Are Bisexulas more intouch with love?

[Dathu]

So, I've always felt, and I think it could be scientifically argued, that Heterosexual Men only love women because it's in their blood, and the same, vise versa, goes for women. Homosexual people have the same genes but for the same sex.

So, if it's all a matter of genes, then you only fall in love with the people that your blood allows you to be attracted to.

[Now before you jump on me about how a heterosexual can truly love the same sex without it being sexual, i.e. best friends, siblings, parents, etc. I'm not talking about platonic love. I'm talking hard core ready to die for you, spend the rest of my life with you, want to make more of you with/in my body love.]

So, if the aforementioned is true, then even if two guys met who are perfectly compatable with each other and, if they could find each other attractive, could potentially spend the rest of their lives together in happiness, they won't because their genes are in the way.

So does that mean that bisexuals who, in my opinion, are in no way affected by genes or are affected by both genes, be better judges of love because nothing stands in their way for picking the best PERSON for them, rather than picking the best man or woman.

It's just something I've always wondered, and in a weird way, I've always admired the ability of bisexuals to be able to love love someone without their sex being an issue.

So, what'cha think?  

[Athena_Ritashe]

I would disagree with the programming aspect from personal experience. I have a friend who is very straight, and loves guys, and yet has a girlfriend. Why? She fell in love with the person. I think when it comes to sexuality there is less black and white then we think. When looking for a partner we don't just look at reproductive potential, but look for other attributes such as intelligence, ability to earn income, similar interests, sense of humor, and we could find ourselves attracted to someone of the same sex even if we're straight. (it's happened to me)

From my experience and by my understanding you can't readily categorize human sexuality because there is always an exception to the rule. Sure, there is straight, bisexual, heterosexual, but when someone falls in love they tend to forget about categories.

Edit: Although being either straight or gay you are more likely to limit a potential partner based on their gender. But you can also limit potential partners based on age, income status and other factors. We are picky because when in a relationship that could lead to sharing resources, or perhaps taking care of offspring. A lot of energy and effort must be made in such endeavors. We limit ourselves because we want to get our relationships right.  

[The MoUsY spell-checker]

What would it mean for asexuals? Asexuals aren't attracted to either sex, but they can still fall in love.

This is a situation where distinguishing between romantic love and sexual attraction might be relevant. The distinction is usually made in discussion about asexuality. There is also the notion of romantic orientation, so for example, one can be asexual and heteroromantic. So, such a person can still love the opposite sex even though their genes don't make them attracted to the opposite sex.  

[=X-Sparker + AquaKiller=]

Not really. How do I know?
*points to self* because I'm bi and I'm
a terrible judge of love. sweatdrop

For me, it's always been, "Splash!"
and I'm down in the "River of Love"
(or whatever you call it) before I
know it. I don't really look particularly
for GUYS or GIRLS to love.
It's more like, I just fall for them
just because of who they are.

I don't go, "Oh first let me check if
it's a he or a she", because I won't love
he/she because he/she is a he/she (lol
we need a general pronoun that's not
"it"). Like, I just love them for their actions,
their words, etc. No gender involved...

The reason I'm terrible at it is because most
of the time, like I said, I just fall without
really thinking.
Like, I liked one guy without even knowing
his last name =.= (it was in 8th grade. I
really didn't blame him for it)
And then I liked another guy who didn't
like me back (can't blame him for that
either). And there is also one
who played with my feelings, but I won't
blame myself for it because it's his fault.
I would blame myself for not noticing his
true color (because I always thought
I was better at judging people than
that), but not for blindly falling in love and
breaking my own heart.

For my two experiences with girls,
the first one was sad because she
was all for the "popularity" and I wasn't
really the coolest kid in school. The
second one was full of great memories,
though. I still keep in contact with her
(as a friend. she's straight so I never
came out to her).

ehhhh that got a little sidetracked but you can manage razz

 

[Dathu]

=X-Sparker + AquaKiller=

Not really. How do I know?
*points to self* because I'm bi and I'm
a terrible judge of love. sweatdrop

xd That made me laugh. I guess love is hard to find even if you have both genders to choose from.  

[=X-Sparker + AquaKiller=]

Dathu

xd That made me laugh. I guess love is hard to find even if you have both genders to choose from.

That is extremely true.

 

[D i v i n i t y]

Hmm, very interesting point. In my opinion, I guess statistically you'd be right. I mean bisexuals simply have more options to choose from. If you have more options, the chances of finding someone is increase right? O.o  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

The OP is incorrect.
Sexuality is socially determined, and not something you are born into.
Think of it like this:

There is a sliding scale of sexuality like so:

G<---!------B---------->S

The bang is where a hypothetical person is early on in life.
Because western society has this view of 'gay or straight or bi' people are shoved into the category closest to them, whether they like it or not.

So as time goes on, and this person finds their sexuality, they will become more defined. Not because that is who they are, but because society is litterally squishing them into--in this case--the gay 'box'.

