four orientation theory again

[David Dalton]

I still believe that I am compatible only with women who
are bisexual by nature (attracted to both genders, regardless
of whom they choose to have sex with) and have had some
orgasms (so I used to be attracted to older women more
when I was young).

So given that, I have a four orientation theory --- that
there is a fourth orientation compatible only with
bisexual by nature of the other gender. The four
orientations are then purestraight, bi, gay/lesbian
and fourth orientation.

So do any of you have any observations that might
confirm or deny my theory? In the past respondents
have talked about a spectrum of bisexuality, and I
agree with that. I do have occasional low level
attraction to males though some of this is third
eye distortion which I can brush off and some of
it is bifs in male form (transgendered). In any
case it isn't at a level sufficient for me to call
myself bisexual by nature (also I did not have
such attractions when growing up).

--
David Dalton dal...@nfld.com http://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/nf.html Newfoundland&Labrador Travel & Music
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"Here I go again...back into the flame" (Sarah McLachlan)

[Entrepreneurial Wombat]

It seems to me that you're confusing "orientation" and "fetish". If you're a man who's attracted only to women, your orientation is heterosexual.

[David Dalton]

In article
<22555914.293.1318940547087.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbmh5>,

Entrepreneurial Wombat <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems to me that you're confusing "orientation" and "fetish". If you're a
> man who's attracted only to women, your orientation is heterosexual.

Yes, but I claim that there are two types of heterosexual,
purstraight (best compatible with purstraight of the
other gender) and fourth orientation (compatible only
with bisexual[s] of the other gender and not compatible
with purestraight ofthe other gender). I choose to
call them separate orientations but perhaps you would
prefer to call them subtypes of heterosexual.

[The Millennium Wombat]

No, I wouldn't call something a subtype until there's evidence that substantial proportions of the population of that type can be divided into each of the subtypes.

If the numbers don't appear to be substantial, the word fetish is more appropriate. In modern psychology it doesn't have a pejorative meaning, it just refers to the normal variations you get on the spectrum of sexuality.

[David Weinshenker]

The Millennium Wombat wrote:
> If the numbers don't appear to be substantial,
> the word fetish is more appropriate. In modern
> psychology it doesn't have a pejorative meaning,
> it just refers to the normal variations you get
> on the spectrum of sexuality.

Yeah, I guess the best non-pejorative description of
"fetish" would be an aspect of the sexual experience
that is peculiarly enabling or stimulating, such that
without that emotionally significant element there is
likely to be aversion or disinterest.

And if we remove the question of "substantial" numbers,
we can use the concept to ask questions about what is
commonly taken for normal: for example, why do so many
"straight" guys display an intense breast fetish?

Or we could even view the concept of "vanilla" in such
terms - as a "normality fetish": in this case, the
"peculiarly emotionally significant" aspect of the
desired sexual situation isn't some object or activity
as such, but that it is whatever sort of sex happens to
be "marked" by internalized cultural convention as "the
kind of sex that Normal-People have".

-dave w

[David Dalton]

In article
<17147751.1190.1319018686812.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqkb19>,

The Millennium Wombat <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, I wouldn't call something a subtype until there's evidence that
> substantial proportions of the population of that type can be divided into
> each of the subtypes.

But I believe there may be up to 40% of the population
who are bi by nature (have significant attraction to both
genders, regardless of who they choose to have sex with,
and many of them live a straight lifestyle) and about
20% who are fourth orientation. If that is true then
my fourth orientation counts as an orientation. Also
orientation is defined based on who you are compatible
with, and a fourth orientation male such as me is
compatible ONLY with bisexual by nature women.

[The Millennium Wombat]

On Wednesday, October 19, 2011 6:01:34 PM UTC+1, David Dalton wrote:
> In article
> <17147751.1190.1319018686812.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqkb19>,
> The Millennium Wombat <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No, I wouldn't call something a subtype until there's evidence that
> > substantial proportions of the population of that type can be divided into
> > each of the subtypes.
>
> But I believe there may be up to 40% of the population
> who are bi by nature (have significant attraction to both
> genders, regardless of who they choose to have sex with,
> and many of them live a straight lifestyle) and about
> 20% who are fourth orientation.

You can believe what you like, but until there's evidence - oh wait, I said that already.

I presume you don't have any or you would have mentioned it.

Asking on soc.bi is one way to get evidence, but so far not a single person has said they have ever met anyone who shares your fetish. Certainly I haven't come across it before in 20 years of interacting with bi communities.

