I agree with this mostly - I've often thought this myself. But I don't know that it comes from a place of discomfort exactly. I've never been uncomfortable with the idea of people being bisexual, and I've never disbelieved in the orientation itself, but I did believe that most people were faking it as either a stepping stone to ease people into their homosexuality or for attention. That's because in the teenage years, that can quite often be the case, as it was in my experience.

Uh, well, my gf is not my gf anymore, but she's still lovely -w-
Maybe hope for the future, but then maybe not, who knows, but she's still a valued friend no matter how it goes.

About bisexuality...for some reason...I don't feel right if I say I'm bi o_o I feel like it doesn't explain enough or something, though I don't know what else I'd have to explain. Like it sounds too broad..? Or not broad enough? Actually, I have no idea, I just like people sometimes.

Maybe you should just avoid labeling yourself. After all, there aren't enough labels out there to describe everyone and if you're not comfortable with the constraints of the label then you shouldn't force yourself into it. "I just like people sometimes" might be the most appropriate label for you.

While I do see the need for labels, in this instance I'd have to agree with Scarfy. Sometimes it's better not to think too much, especially in situations that shouldn't necessarily be about thinking. Do what you want, be attracted to who you're attracted to and let that be that.

Or if you really feel the need to say something, then something I often find helpful is saying "I'm a boy who likes boys." That way I'm not saying I'm gay, but I'm describing my gender and my attraction. Then there's no need for a label or a pigeonhole, just a description of what's up.

I'd have to agree with Scarfy too, Sometimes it's better not to think too much\\{XD}

Oh, I don't think you can ever think too much. :D

But you don't need to dwell on certain things. Like, if you have a door to open and none of the keys you have work, it doesn't help to keep trying them, but you should think about how else you can open the door or whether opening the door is really what you should be doing.

The solution to that problem is climbing on top of your roof and breaking into your own house through a window. Been there, done that. Tangent, I know. I guess the analogy would be - do something original!

Ah, I was just adding my thoughts about bisexuality :3 I'm pretty comfortable with it myself, but I was just meaning it's difficult to explain exactly how it is if someone else asks or if it comes up in discussion somehow lol
Most of the time it's just with friends so I can tell them whatever I want, but it's still weird when someone's like, "Oh, so you're bi?" I just...no. I just don't like the word! Kinda like how I'll always say "I'm from the US" rather than "I'm American" because the word "American" reminds me of the taste of American cheese by itself.
:P

Oh, goodness, I would never say to someone "Oh, so you're _____?" Really awkward. It's, like, what would you expect as a response? "Nope, not really. I just wanted to confuse you."

I'd like to join please, what are the requirements?

You've just met them by posting. Everyone who is amazing is welcome.

It's not all that rules-intensive. Just chime in to whatever discussion is going on or bring up whatever you feel like. Well, as long as it's not breaking the rules of course. You can tell us about yourself, ask questions - whatever. No pressure to talk about yourself though. Respectin' boundaries and all that.

Thank you for the explanation.

I just moved to a city I've more or less never been to... don't know anyone at all. I've been trying to find get-togethers for games and stuff, but there's just... nothing. Are there LGBT clubs, or anything that aren't associated with a school? Haven't been able to find anything unfortunately, but I'm gonna go crazy just sitting alone at home. lol

Phantom's back!


Well, depends on the city.

If you can't find a group, and surely there has to be one SOMEWHERE if you dig deep enough. If not, well, what's stopping you from creating one? Sometimes, if groups are hard to find, maybe it's because those that run them aren't advertising enough, or they need people who are willing to be out there and be active.


ANYWHO, guess who finally had a total sitdown with her family today? This person.

It was... Not bad. My mom cried a bit and my dad was quiet. My grandma, well I'm not sure, she's a really good actor... but they aren't mad, that's a plus.

I think I finally got through to them that it isn't a phase, or something I am going through. They agreed, saying, according to my mother that when I mentioned being bi (back in the day I labeled myself that because I was in that stage of discovering myself) they knew that there was a 95% chance of being totally lesbain. So my mom said she was only 5% shocked. I think that works. They said they love me because I am a good person, that I'm theirs, not because of who I love.

My mom was actually upset I didn't say anything sooner.

Anywho, I didn't go into big labeling, I just said that yep, I like woman. I've dated women.

It's a happy feeling. Like... it feels like it's my birthday. It's just that excitement you feel just under your skin and you just feel like nothing can go wrong. Like I have exciting news to tell everybody.

I think it's the best thing I've done in a long time.

You know, it's funny. We humans are so fixated on fitting in that we often assign ourselves labels even when we don't intend to. And sometimes the things we label ourselves as can be quite humorous.

I don't so much label myself as I accept that who I am closely relates to a particular definition of a certain word. But even that similarity isn't 100% accurate. I am a man who is most definitely attracted to guys, and in fact am in love with one of the most amazing guys I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. But even so, I am quite capable of recognizing and even appreciating the attractiveness of someone of the opposite sex. I have no interest in sexual relationships with women, but I would be foolish to deny that I find someone, regardless of gender, to be attractive... or not.

