(April 1, 2013 at 7:21 pm)John V Wrote:(April 1, 2013 at 5:09 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: I definitely think Rhythm's point needs addressing.Regarding him personally, he seems somewhat obsessed with cock. I don't believe him at all.
In general, consider sexuality across cultures and time. It's fairly variable. Our current western paradigm is fairly new.
For instance, there was a time in Greece when it was normal for a teenage male to take a receptive sexual role with an older male. Upon becoming an adult, it was considered wrong to take the receptive role, but OK to take the penetrative role with men or women. They didn't even look at it as male/female, but rather penetrative/receptive.
Does it make more sense to think that these people had a difference in genome which produced this pattern at birth, or that people naturally fall somewhere on a scale of bisexuality and culture has a lot to do with how it's expressed?
Quote:And does a person need to have sex with the opposite sex to be gay or is the desire alone enough to warrant the label?Again, I'm arguing against such labeling.
I'm aware of those sorts of relationships in Greece's history. I am not well versed in that culture and I wouldn't want to delve into biological/psychological/etc speculations at the moment. But you have not shown that everyone is bisexual. Of course it is not as clean cut as everyone is either straight or gay and history shows that. But what makes you think everyone is bisexual? How can everyone have the same sexuality?
As for the part about "labeling", I was responding directly to catfish - I know you do not like those terms.