Comics Should Mystique be considered a bisexual?

[Max Shrek]

I actually know quite a lot of people who claim to be bisexuals, and do emphasize the word claim. Also, there was a study in Britain last year and it proved that there is no such thing as bisexuality, maybe I'll look it up on google



WEll believe what you must, but until I see a panel with her being born as a blue skinned girl I shall believe in other possibilities. I find it hard to confine my thoughts when there is a window open for other interpretations

I could be classified as bi-sexual but I don't want to be. IMO bi-sexuality, homosexuality, heterosexuality is all a load of crap. They're just labels that divide people. Love comes in all shapes, all sizes, all genders. I'm open to anyone because I really don't know if my love will be a man or woman and even if I find them, I'm not going to say "Now, I'm gay" "Now, I'm straight." You love someone for how they are on the inside, not if they have a penis or vagina. Same with Mystique.

 

[Valechan]

Amen to that Michiru, however wether we like it or not, society uses this labels, and we mus abide by them, regardless of how much we believe them to be wrong

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

I love bisexual mystique.

 

[Effect]

I like the idea that Mystique was prehaps born with no gender at all and when he mutant gene kicked in she choose to appear as a woman due to maybe being raised that way (either cause her facial features might have been more femine or perhaps because she had nothing dowstairs but still no true gender physically). Meanng she could be truely bisexual.

As for the other converstation. I don't really have a strong opinion. Being born one way or choosing to have sex with a certain gender. I think it all comes down to the person. Some do things for similar reasons while others have completely different reasons for why they do things. Don't think one can make a decision that fits everyone. It's like a situation I feel where a person's parents could be saints yet they end up a mass murder or a person could come from a broken home or a drug using parents but end up becoming a doctor or lawyer through their own hard work. A lot of things are unexplainable at times I feel. Granted those are extreme situations but there are far to many variables to pin something on one thing.

 

[weatherwitch]

Amen to that Michiru, however wether we like it or not, society uses this labels, and we mus abide by them, regardless of how much we believe them to be wrong

No we mustn't. Where is is doctrined that we must abide, accept or even acknowledge the labels placed upon the people by whatever society happens to be dominant in that culture? Definitions (and labels)are only for those with weak minds that need structure because an open mind and possibilities are far more daunting than they can handle.

 

[mightiest_mortal]

You love someone for how they are on the inside, not if they have a penis or vagina. Same with Mystique.

rofl... love people for whats on the inside.. you slay me lol

No we mustn't. Where is is doctrined that we must abide, accept or even acknowledge the labels placed upon the people by whatever society happens to be dominant in that culture? Definitions (and labels)are only for those with weak minds that need structure because an open mind and possibilities are far more daunting than they can handle.

but are they labels or are they just words?

If I say a person is a Goth, am i labelling them? or am I using a common word to describe them more easily to others?

If I say a person is homosexual, am i labelling them? or am I just using a common word to more efficiently say that they are sexually attracted to persons of the same gender as themselves?

 

[weatherwitch]

but are they labels or are they just words?

If I say a person is a Goth, am i labelling them? or am I using a common word to describe them more easily to others?

If I say a person is homosexual, am i labelling them? or am I just using a common word to more efficiently say that they are sexually attracted to persons of the same gender as themselves?

Since one of my fields of studies is linguistics and language (and I am in the process of discecting Derrida) this is probably not a good question to direct at me for debate--simply because I can go on endlessly in a philosophical and personal context that is far too deep for a comic discussion board--and waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay boring for those that wouldn't get it. So, I'll simply say that for mewords are never just words. What is signified and to whom will invariably differ based on individuality, who is using it, and who/what it is directly refrencing; so a term such as "goth" is indeed a label as far as I'm concerned, because it is a bundled up term, the logos for a certain look (perhaps way of life) but in truth falls short of adequately describing anyone.

Hope that clarrified my pov.

 

[mad_harleyq]

sexuality is in someones mind, so despite her change of appearance, attraction is based on something completely different, so she is bisexual

 

[synnerman]

oh come on, It's pretty damned obvious.
So being gay is genetic? How could a gay gene seriously survive more than one generation? It would have been the first gene to b evolved out back in Caveman times, unless we're saying that its a random mutation.
So if its not genetic its got to be psychological. I'm not saying that they chose to be gay, its based on social conditioning theyve recieved since being born, the same conditioning which governs our morals and the majority of our personality.

I was going to just pass on by, but that is some of the most absolutely ill informed genetic resoning ever. Even Mendelson's work can show that "unfavorable" traits can pass through a population. Besides, there are many hormonal and enzymatic expressions that control genetic experession. Not to mention that genes don't vanish simply because one person who has them does not decide to reproduce. If that was the case a lot of cancers and hemophilia would have been nipped in the bud because of genetic predisposition. But it hasn't, because genetics is no where near that cut and dried.

This isn't High School Pea Pod experimentation and god knows freshman and sophomore college biology doesn't cover it.

Also the most publicized studies about whether or homosexuality is genetic confirms that there are structural differences in the brains of homosexuals that lend to there being some, if not genetic then germ level (as in cellular gem level during replication after zygote formation) replication that makes it happen.

And since you cannot be bothered to support your statements with evidence from educational institutions, peer reviewed journals or actual researchers as opposed to people who "interpret" the results for their spin, here are a couple of links.

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Gay/Text.html

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/20/7356?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=savic&searchid=1116600068086_14726&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=pnas

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/search?qbe=pnas;0407998102&journalcode=pnas&minscore=5000

http://www.nerve.com/Regulars/ScienceOfSex/09-05-00/

God knows wading through the google spam is not easy.