GUYS!A little self-discipline!

[glammaman2000]

As I said above,I often enjoy the"free-association"aspects of this Forum.We're MOSTLY;but not exclusively,a bunch of muscle-hungry guys.There are plenty of smart,funny,caring,cultured folks here with all kinds of backgrounds&experiences,&a lot to say on all kinds of subjects.Politics,psychology,movie reviews,shopping tips,religion,etc.We've got to learn to"take it outside",i.e.,to"off-topic".So if you're confused about being confused,want to give or receive counseling,have those"red-state"blues,hate"X"'s stinking guts,or want to know how Jesus built up his forearms(ok,that one's borderline),PLEASE BRING IT HERE!I'll try to be more strict with myself about this,too.(can we make this a"sticky"?I don't know how)

[brent]

Originally Posted by Russ

Another thing is that I am a Christian, I believe that living a gay lifestyle is a choice and that Scripture is clear about the consequences.

I didn't CHOOSE to be gay, the only thing I chose was to be proud! The only consequences I've found have been making the world a better place.

[glammaman2000]

...it's christians I can't stand.(See how well this"off-topic"thing works?)

[ashleydelfin]

I have no problem with Christians, as long as they don't try to force what they believe on me. Russ might believe sexuality is a choice and, like I said before, to some people it is. I don't think I chose to be gay either. It seems I was wired that way, but if people want to believe and opine on something they don't know first-hand... well, I just shrug it off. What they believe will not change what is for you.

Russ said it: "I believe..." That's his POV. I know Russ and he didn't get to it by accident, he's thought about it, just like most of us. Differente POV's, even conflicting ones, are valid.

And I don't believe in gay pride, I believe in self-pride. Be proud of who you are, but don't boil it down to just your religion, sexuality, favorite ice cream flavor, WHATever... no one's that 2D.

~Ashley

PS: I have a stupid song stuck on my head... damn you, Paulina Rubio

[loopyrhino2001]

Originally Posted by ashleydelfin

I have no problem with Christians, as long as they don't try to force what they believe on me.

I'm Christian and I feel the same way.

Originally Posted by ashleydelfin

Be proud of who you are, but don't boil it down to just your [...] favorite ice cream flavor

Note to self... cancel plans to attend "Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough Pride" festival.

[glammaman2000]

Jesus was a radical.He had no wife,no kids:his followers left families to follow him.He was as opposed to a rule-bound jewish heirarchy as he was to the roman occupation.His message was;"We are all human.G-d is now human.We all fall.We all can rise.Through my death,we are all saved."buddha taught me this.go figure.

[LG2005]

Originally Posted by glammaman2000

...it's christians I can't stand.(See how well this"off-topic"thing works?)

"Lord, preserve us from religion."

[deetrakt]

To members of a certain age, remember when "holier than thou" was just a figure of speech?

Now, it's a frighteningly apt summation of the frighteningly narrow-minded religious right. My parents, both well into their 80's, say this is the worst cultural schism in this country since McCarthy and before him the anti-black, anti-semitic nutcases of the 1930's, both of which they lived through.

[garrix]

I come from a lutheran tradition of very liberal christianity. There will always be a soft spot in my heart for those liberal lutherans and episcopalians who always moderated their religion with reason.

Though i am not a believer, i have sympathies for members of this form of christianity. There is a local episcopal priest, a very kind and inteligent man, who is gay. There is no problem with any of this, and it is a fact i did not find out for years.

What i am vehemently against and will gladly discuss are the fundementalist dogma which threatens individual liberties. The bible is filled with horrible, horrible stories, and a very immoral god in places, and it promotes racism, sexism and various other acts which are horrifying to modern morals. its no surprise then, that the bible has a long history of being used to justify all types of horrible deeds.

And just remember, that while it does say in leviticus "man shalt not lay with other man" it also says "man shalt not touch pig skin". So does that mean that football and pork are as "immoral" as homosexuality? "any sin is a sin to the eyes of god", they often say.

The message of jesus, of forgiveness and love, as taught by liberal christians, transends the old testiment and its often terrible and contradictory "morality".


The fact is, "fundementalists" ignore that in the bible they dont like, and obsess over passages which promote their conservative, racist, homophobic, or sexist views, and all of which are irrelevent given the new testiment and the teachings of jesus. its ironic to say the least.

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by garrix

And just remember, that while it does say in leviticus "man shalt not lay with other man"

Well, no.

