NationStates Jolt Archive

Inquriing minds want to know.

Why wouldn't there be?

Sure, why not?

I’m of the opinion that nearly everyone is a bit bisexual.

*will not touch this thread with a 10-metre pole*

*realises the irony in touching it to make it known he will no longer be touching it, so you can shut up about that, you "clever" people out there*

*will not touch this thread with a 10-metre pole*

*realises the irony in touching it to make it known he will no longer be touching it, so you can shut up about that, you "clever" people out there*
Damn! And you were one of the reasons I even POSTED the damned thing! :(

Why wouldn't there be?
I don't know, but lots of the gay people I have talked to seem to think that "bisexual" is nothing but a confused gay! :confused:

Yes. But apparently, according to some people, I cannot be bisexual or agnostic... I'm coming to the conclusion that I don't exist. So, perhaps... no?

If this is refering to what I think it's refering to:
No opinion.

I’m of the opinion that nearly everyone is a bit bisexual.
You and Fass should get along famously! NOT! LOL! :p

I don't know, but lots of the gay people I have talked to seem to think that "bisexual" is nothing but a confused gay! :confused:

Well then, those people are clearly dumbfucks.

Damn! And you were one of the reasons I even POSTED the damned thing! :(

I know bait when I see it.

*touches briefly additional time, forces himself to quit it, already!*

I don't know, but lots of the gay people I have talked to seem to think that "bisexual" is nothing but a confused gay! :confused:
Apparently it's not about what I think it's about. Still no opinion.

Yes. But apparently, according to some people, I cannot be bisexual or agnostic... I'm coming to the conclusion that I don't exist. So, perhaps... no?
So why do you say "yes?"

I honestly am confused over this entire issue. Some people claim to be bisexual, while others ( primarily gay ) claim there is no such thing. :confused:

*will not touch this thread with a 10-metre pole*

*realises the irony in touching it to make it known he will no longer be touching it, so you can shut up about that, you "clever" people out there*
I just assumed your pole was longer than 10 feet.

Being bisexual, I might just say yes....
Either I'm believed or I'm not. There's not much else to it. And I really don't give a damn either way.

If "bisexual" is meant in the sense of "someone whose sexual attraction does not distinguish at all between the sexes," I don't know.

If "bisexual" includes, however, those who reasonably often experience sexual attraction to members of both sexes, but who are more strongly/more easily/more often attracted to members of one, then most definitely, yes, it does exist.

bisexual = just (sexually) greedy ;)

So why do you say "yes?"

I honestly am confused over this entire issue. Some people claim to be bisexual, while others ( primarily gay ) claim there is no such thing. :confused:
Because I am? If I exist, I've done a bunch of bisexual things.

I dunno, I like both genders and I've got the parts to match. So whadda I know. Fass'd say I'm gay and in denial. Others'd say I'm straight but misguided.

All I really know is, politicizing gender preference is teh sux0rz.

I don't know, but lots of the gay people I have talked to seem to think that "bisexual" is nothing but a confused gay! :confused:

"lots", or just Fass?

Meh.

There's no end of straight people who believe that gay people don't actually exist and only a relatively short time frame ago homosexuality was treated as a "curable" illness.

Sometimes I wonder if Fass is taking the piss out of that whole argument. ;)

bisexual = just (sexually) greedy ;)
heh, you know I say that purely as a self-mocking thing :p
I'd just like to make clear, in all seriousness, how inaccurate that is *nods*

*hugs* i hope you're okay....

I don't know, but lots of the gay people I have talked to seem to think that "bisexual" is nothing but a confused gay! :confused:
I've heard that before as well, but I have had a couple of friends who claim to be bi as well, and the thing they have in common is that they have a combination of an inordinately high sex drive and they're not real choosy. On other words, they don't care which sex they fuck, as long as they're fucking and their partners are human (or some reasonable facsimile).

I don't know, but lots of the gay people I have talked to seem to think that "bisexual" is nothing but a confused gay! :confused:

Whatever I am, I am most certainly not a "confused gay."

"Confused straight," I could see, maybe. But even that explanation fails to explain away all the facts.

Bisexual does not exist, it is just being greedy
So, greedy = bisexuality? OK. Then my sexual orientation is Greed.

I just assumed your pole was longer than 10 feet.

Well, seeing as I said it was ten metres, you assumed the known.

Inquriing minds want to know.

Well... seeing that I exist... and seeing that I enjoy both... yup. Bisexuals exist.
:)

Well, seeing as I said it was ten metres, you assumed the known.
You're Europeaness slipped by me.

Ya, sure they exist.

I'm bisexual and I exist. So yes.

"lots", or just Fass?
Meh.
There's no end of straight people who believe that gay people don't actually exist and only a relatively short time frame ago homosexuality was treated as a "curable" illness.
Sometimes I wonder if Fass is taking the piss out of that whole argument. ;)

Or maybe, just maybe, I'm tired of the "bisexuals" who are only "bisexual" to make their straight boyfriends happy with the prospect of a potential threesome, or of the "bisexuals" who scream at the top of their lungs how much better their sexuality is, how much better people they are for "falling in love with personalities, not sexes," because the rest of us fall in love with twats and cocks, who may or may not be attached to people, only to be seen years, or even months, down the line settling into a heterosexual relationship in almost all cases, blaming it on being somehow "easier," because it gets their mummies off their backs and gives them legal recognition, and may deign to treat their wobbling same-sex interest as more a fetish, a kink to talk about at cocktail parties to show how open-minded they are, being the better people, but not so good as to stick with a homosexual partner.

A lot of it is piss-taking, though.

I'm bisexual and I exist. So yes.
Do you exist? DO YOU?!!?!?!?!?!

Or maybe, just maybe, I'm tired of the "bisexuals" who are only "bisexual" to make their straight boyfriends happy with the prospect of a potential threesome, or of the "bisexuals" who scream at the top of their lungs how much better their sexuality is, how much better people they are for "falling in love with personalities, not sexes," because the rest of us fall in love with twats and cocks, who may or may not be attached to people, only to be seen years, or even months, down the line settling into a heterosexual relationship in almost all cases, blaming it on being somehow "easier," because it gets their mummies off their backs and gives them legal recognition, and may deign to treat their wobbling same-sex interest as more a fetish, a kink to talk about at cocktail parties to show how open-minded they are, being the better peoplem, but not so good as to stick with a homosexual partner.

A lot of it is piss-taking, though.

Hahahaha, ouch. :D

Or maybe, just maybe, I'm tired of the "bisexuals" who are only "bisexual" to make their straight boyfriends happy with the prospect of a potential threesome, or of the "bisexuals" who scream at the top of their lungs how much better their sexuality is, how much better people they are for "falling in love with personalities, not sexes," because the rest of us fall in love with twats and cocks, who may or may not be attached to people, only to be seen years, or even months, down the line settling into a heterosexual relationship in almost all cases, blaming it on being somehow "easier," because it gets their mummies off their backs and gives them legal recognition, and may deign to treat their wobbling same-sex interest as more a fetish, a kink to talk about at cocktail parties to show how open-minded they are, being the better people.

