----- Original Message ----- From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 3:23 PM Subject: Re: BRin-L - are we average?
> > Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip> > > > One thing you have to remember about Bisexuals. > > They can blend into any crowd. > > Remain hidden as long as they like. > > And only attract notice if they want to be noticed. > > > > My personal experience tells me that 40-60% of women > > I have dated were > > Bi (to varying degrees) and I would suspect the > > numbers are similar for men. > > Male homosexuality is suppressed in our society to > > the degree that > > male bisexuals either hide their sexuality or never > > act on it. > > > > I suspect that "pure" heterosexuals may not even be > > a majority. > > >From my set of women friends, a "bi" percentage of > ~50% is far too high (even counting "to varying > degrees"), and ditto for the men friends. Even 20% is > generous; of course, it's also not a question that we > typically ask each other, so I could be 'way off. ;} Its pretty obvious that you are using a very standard set of definitions and parameters to define sexuality and I respect that. Its a language most of us know well and can speak with ease. But I think that language is slowly losing relevance. If sexuality is indeed a continuum, the regimented definitions and binary parameters most commonly used are not very effective at describing what people feel and do in their sexual life. In conventional terms a person who has never had a homosexual experience might be considered a heterosexual, even if they have homosexual or bisexual mastrubatory fantasies. Using a continuum form of seeing this matter, such persons would not be considered a "pure" heterosexual. In such terms people are not pigeonholed into 2 or 3 sexual catagories, but are described by where they fall on an X - Y axis. And if I understand correctly, there is also a W - Z axis that describes frequency of sex with either males or females. (Or something to that effect. I'm not real conversant on sociology issues TBH) > > As Dan touched upon in an earlier post, "intimacy" > seems often to be confused with "sexuality," which > seems to be one of the memes that we as a society > inherited from the Puritan world-view. Only in America<G> >True intimacy, > or moments of intimacy, tend to be very intense from > an emotional standpoint, and "emotional intensity = > sexual attraction" seems to be another equation that > we often use, rightly or wrongly. True, but I don't see what that has to do with the current discussion, unless you see an interesting tangent you want to pursue!<G> >As young women, > most of us are taught to "be careful of sending the > wrong signal to a young man," and this leads to > certain inhibitions in interactions with men, but not > with women. Also true, but that is one big big can of worms! <G> (I blame men and the cult of macho myself) > I think a large part of the whole > 'college lesbian experimentation' is an outgrowth of > this situation: intimacy is experienced/practiced with > women-friends, and can become confused with sexual > attraction. OTOH, it's also a sure-fire way of > avoiding pregnancy while being sexually active... > But Debbi, one cannot willingly violate ones own sexuality. No woman could experiment with same-sex modes unless they some predilection for bisexuality, even if they are only seeking intimacy. AFAICT any claim to the contrary can be explained away as denial. xponent You Can Come Out Of The Closet Now Maru <G> rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