I think there is a very small percentage of people who are exclusively attracted to someone of the opposite sex, and a very small percentage of people who are exclusively attracted to someone of the same sex. There is something called a Kinsey scale, which, through testing, measures a person's orientation. I think a lot of people would be surprised to discover that they're not a 0 or a 6 (0 being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual) on the scale. I, myself, am between 4 and 5 on the scale.

I find it also very fascinating that of all of us, females tend to exhibit the most varied range of sexuality. Theirs is more fluid where males are more rigid (no that is not a pun).

So, a label certainly helps us to fit in with a certain group, I think we should all be willing to accept that our labels are not absolutes. We have to accept that throughout our lives changes will occur that can and do make us question the labels we've assigned ourselves.

I've told you before and I'll tell you again Q, Grindr. Yes, a lot of the people there are looking for sex and nothing more but now you've moved a little closer to civilisation I think you should give it another shot. I live in a coastal area where there isn't much of a gay community so Grindr and other similar phone apps are the only real way to meet other gay/bi people. And you get to talk to them online first so you get a general idea of what they're about before you go to the trouble of meeting them lol

I have. There's no one I'd be even remotely interested in talking to around here. I'm going into town today actually... I guess I could pick some people out and talk to them later, but I'm not really sure how well that would work out, considering I live 30 minutes away.

You guys are so hardcore, with game plans and tech and all.

I've only had about two decent conversations from using Grindr. I suppose it depends on where you live though. When you stay in one place, you get the same people most days.

If you have to travel 30 minutes you have to travel 30 minutes, it's better than where you were living before lol. But you have to give people a chance, don't just look at the profiles and make your judgment on a picture or a silly few sentences that you have to write about yourself. Give it a chance!

I just don't like Grindr because there is less information to judge a person on. I don't like to waste my time when I know myself and another person have incompatible goals. Based on a brief bio and pictures, I can really only tell if I am physically attracted, well assuming the pictures are an accurate depiction of what the person looks like currently.

Anyway, though I am abstaining from dating for several more months while I am finishing up undergrad, I would suggest to others to ALSO give okcupid a try. Though, be cautious. With more information you need to be careful how you use that information. Also, filters in general can cut out people that you might be really compatible with, so make sure to try various search methods. I just never had success finding a compatible person because of geographical location, which should change relatively soon.

Okcupid is the best FREE site. Since, you actually get to compare questions and the bios are more complete. Again, be careful not assume anyone is completely ingenuous, that is what the in-person dating is for! Rather, it's a nice way to filter out people that state incompatible goals or traits and provide a basis for date discussions (given you know a bit about their interests), and even a way to slip in some followup questions for any potential red flags. This person may have a great justification.

But the more options the better. I would say, try both. See which one works best for you, and put yourself out there.

--

So, I have a bit of interesting things to say after class today.

Apparently, women are significantly more likely to have homosexual children after extreme stress. The study was conducted on women that were pregnant during WWII, in Germany. That study, with some of the other studies, that indicate that women are more likely to give birth to homosexual males if she has already given birth to male offspring (progressively with each birth).

Biologically, it makes sense. In order for a women to ensure her genes success, she needs offspring that will reproduce. Upon having several boys, it becomes less likely that she will be able to provide not only enough, but more resources for her sons than other mothers. Therefore, homosexual offspring are more altruistic for their relatives, reproductive success, and thus, their own genetic success (siblings share on average 50% of the same genetics). They are less invested in their own reproductive success putting forth more energy into relatives. Likewise, during war, or any sort of stress, it may be more advantageous to have a homosexual child of either sex that will invest more into the family and siblings than on parental investment of their own children.

Therefore, mothers that had this trait, were more likely to survive and produce children that would produce children, and thus why homosexuals exist today, as well as other animal species. It's simply a very advantageous trait to possess from a biological standpoint and has survived the process of natural selection.

Thought that would be 'fun' to share.

I read of another theory.

Basically, male proteins are foreign to a female's body. As a result, it's possible for the mother to create antibodies that would attack these male compounds. Every time a woman has a male child, her immune system is primed with the presence of foreign protein and her response would increase with each child. So each subsequent male child is subject to a higher concentration of anti-male antibodies. Oh, and antibodies are designed to neutralize the antigens they correspond to. So each subsequent male child is subject to a higher level of destruction of their male compounds. It would give an alternate explanation to the observation listed above.

Actually this is a proximate cause. These are the biological effects of having more male children. Every time a woman has a male her immune system will produce more anti-male antibodies. However, the ultimate phylogenic outcome, to explain why women would possess genetic information that would instruct the immune system to react in this manner, can be explained by natural selection, in that women that didn't possess this physiological reaction would have had more male offspring competing against each other and therefore not yielding as many offspring, as the women that did inherit this trait.

So, we both could be right. It's just a matter of synthesis of the two, proximate and ultimate, causes. I am glad you brought that up! It helps better explain the ultimate causes.

I like where you're going with that. The logic is sound.

SPOCK! Gawd I love Zachary Quinto. I was all for Team Sylar in Heroes!