A lot of it is piss-taking, though.
Well, we're not all braying obnoxiously about our gender prefs, Fass. This is why I choose to pass on these topics, for the most part. I've got it together, I'm happy, my partners are happy, I don't have a mummy to fret over, and I just like living a quiet lifestyle with cocks and asses and twats and titties to play with. So what's with the big chip on the shoulder, anyway?

Inquriing minds want to know.

'Bisexual' is probably the ONLY orientation.... and we each just find a comfortable position somewhere in that whole bracket.

'Bisexual' is probably the ONLY orientation.... and we each just find a comfortable position somewhere in that whole bracket.

There it is again, the bisupremacism, this "we're all bisexual deep down inside, or originally," bullshit!

It's utter crap, that's what it is. Get it through your head: nobody likes it when bisexuals do that. Nobody except other immature bisexuals. We are not all "originally, or really" bisexual. Cut it the fuck out, already.

And people wonder why I deny bisexuality as a form of satire. Bisexuals tend to deny everything else!

Well, we're not all braying obnoxiously about our gender prefs, Fass. This is why I choose to pass on these topics, for the most part. I've got it together, I'm happy, my partners are happy, I don't have a mummy to fret over, and I just like living a quiet lifestyle with cocks and asses and twats and titties to play with. So what's with the big chip on the shoulder, anyway?

Once I stop hearing bisexuals denying hetero- and homosexuality, I will stop denying bisexuality as it will no longer be needed as an effort to make them realise just how stupid it is to claim what people "truly" are.

'Bisexual' is probably the ONLY orientation.... and we each just find a comfortable position somewhere in that whole bracket.
sweet! let's revive yesterday's debate on atheism: yes/no, the binary numbers, the spectrum, and the whole bit, but apply it to bisexuality!

Once I stop hearing bisexuals denying hetero- and homosexuality, I will stop denying bisexuality as it will no longer be needed as an effort to make them realise just how stupid it is to claim what people "truly" are.

*hands Fass the biggest box of special cookies ever*

Once I stop hearing bisexuals denying hetero- and homosexuality, I will stop denying bisexuality as it will no longer be needed as an effort to make them realise just how stupid it is to claim what people "truly" are.
Well, I might be bisexual, but I don't go around calling myself anything at all. I leave it to others to pigeon-hole themselves and those around themselves. The whole thing just makes me laugh more often than not, these ludicrous pronouncements people are given to making. People are just people. What they're looking for, nestled between the thighs of their partners-of-choice, is of little or no consequence as far as I'm concerned.

*hands Fass the biggest box of special cookies ever*

*assumes the "special" is pot, in which case, he just got the munchies*

As a lot of people have said, I exist, so yes.

Some people love the opposite sex. Some love the same sex. Why shouldn't some love both? None are superior, they're just different. It's the difference that causes the strife. Too bad we can't all just accept that everyone has their own tastes in gender-preference, and we should let everyone make their own choices.

*Distributes indiscriminate :fluffle:s to all who won't be offended by it* :p

*assumes the "special" is pot, in which case, he just got the munchies*

ROFL.

Bisexuality is great. Hehe guys are fun, and girls are even more fun. :D

*assumes the "special" is pot, in which case, he just got the munchies*

*nods that the "special" was indeed pot, and gives you a giant, nine-layer lasagna*

Well, I might be bisexual, but I don't go around calling myself anything at all.

Uh, you just did.

I leave it to others to pigeon-hole themselves and those around themselves. The whole thing just makes me laugh more often than not, these ludicrous pronouncements people are given to making. People are just people. What they're looking for, nestled between the thighs of their partners-of-choice, is of little or no consequence as far as I'm concerned.

As long as you understand that it is of concern to other people, and that you are in no way in a better position to tell anyone how things "truly" are or "ought" to be, than I am in telling you that you are not "truly" bisexual.

As a lot of people have said, I exist, so yes.

Some people love the opposite sex. Some love the same sex. Why shouldn't some love both? None are superior, they're just different. It's the difference that causes the strife. Too bad we can't all just accept that everyone has their own tastes in gender-preference, and we should let everyone make their own choices.

*Distributes indiscriminate :fluffle:s to all who won't be offended by it* :p
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
^-^ This is a hanging spot for my bis.

Inquriing minds want to know.

Boy am I glad I made my peace with Fass earlier, at least now I can look at this thread without my brain oozing out of my ears.

Uh, you just did.

Out of consideration to the general discussion, yes, I did. Though it doesn't really define my existence.

As long as you understand that it is of concern to other people, and that you are in no way in a better position to tell anyone how things "truly" are or "ought" to be, than I am in telling you that you are not "truly" bisexual.
Sure. I don't understand the overall fascination with gender preference as topic-for-discussion/debate, it's true, but I don't go out of my way to infer some supposed implicit superiority on my part due to my personal choices. Nor do I go out of my way to denigrate the choices of others.

There's just stuff people does to each other. Usually with a big sticky mess at the end of it. Smiles all 'round, end of story.

i dont care who has sex with whom. i dont care if its a sexual orientation or just a passing whim. i dont care if its natural or unnatural. what should it matter to me who you have sex with or why?

but

the only bisexual i dislike is the one who claims that his special status give him license to "cheat" because he NEEDS a little cock now and then. that you cant possibly expect him to be faithful because he is bisexual and that YOU are selfish to expect him to give up his boyfriends (or vice versa for whatever iteration you might come up with)

try that line on someone stupid enough to believe it. if a straight man can get by without extra pussy (and some can!) then a bi man can get by without extra cock. orientation has nothing to do with fidelity.

Boy am I glad I made my peace with Fass earlier, at least now I can look at this thread without my brain oozing out of my ears.

You are in disagreement with what I've been (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10770952&postcount=36) saying here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10770976&postcount=37)?

So Fass, no room in your thoughts for sexual beings who don't pronounce themselves as being innately superior to their fellow sexual beings? Or are you limiting your discourse to grousing over supposed injustices today?

You are in disagreement with what I've been (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10770952&postcount=36) saying here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10770976&postcount=37)?
Ack, methinks I did a really bad job phrasing my post.

I had, in fact, posted it before reading the thread, and was merely pointing out that I'm exceedingly glad to no longer have to believe that you are serious in your hypocritical bi-bashing.

In essence: don't mind me. *shiftyeyes*

Ack, methinks I did a really bad job phrasing my post.

I had, in fact, posted it before reading the thread, and was merely pointing out that I'm exceedingly glad to no longer have to believe that you are serious in your hypocritical bi-bashing.

In essence: don't mind me. *shiftyeyes*

:p

He's just made at the supposed bisexuals and their "There really aren't heterosexuals and homosexuals" bullshit. And, to be honest, I feel the same way about them.