The nearest I've found is a bi woman I dated who said she only dated bi men because she thought we're better in bed - and that was only before dating me. And that's a pragmatic opinion, definitely not an orientation.


J.

[Ulrich M. Schwarz]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:59:43 +0200, The Millennium Wombat
<jimb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The nearest I've found is a bi woman I dated who said she only dated bi
> men because she thought we're better in bed - and that was only before
> dating me.

Hey Jon, want to swap me something for this freshly and only slightly
stained keyboard?

Ulrich
(who does most of his dating in the larder)

[David Dalton]

In article
<30013261.1227.1319446783434.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqgd7>,

The Millennium Wombat <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 19, 2011 6:01:34 PM UTC+1, David Dalton wrote:
> > In article
> > <17147751.1190.1319018686812.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqkb19>,
> > The Millennium Wombat <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > No, I wouldn't call something a subtype until there's evidence that
> > > substantial proportions of the population of that type can be divided
> > > into
> > > each of the subtypes.
> >
> > But I believe there may be up to 40% of the population
> > who are bi by nature (have significant attraction to both
> > genders, regardless of who they choose to have sex with,
> > and many of them live a straight lifestyle) and about
> > 20% who are fourth orientation.
>
> You can believe what you like, but until there's evidence - oh wait, I said
> that already.
>
> I presume you don't have any or you would have mentioned it.
>
> Asking on soc.bi is one way to get evidence, but so far not a single person
> has said they have ever met anyone who shares your fetish. Certainly I
> haven't come across it before in 20 years of interacting with bi communities.

That may be because the majority of those who are bi by nature
(have significant attraction to both genders) say they are
straight, and a few gay/lesbian say they are bi.

[Alan J Rosenthal]

David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com> writes:
>That may be because the majority of those who are bi by nature
>(have significant attraction to both genders) say they are straight,

You, of course, know better.

[The Millennium Wombat]

On Monday, October 24, 2011 11:30:28 PM UTC+1, David Dalton wrote:
> In article
> <30013261.1227.1319446783434.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqgd7>,
> The Millennium Wombat <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, October 19, 2011 6:01:34 PM UTC+1, David Dalton wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <17147751.1190.1319018686812.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqkb19>,

> > > The Millennium Wombat <jim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > No, I wouldn't call something a subtype until there's evidence that
> > > > substantial proportions of the population of that type can be divided
> > > > into
> > > > each of the subtypes.
> > >
> > > But I believe there may be up to 40% of the population
> > > who are bi by nature (have significant attraction to both
> > > genders, regardless of who they choose to have sex with,
> > > and many of them live a straight lifestyle) and about
> > > 20% who are fourth orientation.
> >
> > You can believe what you like, but until there's evidence - oh wait, I said
> > that already.

(This would have been the point to put forward your evidence for your 20% figure if you had any.)

> > I presume you don't have any or you would have mentioned it.
> >
> > Asking on soc.bi is one way to get evidence, but so far not a single person
> > has said they have ever met anyone who shares your fetish. Certainly I
> > haven't come across it before in 20 years of interacting with bi communities.
>
> That may be because the majority of those who are bi by nature
> (have significant attraction to both genders) say they are
> straight, and a few gay/lesbian say they are bi.

Yes, it might, but I can't think of a better way of guaging the opinions of bisexuals without research funding.

See, there are really only two ways of telling what proportion of people have a particular sexual orientation: you can believe what they tell you about how they identify and put up with mis-reporting, or you can try and measure behaviour which also has problems because sexual behaviour is mostly private. ISTM research in that area hasn't really progressed very far for decades.

J.

[David Dalton]

In article
<6922370.3903.1319555740861.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqlb4>,

But my definition of bisexual by nature is that they have
significant attraction to both genders. They may be bisexual
by lifestyle, straight by lifestyle, gay/lesbian by lifestyle,
or celibate by lifestyle. One way of testing to see if they
are bisexual by nature is to flash them pictures of both
genders and measure any physiological signs of arousal.

But no, I have no evidence yet for my 20% fourth orientation
and 40% bisexual by nature yet.

[David Weinshenker]

David Dalton wrote:
> One way of testing to see if they
> are bisexual by nature is to flash them pictures of both
> genders and measure any physiological signs of arousal.

Aren't you conflating "orientation to
genders" with "arousal to pictures" here?

-dave w