Sexual Fluidity

[Skwim]

Selected remarks taken from an article appearing in the Ottawa Citizen.

"Adèle is sexually fluid, a person who dabbles with either sex but unlike a bisexual, identifies as gay or straight. It’s a category more and more women fall under.

But Justin Timberlake has yet to release “I Kissed a Boy.” Why aren’t men as eager to go with the sexual flow?

The latest survey on sex and lifestyle from Britain showed women have experienced a 400 per cent increase in same sex sexual experimentation since 1991, whereas men have shot up a measly one per cent. Between 1992 and 2008, the number of bisexual women quadrupled while the number of bisexual men stayed roughly the same.

Sexual fluidity is a wonderful thing both sexes should be able to enjoy. It’s a freeing idea that instead of choosing a sexual label and sticking to it you can let yourself be ruled entirely by desire.
source and full story

​

Q. Is this something you can see as a wave of the future: increasing bisexual dalliances?

Q. If so, what are the moral ramifications of the practice, if any?

 

[Sunstone]

Q. Is this something you can see as a wave of the future: increasing bisexual dalliances?

Possibly, we'll see increasing numbers of women becoming sexually fluid, but I think it less likely that we'll see increasing numbers of men becoming sexually fluid. A while back I was reading up on the differences in sexuality between gay men and gay women, and I was struck by how much more frequently women who identified themselves as homosexuals were willing to engage in long-term or committed heterosexual relationships than were men who identified themselves as homosexuals. Some folks concluded from that, and from other lines of evidence, that gay women -- and possibly even women in general -- might typically have a less fixed sexual orientation that gay men, or than men in general.

If so, what are the moral ramifications of the practice, if any?

I don't view sexual fluidity as is itself any more relevant to morality than heterosexuality or any other orientation. That is, I see it as irrelevant.

 

[Badran]

As defined in the OP, i see it as a reasonable and sort of what should be perhaps a default approach to the matter, in so much of my understanding of how sexuality works. That is, one labels themselves with whatever they seem to almost always be attracted to, yet at the same time allow for any possible differing exceptions they might feel like doing.

Besides it being reasonable, it can also help reduce the importance of which sexual orientation label one belongs to. That is, if even people who are mostly or almost entirely heterosexual (or homosexual) can see how they might or want at some point to have sex with the gender they're normally not attracted to, the differences defuse further. Which is good, because there's no reason for the matter to be as clear cut or strict as many pretend it is.

 

[Penumbra]

Selected remarks taken from an article appearing in the Ottawa Citizen

"Adèle is sexually fluid, a person who dabbles with either sex but unlike a bisexual, identifies as gay or straight."

That's me then. I'm hetero but I was with a woman once. Is that what they're calling it now?

Q. Is this something you can see as a wave of the future: increasing bisexual dalliances?

Maybe a little bit more. If a society is less uptight about sex then people can explore what they want.

Q. If so, what are the moral ramifications of the practice, if any?

Probably none?

 

[oldbadger]

The latest survey on sex and lifestyle from Britain showed women have experienced a 400 per cent increase in same sex sexual experimentation since 1991, whereas men have shot up a measly one per cent.

[/INDENT]Q. Is this something you can see as a wave of the future: increasing bisexual dalliances?

Q. If so, what are the moral ramifications of the practice, if any?

Very interesting thread...... great.

There might be links to connect 'indulged societies' with 'hetero, homo and bi-sexual promiscuity'.
The differentiation between 'bi-sexuality' and 'hetero cross-sexuality' is of interest.

But one issue that keeps raising its head is that of the links between acute depression and satyriasis. I use that word with regard to all sexualities. In other words, 'the partners we have, the less satisfied we are, so the more we search, the less fulfilled, et cetera....

----------------------

I do not believe in 'no sex before marriage'.... very dangerous, methinks, but I do worry when I read the views of psychologists and psychiatrists who write about these kinds of issues. There are pages of them to be studied, but here are a selection for your scrutiny.

A Link Between Sexual Promiscuity and Depression in Teens ...
www.psychologytoday.com/.../link-between-sexual-promiscuity-and-dep...‎

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/201111/what-motivates-sexual-promiscuity
A forensic psychologist on anger, madness and destructive behavior.
by Dr. Stephen Diamond

The Psychological Root of Promiscuity —eHarmony Blog

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Selected remarks taken from an article appearing in the Ottawa Citizen.

"Adèle is sexually fluid, a person who dabbles with either sex but unlike a bisexual, identifies as gay or straight. It’s a category more and more women fall under.

But Justin Timberlake has yet to release “I Kissed a Boy.” Why aren’t men as eager to go with the sexual flow?

The latest survey on sex and lifestyle from Britain showed women have experienced a 400 per cent increase in same sex sexual experimentation since 1991, whereas men have shot up a measly one per cent. Between 1992 and 2008, the number of bisexual women quadrupled while the number of bisexual men stayed roughly the same.