The old testimate was not written in English. Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, yes. What you quote is a translation, and a poor one at that.

Here is one site that looks at the translation issue. Other possible interpretations for 18:22 from this site include:

1. A man is forbidden to lay with a male in his own wife's bed.
2. A man is forbidden to lay with a male in the bed of the wife of that male.
3. A man is forbidden to lay with a male as he might a woman.
4. A man is forbidden to lay with a male as he might his own wife.
5. A man is forbidden to lay with a male as that male might his wife.
6. A man is forbidden to lay with a male in any bed belonging to a woman.

Another fun mistranslation is Samuel 1 20:41, where the hebrew word gadal, normally translated as "expanded" or "grows huge", in this one case is translated as "exceed". If you us the translation "David...fell on his
face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one
another, and wept one with the other, until David grew huge."

[garrix]

point taken.

Thats wonderful news! I know very well the bible has been translated many times and that there are all types of (sometimes very deliberate) errors in the translation, i did not know that particular passage was so skewed. But this means fundementalists have even less ground to stand on!

beautiful. thank you for that.

[JMH02003]

That thing about "Choosing to be gay." I always ask " you made a conciouse choice one day to be straight?" Even if they say yes, they generally get flustered, because no one remembers a day when they thought. "Hmm... I think I should be attracted to the opposite gender."

When you get right down to it, it's actually a ridiculous train of thought to have (I'm christian too, people) but some people swear by it.

[brent]

This whole thread reminds me of the line my mom always says, which is "I just know Jesus is coming back as a black lesbian, then they'll all be pissed!"

[dallasmsl]

Brent,
Your mother's saying reminds me of the PBS PlayHouse play that I saw sometime back in the 70's. I believe the name was Steam Bath or something similar. It was about a Puerto Rican man named Jesus who is the janitor in a Steam Bath and tries to attend to the needs of the incoming men and listening to their complaints about life. One by one, they realize that they have died and are now in the presence of God himself. One by one, they realize how horribly they've lived their lives by being prejudice, unfaithful, etc. It was also surprising how hard of a time they had to realize that God was not a norweigan brown-haired man with blue eyes and long hair nor beard.

[ethernet_jock]

Originally Posted by brent

This whole thread reminds me of the line my mom always says, which is "I just know Jesus is coming back as a black lesbian, then they'll all be pissed!"

bah hahahaha....

oh man - I needed that this morning.

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by JMH02003

That thing about "Choosing to be gay." I always ask " you made a conciouse choice one day to be straight?" Even if they say yes, they generally get flustered, because no one remembers a day when they thought. "Hmm... I think I should be attracted to the opposite gender."

When you get right down to it, it's actually a ridiculous train of thought to have (I'm christian too, people) but some people swear by it.

And now this little tidbit from Professor J. Michael Bailey via the New York Times. Some quotes:

...

The study, by a team of psychologists in Chicago and Toronto, lends support to those who have long been skeptical that bisexuality is a distinct and stable sexual orientation.

People who claim bisexuality, according to these critics, are usually homosexual, but are ambivalent about their homosexuality or simply closeted. "You're either gay, straight or lying," as some gay men have put it.

In the new study, a team of psychologists directly measured genital arousal patterns in response to images of men and women. The psychologists found that men who identified themselves as bisexual were in fact exclusively aroused by either one sex or the other, usually by other men.

...

Using a sensor to monitor sexual arousal, the researchers found what they expected: gay men showed arousal to images of men and little arousal to images of women, and heterosexual men showed arousal to women but not to men.

But the men in the study who described themselves as bisexual did not have patterns of arousal that were consistent with their stated attraction to men and to women. Instead, about three-quarters of the group had arousal patterns identical to those of gay men; the rest were indistinguishable from heterosexuals.

...

Yet researchers were unable to produce direct evidence of bisexual arousal patterns in men, said Dr. J. Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern and the new study's senior author.

A 1979 study of 30 men found that those who identified themselves as bisexuals were indistinguishable from homosexuals on measures of arousal. Studies of gay and bisexual men in the 1990's showed that the two groups reported similar numbers of male sexual partners and risky sexual encounters. And a 1994 survey by The Advocate, the gay-oriented newsmagazine, found that, before identifying themselves as gay, 40 percent of gay men had described themselves as bisexual.

