may be simply biased. Maybe that condition requires very accurate distinctions that those people are not used to operate with and they can easily confuse one thing for another. It seems that you are confined to using very basic but more accurate information and resort to establihed methodology for interpretation. But as I said, simple minds work in a simple way and finding a complex solution to a complex condition that remains uncomprehensible may require refining a component of this theoretical setup.

“Simple” people have “simple” natural reactions, mostly developed by little and slowly-progressing interaction with social environment. Consequently, low flexibility. That’s your answer, Warren. If everyone had a simple mind and simple inborn reactions you would have no scientific tools. Or no tools whatsoever.

What you describe sounds exactly like how many of my bisexual friends have described their experiments – we are often so focused on the extremes we forget that most people fall in the middle somewhere