Innate Bisexuality

So the theory goes like this: Everyone is bisexual and everything else is a preference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innate_bisexuality

By a doctor who never "helped" any of his patience? Its hard to take him seriously personally. My choice and I find the Fruad valid in ...his world. In my Jedi ism these labels seem to be something more to overcome. My stance is all live is valid. Any silly label is our own idea. Need examples of love? I won't label them but I knew a person who stood every time his love entered the building... Gay or bi or not, that's attention to ...their details!. Really what does sexuality matter? A great topic to discuss or a block some may never get past? My goal is to build so I say... Label less see more!

My only real contribution here is that I think I really like the term "polymorphously perverse".

Whyte Horse wrote: So the theory goes like this: Everyone is bisexual and everything else is a preference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innate_bisexuality

Cool. Now people can stop fussing about what is or not "natural" and simply enjoy the ride (no pun intended)

TRY-Sexual?

Magnus Staar wrote:

Whyte Horse wrote: So the theory goes like this: Everyone is bisexual and everything else is a preference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innate_bisexuality

Cool. Now people can stop fussing about what is or not "natural" and simply enjoy the ride (no pun intended)

exactly. It was becoming cumbersome to have all the LGBTQABCDEFGHIJK alphabet. Anyway, new theories come along and old theories get replaced.

No that is not even close to the theory. The theory states that we possibly start that way in the womb but that it is normal to tip one way or the other as we mature. That does not mean everyone is bisexual and everything else is just preference. I myself am bisexual with a learning for men but an honest interpretation of the concept is vital. Further, Freud had been discredited in most of his theories. For all his good works he got much if not most wrong. So while its an interesting idea this wiki article alone does not prove the interpretations drawn from it.

I tend to agree with the concept and would go a step further and say its probably anything-sexual! The mind is a powerful thing, and I find the concept of sexual reward quite flexible in that it can be bound or unbound and applied to anything or nothing at all. We certainly are complex enough to fool ourselves, and so if we do have some base nature in this regard I'd love to know about it. But stripping away all the constructs I guess its about a stimulus reaching a threshold to trigger something, and so the more of the mind and body which can be recruited to the experience the more effective it might function. Meaning the whole social and self domains of identity play into it along with all the other parts of our brain like curiosity. To me then sexuality might be just a function of psychology more then biology, from where I'm sitting at least... but then I blame nurture a lot more then nature for most stuff!! But as mentioned, I'm probably fooling myself and so would love science to tell me haha.

Yes, it's obvious we need a new theory of sexuality. People can rip on Freud because he was a coke-head or had poor data, but he kinda sent things in a direction that advanced the field. Now that we have all this new data from fMRI, DNA, twin studies, genetics, etc we should move forward. Innate bisexuality is kind of olde-fashioned but it's a start. The next step is that people are born neutral and develop sexuality in an environmental context. something like that.

I have a question and I’m sure it will not be popular.

Why do we need a new theory of sexuality?