G<-!--------B---------->S

This is despite how they may pretend to be straight in order to escape ridicule or anything like that.

And the whole idea of 'gay' and 'straight' and 'bi' is intimately rooted in the oppression of women and the institution of the familly, which is a whole other story...

Point being that being social animals, our personalities, desires and fears are socially determined, and thus to say any of us has more control in who we want to ******** is rather silly.  

[alteregoivy]

Hahaha, having "more options to chose from" doesn't make things any easier!

For many bi people I know, the situation goes something like this: all the men that the bi women I know find attractive are rather effeminate and usually turn out to be homosexual, while all the women we find attractive are very womanly and usually turn out to be straight. It's very frustrating.

I agree about the sliding scale sexuality thing, but I would imagine it's not all social, but rather a mix of biology and environment, like the leading theories on intelligence describe. I definitely fall way farther over into the homosexual side than the straight side, but I'm married to a man, so there you go.

The rules for any given person of what they find attractive are hard to define, and it's just as physical for bi as for gay or straight. Hormones make everyone make bad decisions sometimes. I don't think that changes based on your sexuality.

Perhaps pansexuals can make better decisions? sweatdrop  

[Raticiel]

Louis-Auguste Robespierre

The OP is incorrect.
Sexuality is socially determined, and not something you are born into.
Think of it like this:

There is a sliding scale of sexuality like so:

G<---!------B---------->S

The bang is where a hypothetical person is early on in life.
Because western society has this view of 'gay or straight or bi' people are shoved into the category closest to them, whether they like it or not.

So as time goes on, and this person finds their sexuality, they will become more defined. Not because that is who they are, but because society is litterally squishing them into--in this case--the gay 'box'.

G<-!--------B---------->S

This is despite how they may pretend to be straight in order to escape ridicule or anything like that.

And the whole idea of 'gay' and 'straight' and 'bi' is intimately rooted in the oppression of women and the institution of the familly, which is a whole other story...

Point being that being social animals, our personalities, desires and fears are socially determined, and thus to say any of us has more control in who we want to ******** is rather silly.

Yay, hooray for gender studies 4laugh who needs genes anyway...

True, true. The "whole other story" is quite interesting itself.

alteregoivy

pansexuals

Love it. heart
Yeah, I'm an example razz "hope my boyfriend don't mind it"...  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Raticiel

Yay, hooray for gender studies 4laugh who needs genes anyway...

True, true. The "whole other story" is quite interesting itself.

alteregoivy

pansexuals

Love it. heart
Yeah, I'm an example razz "hope my boyfriend don't mind it"...

I've never been to university. redface I haven't done Gender Studies...


And yes, that 'whoe other story' is interesting. The 'woman question' is very close to me for some reason.  

[Raticiel]

Louis-Auguste Robespierre

Raticiel

Yay, hooray for gender studies 4laugh who needs genes anyway...

True, true. The "whole other story" is quite interesting itself.

alteregoivy

pansexuals

Love it. heart
Yeah, I'm an example razz "hope my boyfriend don't mind it"...

I've never been to university. redface I haven't done Gender Studies...

Nothing to be ashamed of. It's knowledge that counts, right?
Well, it's not that bad. Usually gender-specialist are hardcore feminists wink I have some of those at my university but luckily I had it with some more "normal" people and even if sometimes it was boring to hear same thing again and again, there were many interesting parts, I -for example- loved all classic feminist writers like Simone de Beauvoir and such, but whenever it comes too closely to marxism and political stuff I simply... get bored wink

Louis-Auguste Robespierre

And yes, that 'whoe other story' is interesting. The 'woman question' is very close to me for some reason.

Nice to hear it.
I had many of such thoughts like: maybe the rejection of religion is somehow connected to paternalism? I know of some author writing about it, but can't remeber her name sweatdrop like the god-father is a being created for controlling women mentality and such.  

[StevenStBlaize]

Nobody anywhere is better at love than anyone else based on sexuality. Love is unique to each individual and their experiences.  

[Raticiel]

StevenStBlaize

Nobody anywhere is better at love than anyone else based on sexuality. Love is unique to each individual and their experiences.

Yes, you're absolutely right. What is the damn "love" thing, anyway? Whenever I ask myself about, for example my current emotional situation, I'm getting simply numb. But while watching other people I usually judge them correctly (it's like a hobby). But not always...
A confusing thing.  

[StevenStBlaize]

Raticiel

StevenStBlaize

Nobody anywhere is better at love than anyone else based on sexuality. Love is unique to each individual and their experiences.

Yes, you're absolutely right. What is the damn "love" thing, anyway? Whenever I ask myself about, for example my current emotional situation, I'm getting simply numb. But while watching other people I usually judge them correctly (it's like a hobby). But not always...
A confusing thing.

I know how you feel. As for myself, I want love so badly that I simply replace it with the more physical aspects. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but love is killer. Whether you have it or you want it, it rips up your insides and lets you do the rest of the damage.