I believe i may be Bisexual.. I have began to have interest in men/women since last year. It started during some "events" in my life. I guess i will need experience to clarify this, But i believe i truely am bisexual.. Since i have no problem with either gender. (In sexual terms)
Don't know QI - and google wasn't much help. Perhaps, psychic is a bit too much. Maybe, if it exists, it's subtle signals of body language and such that others can pick up on. Labels, labels, labels. Well, I guess I can understand the need for labels. In which case, perhaps pansexual would suit you? It's a term I prefer, and seems to apply to me.
I have to say congrats on coming out on here Danvid. If i hadnt givin out too much rep today you would have some. Heres an IOU.
It's OK, Danvid - Lupr's just messing with us. Any ways, he should know we're all Luprsexual. Or is that Supersexual? Same thing?
I'm seeing a lot of people labelling themselves here, not cool. Don't identify with sexual terms, as that's simply allowing for a basis to stereotype. Just be yourself, and don't be afraid to find anything attractive. I don't think enough people know enough about sexuality, which is where misconceptions and insecurity comes into it. Allow me to explain. Humans reproduce sexually, meaning 2 individuals have to come together to continue the species. That means it's hardcoded into our brains to have the urge to do this (sparing the details). This urge has been present for thousands of thousands of years, and it always will be there. Back in the days when we were chimps, these coded urges were very basic, as it was simply a matter of deciding whether anything moving was going to eat you, be eaten by you, or going to do the dirty with you. Sexual attractivity was practically nonexistant at this time, as being selective over reasons other than fertility and genetic superiority were more of a liability than anything. We're in the future now though, and we are incredibly more complex creatures, as well as infinitely more social. As such, even our most basic of instincts (survival, reproduction and eating) have been drastically elaborated by social cues, norms and ideals. Food has to be to our tastes, instead of just edible, and reproduction has been almost turned completely into a matter of attractivity. It's not a case of needing to reproduce to continue your genetic heritage anymore, it's about being in a relationship, moving in together, so on and so forth. However, that hardcoding, that innate brain function, that urge that has been present for millenia is no more advanced than it was back then. It's still the urge to grab something and well, you know. Thus, the human brain is still, by design, very unclear as to what exactly should be grabbed. There are no boundaries in your mind as to whether fat girls are better looking than skinny girls, if guys are more attractive than girls, if cartoon ponies are attractive at all, it doesn't matter to your brain. Everything is viable, whether you like (or know) it or not. I have heard it said that 'homosexuality isn't natural'. This is one of the weakest, stupidest and most ridiculous points I've heard. For 1, I assure you that homosexuality wasn't created in a lab during world war 2 by the Nazis as a superweapon. It's natural, it happens. Secondly, as I said, the brain doesn't care about gender. A basis for this argument is that it can't be natural, as if everyone were gay, humans couldn't reproduce. 1. Yes they could, homosexuality does not equal sterility. 2. The brain has this sexually ignorant mentality as so to increase the species' chance of reproduction. Now, as stated, human's are incredibly social and advanced mentally. Not only are we vastly more intelligent than any other animal on the planet (this is true, no matter where you read dolphins or rats are smarter), but we have an incredibly deep appreciation for art, music, etc. This is so deep within our brains that is does cross over into the reproductive part. Our love of aesthetics and society and the like actually gives our brain a little bit of direction in the sexuality department. I'm not saying what art we like has any influence over what we find attractive, those are 2 different brain functions. I'm saying that, just as we all appreciate different music, art, scenery, people, etc. we also have a very vague ideal of what we find attractive. Maybe a few ideals, it's all dependent on the individual. However it's important to remember the fact that these ideals are very vague and not in any way clearly constructed. The brain isn't meant to be specific in sexuality, our survival from generations millenia prior to now didn't allow it. We are genetically designed not to care. The only thing stopping is from humping everything we see is an artistic development in our brains. For example, by all convenience I am what would be considered heterosexual. However, my brain, just like everyone elses, is not coded to do this. The only reason I could even be associated with this is my individualistic segments of my brain have influenced an attraction towards femininity. Heterosexuality has nothing to do with it. Hetero/homo/bi/pan/Luprsexuality is not a term that can accurately describe how the brain functions, only the social perception of it. I.e. Homosexuality isn't being attracted to the same sex, it's just the concept of it. Nobody is homosexual, they can only engage in homosexual acts. Like me, I'm not heterosexual, because I can't be. It doesn't make sense. I can only engage in heterosexual acts. Using these terms as a label is either for convenience ('straight' does have a better ring to it than 'having a vague attraction to femininity'), or a misconception that sexuality is a rigid entity. We can't help what we're attracted to any more than we can help what music we like or who we like. It's not genetic, sexuality is not genetically codable, it's just an influence on our reproductive urges by complex but weak characteristics of the human brain. I'm sorry this post is so long, and feel free to ignore it, but I just want anyone who is unclear on anything, or feel insecure about anything to have clear, unbiased and accurate information on things like this. It's not taught enough to people these days, and as such it is not common knowledge and misconceptions have inevitably formed. I hope this comes in useful to some.