I shouldn't have bothered with this thread. I ought to have known better. Gods, I hate this ridiculous pigeon-holing behaviour my fellow sexual beings engage in.

Fass doesn't believe in bisexuals....well too bad, we exist. :P

Fass doesn't believe in bisexuals....well too bad, we exist. :P

And you apparently don't believe in reading.

Fass doesn't believe in bisexuals....well too bad, we exist. :P
That's not what he said at all. He just said he hates the people who are bisexual and flaunt it, claim it's the ONLY real preference, and then go on to end up in heterosexual relationships anyway and use their 'bisexuality' to flaunt their open-mindedness. Hell, I hate those people too. It's every person's choice, which gender[s] they prefer. No person should claim theirs is better or worse than any other.

:p

He's just made at the supposed bisexuals and their "There really aren't heterosexuals and homosexuals" bullshit. And, to be honest, I feel the same way about them.

o.O

I'm not sure if I didn't mess up my post again, now that I read this. Damn, I should really stop posting today.

As to what you said - as long as you tell me that you don't group all bisexuals under "supposed bisexuals", and that the "them" refers only to those who "pretend" to be bisexual and deny the existence of other sexual orientations, I might actually agree with you.
However (and that's a big however) I honestly don't think that there are even enough of those to merit special mention, especially not in a way that makes what you say about them easily confusable (is that even a word?) with a verdict on any and all bisexuals out there.

So Fass, no room in your thoughts for sexual beings who don't pronounce themselves as being innately superior to their fellow sexual beings?

Umm, what? Are you trying to ask me how I feel about those people who don't want to "label" themselves? They don't have to. I won't get involved in them emotionally, because they tend not to know what they want in other respects as well, a kind of perpetual teenagers I no longer have the patience for, but as a one-night stand they are as useful as "bisexuals," or even the ever so elusive bisexuals.

Or are you limiting your discourse to grousing over supposed injustices today?

Injustices? Please. Injustice is when you get condemned for a crime you did not commit. This is just pointing out bi-supremacist hypocrisy.

o.O

I'm not sure if I didn't mess up my post again, now that I read this. Damn, I should really stop posting today.

As to what you said - as long as you tell me that you don't group all bisexuals under "supposed bisexuals", and that the "them" refers only to those who "pretend" to be bisexual and deny the existence of other sexual orientations, I might actually agree with you.
However (and that's a big however) I honestly don't think that there are even enough of those to merit special mention, especially not in a way that makes what you say about them easily confusable (is that even a word?) with a verdict on any and all bisexuals out there.

No no, I'm only talking about the bisexuals who flaunt their supposed sexuality and say that theirs is the only true one. I tend to view people like that with suspicion, and I don't believe that they're really who they say they are.

That's not what he said at all. He just said he hates the people who are bisexual and flaunt it, claim it's the ONLY real preference, and then go on to end up in heterosexual relationships anyway and use their 'bisexuality' to flaunt their open-mindedness. Hell, I hate those people too. It's every person's choice, which gender[s] they prefer. No person should claim theirs is better or worse than any other.

I have nothing against them flaunting their sexuality. They just need to stop telling me what I am and how they are better for knowing it, and I'll stop telling them what they are and how I am better for knowing that.

They can flaunt whatever the hell they want, for all I care. I can divert my gaze very easily.

Umm, what? Are you trying to ask me how I feel about those people who don't want to "label" themselves?
Not all bisexuals are labeled and Bi-Supremacist or indecisive. There IS a middle ground. Some of us just enjoy the pleasures both genders can give. Is that some kind of crime? Just because we like two doesn't mean we can't decide which we like better. We don't have to like one better than the other, do we?

Please.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10771192&postcount=54
Finished. Have a nice life.



/Ignored.

Yes, yes there is.

I have nothing against them flaunting their sexuality. They just need to stop telling me what I am and how they are better for knowing it, and I'll stop telling them what they are and how I am better for knowing that.

They can flaunt whatever the hell they want, for all I care. I can divert my gaze very easily.
Flaunt it without actually being/living it, I meant. My apologies for being unclear there.

Not all bisexuals are labeled and Bi-Supremacist or indecisive. There IS a middle ground. Some of us just enjoy the pleasures both genders can give. Is that some kind of crime? Just because we like two doesn't mean we can't decide which we like better. We don't have to like one better than the other, do we?

Of the "I don't want to label myself" people I've met, most have been in a position where they don't know what they want. If they knew, they'd be able to label themselves!

As I know what I want, I don't feel like investing time in someone who doesn't trying to make them want me, when I can find someone I know will want me.

So, I simply tend not to get too involved with labelless people in any sort of romantic sense. Friends and casual fucks, sure. Then it doesn't matter to me what they are.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10771192&postcount=54
Finished. Have a nice life.

/Ignored.

That was unprovoked, IMO.

Inquiring minds want to know.
I think it's pretty obvious that there is. There are also a bunch of straight people (usually teenage girls) who go through a "bisexual phase" for a variety of reasons. The main one I think is because they want sex but (girls in our culture are told to equate heterosexual sex with danger) want none of the risks of sex with boys. Those ones grow out of it. There are also others who act bi to attract guys, etc.

snip
So we do have to choose one or the other to be worthwhile as more than fuck buddies. Right, gotcha. :rolleyes:

So we do have to choose one or the other to be worthwhile as more than fuck buddies. Right, gotcha. :rolleyes:

You don't have to choose one or the other - you just have to know what you want. Do you want cock and pussy? Then tell me, and it'll be OK. Don't come to me with "I don't want to label myself." If you are bisexual, you are bisexual. If you don't know what you are, figure out what you are (gay, straight, bi, whatever) before expecting me to open myself up emotionally to you. I've no interest in going into a relationship where the other person will figure out one day it isn't me, a man, they want at all.

Bisexuals who know they are bisexual, and tell, I've no problem with because if it turns out they don't want me, it's because they don't want me as a person, and that is something I can affect, perhaps by changing what it is they don't like. "Labelless" people who turn out to not want me for my gender in the end, after all - well, what do you do then? This has stopped being about bisexuals - this has become about people being secure in themselves and knowing what they want, cock, or pussy, or both, or neither. If they don't know, or won't tell me, well, then I'll be saving myself the trouble.

the "bisexuals" who scream at the top of their lungs how much better their sexuality is, how much better people they are for "falling in love with personalities, not sexes," ....to show how open-minded they are, being the better people, but not so good as to stick with a homosexual partner.

Yeah I hate bisexual elitism.

ROFL.

Bisexuality is great. Hehe guys are fun, and girls are even more fun. :D
Are you a male or a fembot?

O.O What!?