"I'm not denying that bisexual behavior exists," said Dr. Bailey, "but I am saying that in men there's no hint that true bisexual arousal exists, and that for men arousal is orientation."

[glammaman2000]

Most of the guys I've met in my life who claim to be bi-sexual are just gay guys"keeping a finger in"as it were.I've met ONE true bi-sexual.He was drop-dead gorgeous;&would"fuck beauty";i.e.,if you were attractive,he'd have sex with you ;regardless.One truly straight guy who"just tried it".Women are much more"floaty"about their relationships.

[omelissokomos]

Originally Posted by glammaman2000

I've met ONE true bi-sexual.

Speaking of bisexual... (NYT, registration required...)

[ethernet_jock]

so it's all in my head then right?

I guess I should just divorce my wife, give up my children and my job, and admit that I'm gay because some ridiculous study says that I MUST be either gay or straight.

mmm hmmm...

I'll make you a study that says that Kia and Hyundai have made the most reliable and safe automobiles in the last 10 years and make it sound belivable too. Trust me, you can spend $500,000 and make a study that fits any agenda you want it to fit... I can almost guarantee that the "focus on the family" group is working on one right now that says that all gays are insane and just need counciling.

Right... I guess you'd have to be bisexual to see how incredibly moronic this looks.

[omelissokomos]

Originally Posted by ethernet_jock

Right... I guess you'd have to be bisexual to see how incredibly moronic this looks.

Here's something to shed some light on who and what Dr. Bailey is all about. It ain't pretty.

Bisexuality Study: NYT Gives Prominence To Disgraced Researcher

[ashleydelfin]

Well, ethernet_jock, you know how some people are, they think they know more about what you're all about because they've read articles and stuff. I mean, why bother listening to bisexuals when there are studies that prove they aren't really bisexual. I mean, after all, what a guy feels while being wired to machines in a lab cannot, in any way, be compared to how he interacts socially.

Now I will go and be sarcastic elsewhere =^^= Love y'all! *hugs*

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by omelissokomos

Here's something to shed some light on who and what Dr. Bailey is all about. It ain't pretty.

Bisexuality Study: NYT Gives Prominence To Disgraced Researcher

Oh puh-lease. Anyone who googles J. Michael Bailey can find out about the prior controversary, which is apparently what America's Blog did. That conversary involved a book on transgender issues, and the causes of gender dysmorphia. It has nothing to do with this study, which is in a peer-reviewed and respected journal. There might be ways to poke holes in the study, but attacking it because of who the author is stupid.

If you actually want to look at a poster of the research involved, look here

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by ethernet_jock

so it's all in my head then right?

Since the study is physiological, it says that it is all in your dick.

Originally Posted by ethernet_jock

I guess I should just divorce my wife, give up my children and my job, and admit that I'm gay

So, in your world, gay people can't have children and can't be employed. That speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by ethernet_jock

because some ridiculous study says that I MUST be either gay or straight.

Actually, what the study says, is that the subjective measure of people claiming to be bisexual is not supported, in a statistically significant way, to their physiological reaction to visual stimuli.

Originally Posted by ethernet_jock

I'll make you a study that says that Kia and Hyundai have made the most reliable and safe automobiles in the last 10 years and make it sound belivable too. Trust me, you can spend $500,000 and make a study that fits any agenda you want it to fit... I can almost guarantee that the "focus on the family" group is working on one right now that says that all gays are insane and just need counciling.

Yours and their studies won't survive peer review. This one does.

And, as the poster of the research concludes: "With respect to genital arousal, bisexual men did not show a statistically significant bisexual arousal pattern. Subjectively, however, they did show a bisexual pattern, although this result may be due to self-presentational concerns on the part of bisexual men. Genital arousal patterns suggested that our bisexual men were most likely a conglomerate of gay men and a few heterosexual men (Figures 2 & 8). However, it might be that few men did show bisexual genital arousal, but such rare occurrence was hard to detect (Figure 5). The arousal pattern of these truly bisexual men might have been concealed by the arousal of those self-declared bisexual men who showed no bisexual arousal."

One does wonder why you feel so threatened by this research.

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by ashleydelfin

Well, ethernet_jock, you know how some people are, they think they know more about what you're all about because they've read articles and stuff. I mean, why bother listening to bisexuals when there are studies that prove they aren't really bisexual. I mean, after all, what a guy feels while being wired to machines in a lab cannot, in any way, be compared to how he interacts socially.