Sexual fluidity is a wonderful thing both sexes should be able to enjoy. It’s a freeing idea that instead of choosing a sexual label and sticking to it you can let yourself be ruled entirely by desire.
source and full story​

Interesting. Though I can see that as being something to consider, I spent many years wondering what the hell was wrong with me until the orientation described me perfectly. I'm curious as to how I might have grown up differently if there wasn't such a thing as "straight" or "gay".

​

Q. Is this something you can see as a wave of the future: increasing bisexual dalliances?

Oh God, I hope so.

Q. If so, what are the moral ramifications of the practice, if any?

My own ethics have shaped into a few points of consideration:

1) Heightened awareness of sexual practices and contraceptives. Morally more conversation about prevalence of sexual practices helps the public become more aware of the various means of safe sex and STD testing.

2) Even though there seems to be more of a "free-for-all", I believe the possibility exists of having an increased sense of resolve. The focus on "am I, or am I not?" questions with all the stress and confusion can disappear, and replace the intense self-reflection with the questions concerning relationships themselves.

3) Gender norms? I have an inkling those could fade more quickly. Given that I can sexually desire both males and females and romantically desire both males and females, gender norms always seemed foreign and so incredibly arbitrary.

 

[Vouthon]

Interesting article!

I am for the most part "asexual" in my lifestyle and general orientation at the moment. I've been attracted to women in the past, particularly during my early teen years when hormones are a bit crazy. I've never desired sexual contact or intimacy with a man, although I've had fleeting moments when I've noticed someone whose overlook appeals to me on some level, to the extent that I would recognize them as good looking or beautiful, even though that person is of my own gender. Perhaps if I had tapped into that more I could have found myself stimulated or it might just be a form of admiration and jealousy for certain features that I'd like to have myself, who knows. From my religious perspective I would never contemplate bisexual activity anyway, even if I did happen one day to find myself sexually attracted to both genders, although I certainly would be happy in my sexuality if I did so (since there's nothing immoral in my religion about being attracted to people of the same gender).

Overall, I don't bother labelling myself. I don't actually like the whole "hetero/homo/bi" scale. Human beings are surely more complex than any mere "label". We're grey in my opinion, not black and white. Many different looks or indeed things can arouse the sexual side of our nature, or indeed nothing much at all as I have found out for the last three years.

I would thus see it as something positive if we moved beyond "categorizing" people. In fact, and some might find this a little ironic, the Catholic Church doesn't approve of these labels either:

"...The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life..."

- LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS, 1986

Its a very modern, that is post-scientific revolution kind of thing to try and identify, number, categorize and label everything whether that be birds, insects, elements or people. Ancient cultures didn't tend to do this, as far as I am aware. Sure, science might be that neat and tidy - or at least in biology, not so much Quantum Physics - but human psychology surely isn't. What is there deeper than the human mind? Who can plumb its depths? The Bible ponders that question in the Wisdom books of the Old Testament and for its very true.

I think it might be better if people focus on "who" they are attracted to and "why" (ie what look or personality works for them), rather than "what" they are attracted too. The rest, whether to act on those desires or not, can then be worked out according to that person's moral, religious (or not) and political worldview without reference to labelling themselves "hetero", "bi" or "homo".

 

[dawny0826]

Is this something you can see as a wave of the future: increasing bisexual dalliances?

A heterosexual who lacks bi-sexual drive, isn't going to be motivated to pursue a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex, just because a new and freeing label has been introduced. And that's essentially what this is...a new label. I can see the kids now. I'm sexually fluid!

If we were to stop using labels, people would still, naturally, have inclinations towards heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, etc. And we'd still find a way to label ourselves anyway.

I'm a bisexual female and when single, I considered myself rather sexually fluid - but, I was still bisexual. It was actually quite helpful to me to know that others identified as bisexual too.

I knew I wasn't alone.

If so, what are the moral ramifications of the practice, if any?

I don't foresee any additional moral ramifications that aren't already in existence.

Genuinely, I don't see this as a new concept as there are a lot of people who are already "sexually fluid" and aren't using such labeling to describe their mindset.

 

[Penumbra]

Very interesting thread...... great.

There might be links to connect 'indulged societies' with 'hetero, homo and bi-sexual promiscuity'.
The differentiation between 'bi-sexuality' and 'hetero cross-sexuality' is of interest.

But one issue that keeps raising its head is that of the links between acute depression and satyriasis. I use that word with regard to all sexualities. In other words, 'the partners we have, the less satisfied we are, so the more we search, the less fulfilled, et cetera....

----------------------

I do not believe in 'no sex before marriage'.... very dangerous, methinks, but I do worry when I read the views of psychologists and psychiatrists who write about these kinds of issues. There are pages of them to be studied, but here are a selection for your scrutiny.