You don't have to choose one or the other - you just have to know what you want. Do you want cock and pussy? Then tell me, and it'll be OK. Don't come to me with "I don't want to label myself." If you are bisexual, you are bisexual. If you don't know what you are, figure out what you are (gay, straight, bi, whatever) before expecting me to open myself up emotionally to you. I've no interest in going into a relationship where the other person will figure out one day it isn't me, a man, they want at all.

Bisexuals who know they are bisexual, and tell, I've no problem with because if it turns out they don't want me, it's because they don't want me as a person, and that is something I can affect, perhaps by changing what it is they don't like. "Labelless" people who turn out to not me for my gender in the end, after all - well, what do you do then? This has stopped being about bisexuals - this has become about people being sexure in themselves and knowing what they want, cock, or pussy, or both, or neither.
Ah. The way you were explaining it before, it sounded like you thought all bisexuals were either Bi-Supremacist or indecisive/"I don't want to be labeled".

I do agree that people should make up their minds before claiming one or the other, but not everyone can wake up one morning and all of a sudden, from being hetero, say "I'm [this] and I'm [this] for life, now." It takes time for some people to make up their minds, and to do that they do have to go between genders to see which feels right. Personally, I'm understanding toward these people, because they do want to make up their minds, they just don't have experience enough to do so, yet.

Then there are those who do it just for attention, who should rot in hell for being such Drama Whores. :)

And you apparently don't believe in reading.

I seem to remember YOU saying that there was no such thing as bisexual males and you touted some proof about a study as if it was rock solid evidence that there is no such thing as bisexuals.

How we are all closet-cases and can't come to terms with what we really want. Is that right? >.>?

I seem to remember YOU saying that there was no such thing as bisexual males and you touted some proof about a study as if it was rock solid evidence that there is no such thing as bisexuals.

How we are all closet-cases and can't come to terms with what we really want. Is that right? >.>?

Are you illiterate, or something? Have you not read this thread at all? I suggest you do, because you are coming across as an analphabet.

I don't know, but lots of the gay people I have talked to seem to think that "bisexual" is nothing but a confused gay! :confused:

That's because they are either wishing, or are not as open-minded as they like to think they are.

Just as it's easy to be attracted to a man or a woman, it's easy to be attracted to both. People can not help their feelings. To dismiss a person's feelings as "confused" reminds me of the dark ages (or of parents who constantly annoy their kids by telling them they're too young to know what love is or to be attracted to someone else).

I've heard that before as well, but I have had a couple of friends who claim to be bi as well, and the thing they have in common is that they have a combination of an inordinately high sex drive and they're not real choosy. On other words, they don't care which sex they fuck, as long as they're fucking and their partners are human (or some reasonable facsimile).

Lol. I know people like that. Not many, but they're very amusing. Though amusement changes to...*ahem* when they turn their 'attentions' in my direction....

Are you illiterate, or something? Have you not read this thread at all? I suggest you do, because you are coming across as an analphabet.

It was another thread, dummy.

It was another thread, dummy.

I see you still have not read this thread. Do so (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10770952&postcount=36), realise how ignorantly you're acting (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10770976&postcount=37), and move on.

Meh ... I've had men, I've had women ... I have no preferrence.

And that's all I'm sayin' about that.

I see you still have not read this thread. Do so (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10770952&postcount=36), realise how ignorantly you're acting (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10770976&postcount=37), and move on.

Actually I have. >.>

This thread really clears up a few things about Fass for me. Earlier I had gotten the impression of him that he really felt all bisexuals are either semi-closeted gays, or straights who think it's fashionable to appear gay. Identifying as bisexual myself, I didn't think too highly of him, but luckily it seems I had the wrong impression of him all along.

And my take on the existence of bisexuals? I think, therefore I am. I think.

Actually I have. >.>

So, after having read "realise just how stupid it is to claim what people "truly" are" and "I deny bisexuality as a form of satire," in you posting this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10771194&postcount=55) and this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10771425&postcount=74), we are still supposed to believe you have read what I wrote? Really, either you did not read what I wrote, or you just lack the ability to understand the written word. Which is it?

So, after having read "realise just how stupid it is to claim what people "truly" are" and "I deny bisexuality as a form of satire," in posting this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10771194&postcount=55) and this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10771425&postcount=74), we are still supposed to believe you have read that? Really, either you did not read what I wrote, or you just lack the ability to understand the written word. Which is it?

I'm guessing it's a mix of both.

On the whole "bisexuals who deny other sexualities", that used to be me. Used to be. The theory I held still could be true and it holds a vague possibility in my mind, but my original viewpoint came purely from, I guess, not understanding how it can feel to be a different sexuality (bear in mind with all this I was 13/14 at the time). I'd recently gone from realising what being attracted to females as well as males meant, and I somehow came to the view that other people were denying what I'd been denying. When other females could say they found females attractive, for me it was actively being attracted to them and when I realised that it meant more than I'd originally thought, I came to wonder if the same applied for everyone, not to the same extent but to some extent.

I realised how ridiculous that was sooner or later - I realised I was saying I knew what everyone in the world felt based upon the fact I thought I was the same way and had found out I was not. Right now I can't quite understand how I ever followed that through...

Right now I can't quite understand how I ever followed that through...

Simple. You were 13/14. :p

Simple. You were 13/14. :p
I still would like to think I had some grasp of basic logic a few years ago though... :p

I still would like to think I had some grasp of basic logic a few years ago though... :p

Well, obviously not in that area!

*runs*

1. I don't deny homosexuality....
2. Fass....you 'deny it as a form of satire' what do you even mean!?

How about revealing it....now.

Well, obviously not in that area!

*runs*
Hey, I'll think of a reasonable excuse sooner or later...

I just can't right now because I'm ill.

It's true! Honest! Ask Huw *nods*

*shiftyeyes*

*runs in opposite direction*

1. I don't deny homosexuality....
2. Fass....you 'deny it as a form of satire' what do you even mean!?

How about revealing it....now.

You really cannot read, can you? I'm not wasting any more time. I've already written everything there is to write.

1. I don't deny homosexuality....
2. Fass....you 'deny it as a form of satire' what do you even mean!?

How about revealing it....now.
Some bisexuals believe everyone is bisexual. They therefore deny other sexualities.
Fass does not like this for obvious reasons.
Therefore, he denies bisexuality - in a form of satire - to try and show bisexuals with this viewpoint how stupid their viewpoint is.

See?

Some bisexuals believe everyone is bisexual. They therefore deny other sexualities.
Fass does not like this for obvious reasons.
Therefore, he denies bisexuality - in a form of satire - to try and show bisexuals with this viewpoint how stupid their viewpoint is.

See?
He might have made his point less obliquely. He was really seriously pissing me off earlier.

*edit: Because I have encountered arseholes on either side of the gender divide who consider me 'damaged goods' because of my proclivities. There's plenty of gender-preference supremacism out there, though mostly, I've encountered it from the firmly-entrenched monosexualist crowd.