Now I will go and be sarcastic elsewhere =^^= Love y'all! *hugs*

Sarcastic? I thought you were being willfully ignorant.

Some history for you.

Around WWI and WWII, it was commonly believed that same-sex attraction was a disease. During WWII, the military spent oodles of money asking psychologists to create personality tests so they could weed out perverts who had same-sex attractions. After all, everyone knew they were sick.

By the 1950s, several researchers began to challenge the view that gays and lesbians were abnormal. Evelyn Hooker (1907-1996) had the novel idea to compare a group of non-clinical homosexuals with a comparable group of heterosexuals. She published the first empirical research to challenge the prevailing psychiatric assumption that homosexuality was a mental illness. Her first report was called "The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual." It showed that "homosexuals were not inherently abnormal and that there was no difference between homosexual and heterosexual men in terms of pathology."

Hooker's work was the cornerstone for an entire body of research that ultimately led to removal of 'homosexuality' from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1972.

My point, for people who have problems seeing that point, is that asking questions is not bad. Research is not bad. In fact, it can lead to many positive results, like Hooker's did.

In this particular case, the researchers (more than just Bailey) had a valid question: "There is skepticism as to whether bisexual men are actually sexually attracted to and aroused by members of both sexes. Alternatively, the sexual feelings of putatively bisexual men might resemble gay men or a conglomerate of heterosexual and gay men. We investigated whether self-declared bisexual men showed a bisexual pattern of genital and subjective arousal. One hypothesis is that bisexual men should be more aroused to both sexes than heterosexual men are to men and gay men are to women. In other words, even if some bisexual men are more aroused by one sex or the other, they should be more aroused to their less-preferred sex than gay or heterosexual men should be to theirs. We refer to this prediction as the bi hypothesis. However, if bisexual men get more aroused to men, then this would support the gay hypothesis. If some of them get aroused to men but not women, while some others show the opposite arousal pattern, then this would suggest that bisexual men are a mix of gay and heterosexual men (the mix hypothesis)." The researcher's hypothesis arises from any number of other studies, including those conducted by Kraft-Ebbing (1886), Hirschfeld (1920), Tollison et al. (1979), Lever (1994), Freund et al. (1973), Stokes et al. (1997).

The Northwestern study is an arousal study. "Genital arousal was defined as an increase of at least 2mm in penile circumference from baseline. ... Arousal values were standardized within participants." While some may want to discount the study because of who the investigator was, past history, or for a dislike of research into questions of sexuality in general, none of these things had any effect on whether the male subjects in the study got hard-ons.

So, rather than being sarcastic, why don't you actually try opening your mind and learning something.

[deetrakt]

First, the Times article made quite clear that this is a small-scale study whose results need to be confirmed, modified or refuted by a larger-scale one.

Second, the way the study worked, men reporting as gay, bi or straight were shown sexual stimuli and their physiological responses measured. While it is true that almost none of the "bi" men registered attraction to both sexes, and most were more "gay" in their responses, it is also true that some portion of the sample was not turned on by ANY of the stimuli shown!

I want to float another idea for consideration and state at the outset that it is not provoked by anything anyone here said, is not directed at anyone here, and does not mean anything more than it says:

I've noticed that some bi guys (very little experience with bi women) are less bi than they are so narcissistic that they court attention and even sex with anyone who "meets their standards" and is interested. This is particularly so for some muscle guys, whose inner thought process seems to go something like: "You admire me, I like to be admired, let's do it." I'm not saying this applies to all, most or even a substantial number of self-described bisexuals--just that it makes sense to me for some.

Finally, one interesting thing in the Times article that no one's mentioned is that it included feedback from a self-described bisexual or two, including one guy from Orange County, California who described himself as sexually attracted to both some men and some women but "relationship- or romantically- attracted" just to women. He gave his full name, age and occupation, by the way! This sounds a little familiar, and before anyone writes it off, it's worth considering that there may indeed be such people, who are trying as best they can to express what they feel.

At least consider it.

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by deetrakt

Second, the way the study worked, men reporting as gay, bi or straight were shown sexual stimuli and their physiological responses measured.