As I've said before a long time ago. All labels, be it negative or positive, are bad. Labelling yourself isn't really a good thing to do. What Lupr said was right: We find out who we are, but we aren't "Truly" what we say we are. People are so willing to jump to conclusions and label others based on what they look like, say, or do. Labels are the bane of humanity, because they create nothing but problems for one another.
As I've said a few times already this thread: I agree that labels can be bad, and I really do agree with that 100%, BUT they can also help one have a sense of community and that is important when dealing with something that is ostracizing. We can't forget that BRONY is a label.
Being part of a community is a good thing of course, and one to be happy and proud of. It's both convenient and pride inducing to be known as a 'brony' for some (not all; I for one don't like being referred to as a brony). However, it's got to be considered what you want a sense of community to be based on. As part of my local community, the football community, as well as the Mass Effect, art and music communities, I am always happy to be recognized as a member of that and it does mean something to me. However, I do know that in a very small way, that is a form of isolation. It's inevitable but hardly prominent, it's just more of a slight side effect of being in a community, people outside of it can associate it with you, and you with it. Not always a bad thing, of course. People associating me with my local community is a great thing, but is it really great when you're trying to dissociate sexuality with importance? Morgan Freeman is a good representation of my beliefs on this. He never advocates anti racism movements because he believes ignorance is actually a solution, not a problem. Gay pride rallies and the like are creating a sense of community, but unlike previously mentioned, it's not on a small scale. Those who aren't within this community feel greater isolation, and associate people with their sexuality with a greater magnitude. It becomes harder to see the person, not the sexuality when it's paraded about and made a gret deal of. If instead the mainstream attitude was just one of total ignorance, not really caring what anyone is attracted to then there would be no homophobia (in theory, of course). Homophobia isn't ignorance, it's actually the polar opposite. It's stupid and misinformed in the majority of cases, but it is far from ignorant. As I said in my prior post, sexuality is a very vague and menial thing, so to create a community based on that isn't doing any favours to allow integration into mainstream society*. I wouldn't dream of holding a straight pride rally or even wanting to be part of a community of straight people. Not only because heterosexual shouldn't be a noun or an adjective applicable to people, but because if something like sexuality is so unimportant and vague, what community would we have? It would be billions of people with almost nothing in common. Communities are based around just that, something in common, something we can discuss, share experience on and relate to. People from all walks of life can be attracted to the same sex, so to group them all together ignoring their differences and focusing on that one tiny characteristic isn't a good thing in my eyes. Of course a community of diverse and varied people is a great thing, but not based on something like this. It detracts from the intention. *It was almost painful having to write that, as if being attracted to the same sex made you an outsider of society or something. Ridiculous. MLP fan? It's what I go by. Maybe I'm not deep enough into this fandom than most, but I'm not comfortable with the magnitude some people associate themselves with it.
>Straight Pride Parade. Been there, seen that. It was bland and lasted about 5 minutes, but it HAS been done.
Gimme a sec. I just need to finish the equation. All have left to do is to equate it to Earth's binding energy.