Some bisexuals believe everyone is bisexual. They therefore deny other sexualities.
Fass does not like this for obvious reasons.
Therefore, he denies bisexuality - in a form of satire - to try and show bisexuals with this viewpoint how stupid their viewpoint is.

See?

Okay.....though I don't think anyone is serious that everyone is bi. I've seen guys start screaming and and yelling if they even so much think about being with another man. (Oh boy....funny, but pathetic)

Though I am PRETTY SURE that he backed some evidence saying bisexuals don't exist cause of this study with men (who were 'bi') and gauged arousal when they watched porn. (And none were 'aroused' by both kinds of porn) This is like the 5th topic about it.....so I can't scan all the hundreds of posts. Anyone remember who said that?

He might have made his point less obliquely. He was really seriously pissing me off earlier.

I'm all over the place and was refering to something else...no one payed attention. When I am confused everyone gets angry at me. :eek:

*will not touch this thread with a 10-metre pole*

*realises the irony in touching it to make it known he will no longer be touching it, so you can shut up about that, you "clever" people out there*

You and your propoganda, Fass. Shush.


Yes. There is such a thing as bisexual.

He might have made his point less obliquely. He was really seriously pissing me off earlier.

*edit: Because I have encountered arseholes on either side of the gender divide who consider me 'damaged goods' because of my proclivities. There's plenty of gender-preference supremacism out there, though mostly, I've encountered it from the firmly-entrenched monosexualist crowd.
Earlier, it was less clear and I've been unsure of his actual viewpoint for a long time. But when he stated that "I deny bisexuality as a form of satire" and links to this post - along with one explaining it more - various times, I really don't see how it can be any more clear.

You and your propoganda, Fass. Shush.


Yes. There is such a thing as bisexual.

Ya....

*puts on bomb suit and runs!*

Okay.....though I don't think anyone is serious that everyone is bi. I've seen guys start screaming and and yelling if they even so much think about being with another man. (Oh boy....funny, but pathetic)

Though I am PRETTY SURE that he backed some evidence saying bisexuals don't exist cause of this study with men (who were 'bi') and gauged arousal when they watched porn. (And none were 'aroused' by both kinds of porn) This is like the 5th topic about it.....so I can't scan all the hundreds of posts. Anyone remember who said that?
I used to be. I've seen many people with this view point. In this very thread, these two (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10770769&postcount=4) people (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10770940&postcount=35) hold that view point.
Trust me. There are people who think everyone is bi.

I don't know about him using any study so I can't really comment but I'm guessing he didn't truly believe it to mean anything.

Earlier, it was less clear and I've been unsure of his actual viewpoint for a long time. But when he stated that "I deny bisexuality as a form of satire" and links to this post - along with one explaining it more - various times, I really don't see how it can be any more clear.

Well...Its been going on for a long time with me and Fass....in many threads....so I am a little reluctant to accept it like that sometimes.

Yes actual Bisexual people exist.

The problem is that a lot of bisexuals are only parading it around for attention, while actual bisexuals let it be implied.


See, the issue of sexuality is not black and white, everyone has at least one bisexual tendency. Admit that at least, you wouldnt want to have sex with the person of the same gender, but you will admit "they look o.k"

Honestly, why do we keep caring so much about this issue, you would think that in our day and age, people would be acceptant of what people do on their own time. Of course I'm looking at this from a purely physical level.

I consider my self straight, but I'll tell my guy friends and girlfriends that I genuinely love them. Does that make me bisexual? Yes. There is nothing wrong with forming a deep emotional attatchment to another person, and Gender should not prevent the fulfulment of ones need to love and be loved.

Bisexual means its a sexual attraction to both sexes....not a 'you look nice thing' but a more of a 'That is hot!' kind of thing. Straight people are uptight about sounding gay, but thing is you can still look nice and be complimented on it without someone being sexually attracted to you.

I consider my self straight, but I'll tell my guy friends and girlfriends that I genuinely love them. Does that make me bisexual? Yes. There is nothing wrong with forming a deep emotional attatchment to another person, and Gender should not prevent the fulfulment of ones need to love and be loved.

That is ridiculous. If I were to tell my father that I loved him, that wouldn't be incestuous.

That is ridiculous. If I were to tell my father that I loved him, that wouldn't be incestuous.

Ya...that's where is logic fell really short.

I used to be. I've seen many people with this view point. In this very thread, these two (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10770769&postcount=4) people (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10770940&postcount=35) hold that view point.
Trust me. There are people who think everyone is bi.

I don't know about him using any study so I can't really comment but I'm guessing he didn't truly believe it to mean anything.

Saying that everyone is "a little bit bisexual" is very far from saying that "everyone is bisexual." Pretty much no one claims the latter, and to do so would be beyond absurd.

Saying that everyone is "a little bit bisexual" is very far from saying that "everyone is bisexual."

No, it isn't. I'm not at all bisexual. Not even a "little bit." Them trying to say that everyone is a "little bit bisexual" is as stupid as me telling them that they're not bisexual, period.

I found it oh, so ironic that they were often so quick to jump up and say "but, heterosexuals deny homosexuality," but not a single one of them realised they were no better - they were trying to tell people what they were, too, but for some reason them trying to tell me that I'm bisexual, even a "little bit" since I am not at all, is more OK than me telling them they're not.

Bisexual means its a sexual attraction to both sexes....not a 'you look nice thing' but a more of a 'That is hot!' kind of thing. Straight people are uptight about sounding gay, but thing is you can still look nice and be complimented on it without someone being sexually attracted to you.

Really? I recall There is more to being human than physicality?


The entire sexual "movement"-thingy is not based off the fact that we should all just run around having sex for no reason. Most of the movementees (I suck at words today, so bear with the made-up ones.) base their arguments on the love that can be shared between human beings (I am aware some bisexuals prefer to have 2 partners) regardless of the dangly bits.

No, it isn't. I'm not at all bisexual. Not even a "little bit." Them trying to say that everyone is a "little bit bisexual" is as stupid as me telling them that they're not bisexual, period.

I found it oh, so ironic that they were often so quick to jump up and say "but, heterosexuals deny homosexuality," but not a single one of them realised they were no better - they were trying to tell people what they were, too, but for some reason them trying to tell me that I'm bisexual, even a "little bit" since I am not at all, is more OK than me telling them they're not.


I believe this stems from a male complex. Has one ever noticed that women are generally more willing to compliment another woman on her attractiveness, and also invest more into relationships with friends (Who may be either gender)?

Really? I recall There is more to being human than physicality?


The entire sexual "movement"-thingy is not based off the fact that we should all just run around having sex for no reason. Most of the movementees (I suck at words today, so bear with the made-up ones.) base their arguments on the love that can be shared between human beings (I am aware some bisexuals prefer to have 2 partners) regardless of the dangly bits.

Polygamists... X_X

I believe this stems from a male complex. Has one ever noticed that women are generally more willing to compliment another woman on her attractiveness, and also invest more into relationships with friends (Who may be either gender)?