Well, not exactly. They recruited men and women and asked them to self-identify, but their sexual orientation was measured on the Kinsey Sexual Orientation Scale. I believe it was this test that assigned them to groups, not their reported identity. In addition to the physiological test, there was also a subjective test. Subjects moved a level to indicate their level of arousal at a given stimulus. It was this subjective test that showed a marked difference between the three groups (gay, straight, bi), while there was no significant difference for the bi group in the physiological arousal test.

Originally Posted by deetrakt

Finally, one interesting thing in the Times article that no one's mentioned is that it included feedback from a self-described bisexual or two, including one guy from Orange County, California who described himself as sexually attracted to both some men and some women but "relationship- or romantically- attracted" just to women. He gave his full name, age and occupation, by the way! This sounds a little familiar, and before anyone writes it off, it's worth considering that there may indeed be such people, who are trying as best they can to express what they feel.

At least consider it.

As I said, this is a arousal study. Anyone who claims that sexual orientation is purely defined by arousal is missing the boat. However, it is an interesting question as to what other factors are coming into play that causes the marked discrepancy between physiological arousal and subjective arousal. And one can't rule out societal influences that make it hard to be openly gay and easy to be "relationship- or romantically-attracted" to motos, thus causing people to skew their subjective responses to what they consider normal.

[brent]

Originally Posted by ethernet_jock

so it's all in my head then right?

I guess I should just divorce my wife, give up my children and my job, and admit that I'm gay because some ridiculous study says that I MUST be either gay or straight.

...

That might be a little overboard, but I say live your life as you see fit. I know I do.

[glammaman2000]

,,"off-topic"!These are interesting issues.As I said,I've met ALMOST no-one I'd consider a true bisexual.That doesn't mean it NEVER happens.Given the pressure on everybody to be straight;ANYBODY who would voluntarily pursue gay sex has a strong tendency in that direction.&given that shrinks perceived homosexuality as"an aversion to women"as opposed to"an attraction to men";ANY man attracted to women(also),might choose to define himself as"not gay".I admire ether;a strong guy who has been through a lot;finding his way through his feelings.Finding a balance.&generally doing the right thing.(Should he ring up his wife from work&say,"Honey,I just saw this guy with the greatest hamstrings!"?)I KNOW I couldn't do as well in the same situation.

[ashleydelfin]

Originally Posted by Corwin

So, rather than being sarcastic, why don't you actually try opening your mind and learning something.

Hypocrisy, anyone? if ANYone in this MORONIC debate is close-minded that would be you. You don't consider, you just pull out from your trusty database of things you choose to believe and stick it up all of our throats as if it was the only Truth.

And frankly, I don't care. I do read, I do consider, and I think through everything so much the only thing I'm actually sure of is that I'm not sure of anything. Because for every piece of believable evidence on one side of an argument you'll find something just as believable on the other side. I don't blindly believe in anything, not even science, like it's used to nowadays. Honestly, having science as a God doesn't open your eyes, it just blinds you to different things.

OH! And ethernet NEVER said gays couldn't marry or have kids (but of course you READ that because you MUST love feeling discriminated and victimized because it validates your stubbornness and close-mindedness). What he said is pretty obvious, I think, so I'll just let you marinate your paranoia on what you think it meant.

SO,

[ashleydelfin]

Gah! clicked wrong button because I'm on MSN and Y! Messenger

I don't even remember what I was going to type =P

Anywho, I'll stop here.

~Ashley

[garrix]

well, in ancient greece, many many men, Socrates, Praxiteles, Alexander the great, Aristotle were "bisexual" in that they had sons and daughters and wifes, and male and female lovers. the male lovers were a common and accepted thing in greek culture, there are many stories of young male atheletes who would have many male and female lovers. Even their god, Zeus, was bisexual in this manner.

So maybe this whole bisexual thing isnt so artificial, eh? There are several stories which i have read of bisexual monkeys and other animals. Not to mention, if you get to horny male dogs together they wont discriminate between genders.

And do they detail what kind of stimuli where being used in the survey? How do we know it wasnt live males and pictures of females?

[garrix]

Originally Posted by ashleydelfin

. I don't blindly believe in anything, not even science, like it's used to nowadays. Honestly, having science as a God doesn't open your eyes, it just blinds you to different things.

(emphasis mine)

AMEN. Some very wise words there.

thank you.

[ethernet_jock]

wow.... I was going to say something moderately profound... but ashley both beat me to it.. and far exceeded my capabilities.

So instead I'll just say - Thank you! My thought EXACTLY.

