Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ptsfa.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!well!ptsfa!rob From: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) Newsgroups: net.motss Subject: Re: Bisexuality Message-ID: <816@ptsfa.UUCP> Date: Sun, 18-Aug-85 21:46:56 EDT Article-I.D.: ptsfa.816 Posted: Sun Aug 18 21:46:56 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 00:42:38 EDT References: <1302@hound.UUCP> Reply-To: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) Organization: Pacific Bell, San Francisco Lines: 35 In article <1302@hound.UUCP> psh@hound.UUCP (P.HANSON) writes: > > Is being bisexual never >to be happy? To satisfy both sexual preferences nearly eliminates the >possibility of a monogamous relationship. And to have a monogamous >relationship implies a sort of celebacy. Or does it? It seems to me that there could logically be two sorts of bisexuals:: 1. A person who has separate sexual desires for males and females, which is what Hanson assumes above. 2. A person with a single sexual desire that can be satisfied by both males and females. [For the purposes of this discussion, by "bisexual" I mean a person who has SIGNIFICANT sexual attraction to both females and males. To leave out the "significant" would, if Kinsey is right, mean including nearly everyone under the category "bisexual". And of course, there must be plenty of bisexuals even under this narrower definition, but out of homophobia or whatever, they chose to get married and not deal with their homosexual desires.] Any bisexual netters out there? Are you of type 1 or of type 2 above? -- +--------------+-------------------------------+ | Rob Bernardo | Pacific Bell | +--------------+ 2600 Camino Ramon, Room 4E700 | | 415-823-2417 | San Ramon, California 94583 | +--------------+-------------------------------+---------+ | ihnp4!ptsfa!rob | | {nsc,ucbvax,decwrl,amd,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob | +--------------------------------------------------------+