A Link Between Sexual Promiscuity and Depression in Teens ...
www.psychologytoday.com/.../link-between-sexual-promiscuity-and-dep...‎

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/201111/what-motivates-sexual-promiscuity
A forensic psychologist on anger, madness and destructive behavior.
by Dr. Stephen Diamond

The Psychological Root of Promiscuity —eHarmony Blog

Sexual fluidity (as this article is calling it), is not the same thing as promiscuity. The former is about having a degree of attraction to more than one gender, while the latter is usually more about a large number of sexual partners.

 

[Penumbra]

I came across these statistics a while ago that I found interesting, and that I guess are relevant here.

OK Cupid Gay/Straight Statistics

It's a skewed sample (predominantly young-ish internet users interested in dating and socializing), but basically OK Cupid (huge dating and social site) is reporting on the statistics of their 3.2 million users, and in this article it's specifically about sexual orientation.

So they list all sorts of facts about their users. There are statistics about how many sexual partners each sexual orientation has had, and there is an interesting part where they show what sorts of hobbies that gay and straight people tend to be interested in. Also, Oregon is apparently the most bi-curious US state.

But the part that's relevant here is that there are pie charts. They asked a couple hundred thousand self-identified heterosexual people, "Have you ever had a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex?"

For men, 82% said no and they never will, 7% said they did and they enjoyed it, 6% said they did but they didn't enjoy it, and 5% said they have not but they would like to.

For women, 49% said no and they never will, a full 26% said they did and they enjoyed it, 7% said they did but they didn't enjoy it, and 18% said they have not but they would like to. So a full third of straight women in the sample have had "a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex" whatever that means and then there's like another fifth that want to. More than half of women in the sample have either had or would like to have, a sexual encounter with the same sex. So these women are predominantly dating men, but have a side interest in women, either in theory or in practice. I don't view it as accurate to describe myself as bisexual despite having been with a woman and having enjoyed it, so there is sort of a difference here.

 

[Father Heathen]

Selected remarks taken from an article appearing in the Ottawa Citizen.

"Adèle is sexually fluid, a person who dabbles with either sex but unlike a bisexual, identifies as gay or straight. It’s a category more and more women fall under.

But Justin Timberlake has yet to release “I Kissed a Boy.” Why aren’t men as eager to go with the sexual flow?

The latest survey on sex and lifestyle from Britain showed women have experienced a 400 per cent increase in same sex sexual experimentation since 1991, whereas men have shot up a measly one per cent. Between 1992 and 2008, the number of bisexual women quadrupled while the number of bisexual men stayed roughly the same.

Sexual fluidity is a wonderful thing both sexes should be able to enjoy. It’s a freeing idea that instead of choosing a sexual label and sticking to it you can let yourself be ruled entirely by desire.
source and full story

​

Q. Is this something you can see as a wave of the future: increasing bisexual dalliances?

Q. If so, what are the moral ramifications of the practice, if any?

I think it's cultural attitudes; a woman desiring another woman isn't seen as un-feminine, but a man desiring another man is seen as un-masculine, and because of this perception men who have such desires might feel too insecure to explore them.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I think it's cultural attitudes; a woman desiring another woman isn't seen as un-feminine, but a man desiring another man is seen as un-masculine, and because of this perception men who have such desires might feel too insecure to explore them.

But also I think in the west, women loving women has had a bit of a history of not been taken seriously, so in victorian England you had laws against gay sex but not lesbian sex because lesbians were thought to not really exist and they could be easily "cured" or in reality easily controlled through marriage or being raped by men in a mental hospital.
Also just to add to the view of demasculisation of men by gay sex, with women since there is no penis involved it doesn't make a difference to how her femininity is viewed. But the one accepting the penis is seen as being the submissive one, so in gay sex because penis is involved someone has to play the "submissive" role. Which is why gay sex is seen as threatening to a man's masculinity.

 

[Penumbra]

But also I think in the west, women loving women has had a bit of a history of not been taken seriously, so in victorian England you had laws against gay sex but not lesbian sex because lesbians were thought to not really exist and they could be easily "cured" or in reality easily controlled through marriage or being raped by men in a mental hospital.

^This, plus the Bible has an impact on western culture, the Old Testament specifically condemns male gay sex, and then translations are maybe questionable but Paul in the New Testament talks mostly about gay men as well, with perhaps one mention of women doing it, from what I remember.

Focus is almost always on the guys when talking about homosexuality, homosexual marriage, etc. It's always about that one specific sex act between men, rather than the full range of same sex behavior between men or between women.

Also just to add to the view of demasculisation of men by gay sex, with women since there is no penis involved it doesn't make a difference to how her femininity is viewed. But the one accepting the penis is seen as being the submissive one, so in gay sex because penis is involved someone has to play the "submissive" role. Which is why gay sex is seen as threatening to a man's masculinity.