Sexist now!? O.O

If people are attracted to men and women, bisexual people exist.
I know people that are atracted to men and women.
Bisexual people exist


Period

I believe this stems from a male complex. Has one ever noticed that women are generally more willing to compliment another woman on her attractiveness, and also invest more into relationships with friends (Who may be either gender)?

What stems from a male complex?

There it is again, the bisupremacism, this "we're all bisexual deep down inside, or originally," bullshit!

It's utter crap, that's what it is. Get it through your head: nobody likes it when bisexuals do that. Nobody except other immature bisexuals. We are not all "originally, or really" bisexual. Cut it the fuck out, already.

And people wonder why I deny bisexuality as a form of satire. Bisexuals tend to deny everything else!

I wonder what your issue really is?

Perhaps you are repressing heterosexual tendencies?

I haven't claimed to be an 'immature bisexual'. I'm about 20 years the wrong side, to be claiming to ba an immature anything. I don't even think of myself as bisexual. In my mind, I'm straight. Girls 'do it' for me, guys really don't. Therefore, I could assume that there is no such thing as 'bisexuality'... and, by extension, there must REALLY be no such thing a 'homosexuality'.

Obviously. I mean - it's outside of MY understanding, so it must be juvenille drivel.

But then - I look at people I know. I happen to be an acquaintance of a lady, now in her late middle years (or early twilight?), who has claimed to be bisexual for something like 40 years now, and has now settled down into a 'comfortable, safe' homosexual relationship.

Was it, as you have tried to imply, because there is less social pressure? Maybe that figured... was it because 'mommy would approved'? Probably not... mommy is dead, already.

So... what then? Could it be.... that she found one person with whom she is willing to 'settle down'? (Gender irrelevent).

I find your whole attitude on the issue somewhat confusing... I'm under the impression you CLAIM to be homosexual... but, of course, science KNOWS that homosexuality is a mere psychological disorder (well - they did a few tens of years back)...

I've already written everything there is to write.

Wow... Stephen King is going to be disappointed...

No, it isn't. I'm not at all bisexual. Not even a "little bit." Them trying to say that everyone is a "little bit bisexual" is as stupid as me telling them that they're not bisexual, period.

If you were to label me as anything at all, it would be as a bisexual who has a preference towards men. I find more men attractive than I do women though some women do indeed catch my eye. I am highly particular when it comes to the opposite sex.

That said, I prefer not to use labels such as Gay, Straight or Bisexual because they are in truth very vague and highly general when describing sexuality.

I personally find sexuality to be a very fluid entity subject to change as time progresses. In some, like Fass, it is entirely possible that the flux of sexuality doesn't change much noticably while in others like myself, it changes quite often..

Fass is merely at one end of the sexual continuum and that perhaps he isn't going anywhere else....

I wonder what your issue really is?

Perhaps you are repressing heterosexual tendencies?

I haven't claimed to be an 'immature bisexual'. I'm about 20 years the wrong side, to be claiming to ba an immature anything. I don't even think of myself as bisexual. In my mind, I'm straight. Girls 'do it' for me, guys really don't. Therefore, I could assume that there is no such thing as 'bisexuality'... and, by extension, there must REALLY be no such thing a 'homosexuality'.

Obviously. I mean - it's outside of MY understanding, so it must be juvenille drivel.

But then - I look at people I know. I happen to be an acquaintance of a lady, now in her late middle years (or early twilight?), who has claimed to be bisexual for something like 40 years now, and has now settled down into a 'comfortable, safe' homosexual relationship.

Was it, as you have tried to imply, because there is less social pressure? Maybe that figured... was it because 'mommy would approved'? Probably not... mommy is dead, already.

So... what then? Could it be.... that she found one person with whom she is willing to 'settle down'? (Gender irrelevent).

I find your whole attitude on the issue somewhat confusing... I'm under the impression you CLAIM to be homosexual... but, of course, science KNOWS that homosexuality is a mere psychological disorder (well - they did a few tens of years back)...

You really should have read the thread. Would have saved you from failing so completely to rebut.

Wow... Stephen King is going to be disappointed...

Wow... like you cut and pasted that out of context and tried to be "funny" with a reference to what is no doubt your favourite "author." Wow, like, you're so, like, clever. Sure got me there.

You really should have read the thread. Would have saved you from failing so completely to rebut.

Not at all.

If that is the extent of your response, I consider it a complete success.

'Goldfish' all you like... you have made your statements, in this thread and others. Play to the crowd if it pleases you, and try to score points in whatever manner you must... but I'm not fooled, and I know that you aren't either.

And, let's face it... that's all that really matters.

Not at all.

If that is the extent of your response, I consider it a complete success.

'Goldfish' all you like... you have made your statements, in this thread and others. Play to the crowd if it pleases you, and try to score points in whatever manner you must... but I'm not fooled, and I know that you aren't either.

And, let's face it... that's all that really matters.

From copy&paste, we seem to move into the unintelligible...

Wow... like you cut and pasted that out of context and tried to be "funny" with a reference to what is no doubt your favourite "author." Wow, like, you're so, like, clever. Sure got me there.

Your performance was better before.

You might want to count to ten or something, you're losing your edge.

Mocking my 'favourite author'? Not grade-school much?

Actually - the reason I used Stephen King as the example, was a form of joke. I consider his work to be repetitive and contrived... thus, I was making a parallel WITHIN the comment.

If you wish to mock the authors I do like (we've been over this all before in literature threads, I know) you might wish to start with Sheri S Tepper, Sharon Shinn and Robin McKinley.

yes we exist. whether or not the majority of people are or not simply isn't known although it is quite obvious that many people are vehemently one way or the other. i think bisexual is the most denied sexuality for several reasons, among them being there does not seem to be a widely accepted bisexual stereotype so many people are unsure how to regard someone when they are told that person is bisexual. also, many people seem to think it is just a phase due to hormonal imbalances or some other such bullshit. no-one knows what 'causes' particular sexualities and i think it is unhelpful to speculate on such things, as if it's something that can be changed by taking away the cause like a disease or something. then there is the simple fact that many people are just incurably narrow-minded and closeted from the world around them (both gay and straight). one of my best friends really annoyed me recently - i'm not very sexually active, but i had a one-night-stand with a guy i met at a party and i told my friend just in conversation. he's gay, and at the same time quite conservative and narrow-minded, and so he assumed that this meant i was gay despite the fact that i've told him i am bi. he then went and told one of his friends who i work with that i'm gay and she told a few people at work and now the girl i like at work thinks i'm gay. that is really annoying :mad:

From copy&paste, we seem to move into the unintelligible...

As I said - if you have that much difficulty reading what I write, I'm certainly not going to take it as a failure of my argument.

One-liners seem to be the extent of your response... and, that's probably for the best.

The point remains - you HAVE made your position on this matter clear, and I wonder quite why you are now 'pandering' so?