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by ashleydelfin

And frankly, I don't care. I do read, I do consider, and I think through everything so much the only thing I'm actually sure of is that I'm not sure of anything. Because for every piece of believable evidence on one side of an argument you'll find something just as believable on the other side. I don't blindly believe in anything, not even science, like it's used to nowadays.

Talk about moronic. All you've managed to say is that you don't know how to judge evidence. That you really don't know how to think. If someone says x, and another says y, you believe both. Evolution must be given the same weight as creationism or intelligent design because both have proponents. Actually being able to analyze the evidence and decide that something is supportable by evidence and something else is not is beyond you. More's the pity.

Originally Posted by ashleydelfin

Honestly, having science as a God doesn't open your eyes, it just blinds you to different things.

What a stupid thing to say. Science is a way of systemizing knowledge covering general truths. It is the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. The key here is that things are tested. That is exactly what happened here. The researchers wanted to test something and they reported on the results. It seems that you simply don't like the results. Well, devise your own experiment, create your own hypothesis and test it. Religions are gods are inherently untestable.

Originally Posted by ashleydelfin

OH! And ethernet NEVER said gays couldn't marry or have kids (but of course you READ that because you MUST love feeling discriminated and victimized because it validates your stubbornness and close-mindedness).

I thought you said you could read? I never said that either. Do you think that gay people must give up their children and lose their job if they are open about their sexuality? The closet-case certainly did say that would happen to him. But then, you can't make judgements for yourself, can you?

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by garrix

well, in ancient greece, many many men, Socrates, Praxiteles, Alexander the great, Aristotle were "bisexual" in that they had sons and daughters and wifes, and male and female lovers. the male lovers were a common and accepted thing in greek culture, there are many stories of young male atheletes who would have many male and female lovers. Even their god, Zeus, was bisexual in this manner.

Sexual orientation as we currently understand it a fairly modern concept. Depending where you start, it's about 100 years old.

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by ethernet_jock

wow.... I was going to say something moderately profound... but ashley both beat me to it.. and far exceeded my capabilities.

So instead I'll just say - Thank you! My thought EXACTLY.

While I am skeptical that you are capable of even a single thought, I am not surprised that lying and willful ignorance are values that you espouse.

[ethernet_jock]

Corwin,

I'm continually impressed by your ability to see enough to navigate the keyboard while holding blinders over your eyes. Your innate technique for personally attacking other people for their views, opinions, and belief matrix is astounding.

May you live long and prosper my friend....

in a universe...

.
..
...

for me to poop on.

[Jamie the Wise]

Originally Posted by Corwin

Sexual orientation as we currently understand it a fairly modern concept. Depending where you start, it's about 100 years old.

Hi

Sorry but I'm slighlty confused. Are you suggesting that people didn't have sexual orientation more than 100 years ago?

If yes please explain what you mean.

If no please also explain what you mean.

Many thanks,

Jamie

[garrix]

Originally Posted by Corwin

Sexual orientation as we currently understand it a fairly modern concept. Depending where you start, it's about 100 years old.

Exactly! and doesnt the fact that bisexual behavior pre-dates our classification of sexuality say something?

....That the ancient greeks were "bisexual" in behavior does suggests something very important about sexuality- Unless, of course you believe the human species has undergone some radical change that would eliminate this behavior in the last 2000 years, or if you believe, as many anti-gays would have it, that sexual behavior is contingent and formed on cultural or social expectations and ideas.

So with the issue of bisexuality in Greece, you could assume it was cultural, which opens up the can of theoretical worms I stated above, or you could just as well assume that all those famous people i listed were gay, which then you must be willing to conclude that a majority of greek males were homosexual, as it was very common behavior. But if you do that, then, im afraid, you would conflict with our current notions (and current studies that tell us ) that homosexuality is a minority, rather than majority (again. unless you think we've somehow changed.) Either way, you?ll be fighting the same type of studies which you are supporting.

Sorry if im not very clear. Its hard to be eloquent when you just wake up.

[glammaman2000]

&it CHANGES!The term"bisexual"originally referred to what we would now call"homosexual";the idea being that gay men were"half-man,half-woman".A homosexual was once defined by"what he did"(receiving)as opposed to"who he did it with"(a"top"could still be straight).I brought up Michel Foucault(sp?)a while back.He posits that some things get defined&then,PEOPLE ACT OUT THE DEFINITION.Reality is always muddier than that.