This is true, and in cultures of antiquity and some other places, the man that is giving rather than receiving for that act, is not necessarily even viewed as gay, and his masculinity is not in question. Only the one that is accepting. But pretty much cross-culturally, a man that is accepting in that type of sex, is viewed as submissive, as not masculine, which is unfortunate.

 

[Skwim]

A heterosexual who lacks bi-sexual drive, isn't going to be motivated to pursue a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex, just because a new and freeing label has been introduced. And that's essentially what this is...a new label. I can see the kids now. I'm sexually fluid!

But the article makes the point that this sexual fluidity isn't a matter of bi-sexual drive, but a dabbling in the other sexual camp: a straight person dallying with someone of the same sex or a homosexual dallying with someone of the opposite sex.

Genuinely, I don't see this as a new concept as there are a lot of people who are already "sexually fluid" and aren't using such labeling to describe their mindset.

And I don't believe it's new either, although I wasn't aware it was as prevalent as the article implies, or has grown to such a huge extent among women.

For men, 82% said no and they never will, 7% said they did and they enjoyed it, 6% said they did but they didn't enjoy it, and 5% said they have not but they would like to.

For women, 49% said no and they never will, a full 26% said they did and they enjoyed it, 7% said they did but they didn't enjoy it, and 18% said they have not but they would like to. So a full third of straight women in the sample have had "a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex" whatever that means and then there's like another fifth that want to. More than half of women in the sample have either had or would like to have, a sexual encounter with the same sex. So these women are predominantly dating men, but have a side interest in women, either in theory or in practice. I don't view it as accurate to describe myself as bisexual despite having been with a woman and having enjoyed it, so there is sort of a difference here.

Interesting. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Sexual fluidity (as this article is calling it), is not the same thing as promiscuity. The former is about having a degree of attraction to more than one gender, while the latter is usually more about a large number of sexual partners.

Exactly.

I think it's cultural attitudes; a woman desiring another woman isn't seen as un-feminine, but a man desiring another man is seen as un-masculine, and because of this perception men who have such desires might feel too insecure to explore them.

I think there's a bit of truth in this. I more easily see a woman understanding two women "getting it on," than I see a guy understanding two men doing the same. And maybe it's because I'm a pretty dyed-in-the-wool heterosexual male but this is my take on the two situations: Two females?---Hey, you go girls.

Two males---Ugh!

And come to think of it, this very attitude is prevalent in porno. Some guys get just as much of a kick out of seeing two females go at it, as they get watching a guy and girl doing their thing.

 

[oldbadger]

Sexual fluidity (as this article is calling it), is not the same thing as promiscuity. The former is about having a degree of attraction to more than one gender, while the latter is usually more about a large number of sexual partners.

Hello............

I think it was about both 'things'.....

Skwim's question A was:-

Q. Is this something you can see as a wave of the future: increasing bisexual dalliances?

That's plurality of dalliances..... ??

 

[Skwim]

Hello............

I think it was about both 'things'.....

Skwim's question A was:-


That's plurality of dalliances..... ??

Just to be clear, I wasn't thinking of increasing encounters per person, but of more people having such encounters.

 

[oldbadger]

Just to be clear, I wasn't thinking of increasing encounters per person, but of more people having such encounters.

Hi Skwim....... Cool. My mindset sent me wrongly over that.

But....... having said that (here's the comeback ) it still causes me to focus upon the integrity of the person who chooses to lay with any other, outside of a 'close' partnership.

 

[Penumbra]

Hi Skwim....... Cool. My mindset sent me wrongly over that.

But....... having said that (here's the comeback ) it still causes me to focus upon the integrity of the person who chooses to lay with any other, outside of a 'close' partnership.

What does that have to do with integrity?

 

[LuisDantas]

Q. Is this something you can see as a wave of the future: increasing bisexual dalliances?

I do not know whether they will increase - it could go either way - but I fully expect them to be fully accepted as normal.

I don't expect males to particularly want to experiment with bisexuality in any case. A male-biased culture sees male postures as empowering, and therefore experimenting male roles will have an added attractive. That is IMO why there are so many more women experimenting with homosexual affection for experiment's sake than there are men.

Q. If so, what are the moral ramifications of the practice, if any?

Not too many, and very few if any are undesirable.

Mainly, it reminds people that exclusivity is to be earned instead of assumed.

I believe that may be a bit shocking to some people, particularly young children and parents who do not feel at ease talking about sexuality.

 

[LuisDantas]

What does that have to do with integrity?

Good question. Maybe you mean that limiting physical intimacy to people who one feels strongly commited to is in some sense morally or ethically superior to other behaviors, Oldbadger?