(This wasn't too unintelligible, I trust?)

Your performance was better before.

You might want to count to ten or something, you're losing your edge.

Mocking my 'favourite author'? Not grade-school much?

Well, one must adapt to one's interlocuteur.

Actually - the reason I used Stephen King as the example, was a form of joke. I consider his work to be repetitive and contrived... thus, I was making a parallel WITHIN the comment.

Right...

If you wish to mock the authors I do like (we've been over this all before in literature threads, I know) you might wish to start with Sheri S Tepper, Sharon Shinn and Robin McKinley.

I don't even need to mock those.

The point remains - you HAVE made your position on this matter clear, and I wonder quite why you are now 'pandering' so?

And what is my position, pray tell? Please bear with me and show what you've understood it to be, because the post where you failed to rebut indicated that you had not gotten my point at all. Hence, my doubts.

(This wasn't too unintelligible, I trust?)

The part I left was decipherable.

I don't even need to mock those.

I fear you confuse "don't" even need to' with "lack the capacity".

You are an enigma, my friend...

I've read your posts in other threads before, and I alwasy assumed you were a reasonable debator.

In this thread, and the last one in which I've 'crossed swords' with you (so to speak), I have been disappointed to find that you seem to think being insulting, and repeatedly obnoxious, somehow equates to 'debating'.

It's a shame... I'm hoping you actually manage to make a point, or pique my interest in some way, before I am driven from the thread by a combination of disgust and boredom.

And what is my position, pray tell? Please bear with me and show what you've understood it to be, because the post where you failed to rebut indicated that you had not gotten my point at all. Hence, my doubts.


I realised you seem confused... but I HAD assumed it was a 'technique'.

Now you ask ME what your position was?

Not as much of a 'pose' as I'd thought...

Will you two stop sniping and get to the point?

Will you two stop sniping and get to the point?

I believe I already did.... way back in my first post.

I believe I already did.... way back in my first post.

Perhaps you did, but still there is the matter of the sniping?

I fear you confuse "don't" even need to' with "lack the capacity".

If that makes you confident about your reading, then sure.

You are an enigma, my friend...

I've read your posts in other threads before, and I alwasy assumed you were a reasonable debator.

Guess I fooled you.

In this thread, and the last one in which I've 'crossed swords' with you (so to speak), I have been disappointed to find that you seem to think being insulting, and repeatedly obnoxious, somehow equates to 'debating'.

And you seem to think that adding nothing of value, and trying to fart above your head, pardon my Frenchism, after not exactly being a saint yourself, somehow puts you in the position to referee the performance of others.

It's a shame... I'm hoping you actually manage to make a point, or pique my interest in some way, before I am driven from the thread by a combination of disgust and boredom.

Wow. You actually think I'd want to do something to keep you here.

The problem is that a lot of bisexuals are only parading it around for attention, while actual bisexuals let it be implied.
How do you know what "actual" bisexuals do?

Saying that everyone is "a little bit bisexual" is very far from saying that "everyone is bisexual." Pretty much no one claims the latter, and to do so would be beyond absurd.
What exactly is the difference? How can you be "a little bit" bisexual? Either you can find both sexes attractive or you can't.

Then again, this is coming from the viewpoint that being bisexual simply means attraction to both sexes, not necessarily a totally "equal" attraction to both sexes.

Really? I recall There is more to being human than physicality?
Of course. But I'm fairly sure that part of sexuality involves a physical aspect.

(I am aware some bisexuals prefer to have 2 partners)
Yes. As do some hetrosexuals and some homosexuals. I don't see exactly why you specified bisexuals here.

I realised you seem confused... but I HAD assumed it was a 'technique'.
Now you ask ME what your position was?
Not as much of a 'pose' as I'd thought...

I've already explained why I'd like you to explain. To see how you managed to understand, or not understand as the case may be, my position so that I may know how to explain it to you, if it needed. It is however increasingly clear to me that you're not interested in getting what I'm saying, but just want to post awkwardly paragraphed posts with little substance.

If that makes you confident about your reading, then sure.


Again... pretty much a 'look at me' post.

If you have nothing to say on the matter... that might have been the wisest choice of words.

And you seem to think that adding nothing of value, and trying to fart above your head, pardon my Frenchism, after not exactly being a saint yourself, somehow puts you in the position to referee the performance of others.


I'm no saint? Curious... 'AFTER I'm no saint', no less. I wonder what I did 'first' that means I'm no longer allowed to point out your lack of consistency, and the hipocrisy of your stance?


Wow. You actually think I'd want to do something to keep you here.

Really, no.

Blow though it may be to your ego, you were not the reason I joined the thread in the first place.

I have made my point, and you have singularly failed to even address it, so 'posture' away, and I'll leave you to your little pyrrhic victory.

As a wise philosopher once wrote: "Bored now!"

As a wise philosopher once wrote: "Bored now!"

Bored now? Honey, you rendered me bored three pages ago.

I don't understand why people claim that bisexuality doesn't exist. I mean, sure, for some people it's a transitionary stage, but sexuality is more fluid for some people than for others. But how can people claim to have authority on who other people may or may not be attracted to?

I don't think that people should try to define someone else's sexuality, or any other aspect of their identity, for them. That is something that should be left up to the individual to express.

bisexual = just (sexually) greedy ;)
WHERE DO I FIND ONE??? :D

Grave, Fass, would you mind stopping this oh-so-not-flaming? It's unproductive, clutters the thread, and wastes bandwidth when you could easily trade insults on an instant messenger or something we don't have to read. Seriously... the things some people get upset over....

(I am aware some bisexuals prefer to have 2 partners)
As do some people of all sexualities...

The problem is that a lot of bisexuals are only parading it around for attention, while actual bisexuals let it be implied.
Whats the difference between a "bisexual" and an "actual bisexual"? I go to the gay village in Manchester regularly, and theres plenty of people there who "parade" their sexuality. Does that make them any less genuine than a person who keeps it quiet?


I consider my self straight, but I'll tell my guy friends and girlfriends that I genuinely love them. Does that make me bisexual?

No. It means you have good friends, that you love. If you're attracted to both your male and female friends, then you're bisexual.


Yes, bisexuals do exist. Either that or I'm really really confused. Sorry if I've repeated anything from previous posts but I can't be bothered to read through all the bitching:p

Grave, Fass, would you mind stopping this oh-so-not-flaming? It's unproductive, clutters the thread, and wastes bandwidth when you could easily trade insults on an instant messenger or something we don't have to read. Seriously... the things some people get upset over....

I was enjoying it, personally.

Inquriing minds want to know.
People are all naturally bisexual; but, natural instincts push us towards the ppposite sex simply for reasons of natural survival, but push others into the arms of the same sex in order to control the population and leave a select few in the middle.

People are all naturally bisexual ...
Sorry, but I don't believe this ... not for one second. :)

Sorry, but I don't believe this ... not for one second. :)

Nor do I, and frankly, I'm fucking tired of hearing that complete and utter bullshit.

Who else is, besides me and Fass? Come on people, gather 'round and help stop this idiocy.

Inquriing minds want to know.
I have been bi-sexual openly for the last 5 years or so

2 years with a boy and just now 2 years with a girl

I sure hope I exist

bisexual = just (sexually) greedy ;)
I normaly am nice and I normaly like your positions on things

But if you are not joking with this I kindly say FUCK OFF

How does liking both make you any more "greedy"? then being strait and fucking everything that moves or gay and fucking everything that moves

I hardly see how your tastes like that make you greedy

I normaly am nice and I normaly like your positions on things

But if you are not joking with this I kindly say FUCK OFF

How does liking both make you any more "greedy"? then being strait and fucking everything that moves or gay and fucking everything that moves

I hardly see how your tastes like that make you greedy

He was joking, thus the winking smilie... Though it's not at all difficult to see why you might get pissed off at the comment. :p

Nor do I, and frankly, I'm fucking tired of hearing that complete and utter bullshit.

Who else is, besides me and Fass? Come on people, gather 'round and help stop this idiocy.
I concur and I'm bi-sexual myself.

Yeah, I'm getting pretty tired of being alternately patronized & slagged by monosexualists, of whatever flavour.

Sorry, but I don't believe this ... not for one second. :)
People are the way they are Eut.. you dont decide that you like chicks.. but maybe a dick once in awhile.. Urge is natural.

People are the way they are Eut.. you dont decide that you like chicks.. but maybe a dick once in awhile.. Urge is natural.

That's one urge I've never had, and I'm quite sure I won't be having it in the future.

He was joking, thus the winking smilie... Though it's not at all difficult to see why you might get pissed off at the comment. :p
Thats why I put it in there ... cause I thought so but was not sure (and a BIT drunk lol)

Thats why I put it in there ... cause I thought so but was not sure (and a BIT drunk lol)

I'm sure PM won't mind, really. All of us need to let out some steam once in a while. :p

That's one urge I've never had, and I'm quite sure I won't be having it in the future.
then you're strait?

Nor do I, and frankly, I'm fucking tired of hearing that complete and utter bullshit.

Who else is, besides me and Fass? Come on people, gather 'round and help stop this idiocy.
well now that depends on what you mean by that

are you objecting to the idea that we are ALL bisexual or are you objecting to the notion that anyone is?

seems to me that if you arent interested in and havent had sex with one of the genders, you arent bisexual

if you have had both genders and would like to do so again in the future, you can rightfully claim to be bisexual.

well now that depends on what you mean by that

are you objecting to the idea that we are ALL bisexual or are you objecting to the notion that anyone is?

seems to me that if you arent interested in and havent had sex with one of the genders, you arent bisexual

if you have had both genders and would like to do so again in the future, you can rightfully claim to be bisexual.
Awww! Come on, legs! That's WAY too rational! :p

then you're strait?

Nothing other.

well now that depends on what you mean by that

are you objecting to the idea that we are ALL bisexual or are you objecting to the notion that anyone is?

seems to me that if you arent interested in and havent had sex with one of the genders, you arent bisexual

if you have had both genders and would like to do so again in the future, you can rightfully claim to be bisexual.

1: I'm objecting to the nothing that everyone is bisexual.

2: I'm assuming this was just poorly-worded.

3: Yep. I'm not saying that you can't be. I'm just saying that it's ridiculous to insinuate that everyone is.

Awww! Come on, legs! That's WAY too rational! :p
oops. i must have meant to post that on some other forum.

Nothing other.
I see, but you still support it being narutal? Like i meant.. bi's have a stronger urge..

im sorry do i make sense? im quite durnk..

I see, but you still support it being narutal? Like i meant.. bi's have a stronger urge..

im sorry do i make sense? im quite durnk..

And I'm tired, so I'm not making too much sense out of your drunken posts. :p

I don't quite know exactly what you mean by "bisexuals having a stronger urge"... Seems to me that it wouldn't be any different than any other sexuality.

You don't have to choose one or the other - you just have to know what you want. Do you want cock and pussy? Then tell me, and it'll be OK. Don't come to me with "I don't want to label myself." If you are bisexual, you are bisexual. If you don't know what you are, figure out what you are (gay, straight, bi, whatever) before expecting me to open myself up emotionally to you. I've no interest in going into a relationship where the other person will figure out one day it isn't me, a man, they want at all.

Bisexuals who know they are bisexual, and tell, I've no problem with because if it turns out they don't want me, it's because they don't want me as a person, and that is something I can affect, perhaps by changing what it is they don't like. "Labelless" people who turn out to not want me for my gender in the end, after all - well, what do you do then? This has stopped being about bisexuals - this has become about people being secure in themselves and knowing what they want, cock, or pussy, or both, or neither. If they don't know, or won't tell me, well, then I'll be saving myself the trouble.

what about those of us who know what we want, but don't fit into any of your labels?

i'm an androgynous male. i like masculine males, androgynous males, feminine males (but not with tits), androgynous females, and masculine females. i really don't like vaginas, but i have no problem with getting blown by a chick. this renders your labels inadequate, because they base orientation on preferred gender(s) and gender on genitalia. i fail to see how not identifying with any of these labels would adversely affect a romantic relationship, with you or anyone else.

So why do you say "yes?"

I honestly am confused over this entire issue. Some people claim to be bisexual, while others ( primarily gay ) claim there is no such thing. :confused:

Those who say so are in the minority opinion as far as the gay community goes. After all it is called the "GLBT" (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trangenderd) community, and not the "Gay and Only Gay Because That is All You Really Are Like It or Not" community.

Personally, I've come across more straight folk who claim bisexuals are just confused. People are what they are. Deal with it.

And I'm tired, so I'm not making too much sense out of your drunken posts. :p

I don't quite know exactly what you mean by "bisexuals having a stronger urge"... Seems to me that it wouldn't be any different than any other sexuality.
mmk, like, bi's have sexual ADHD, while others just stick with one sexuality..

did that make any sense?

in my opinion and ron whites, every1 is gay, its just to what extent. and in my vocabulary, a bisexual is a person who "goes both ways."

mmk, like, bi's have sexual ADHD, while others just stick with one sexuality..

did that make any sense?

I think that would have more to do with hormones than sexuality, really...

in my opinion and ron whites, every1 is gay, its just to what extent. and in my vocabulary, a bisexual is a person who "goes both ways."
Actualy I was suprized at how open he was about all that ... allowing himself to be attached to the rest of thoes rednecks and with the whole style they engender I was plesently suprized

in my opinion and ron whites, every1 is gay, its just to what extent. and in my vocabulary, a bisexual is a person who "goes both ways."

Well, your opinion.

Nor do I, and frankly, I'm fucking tired of hearing that complete and utter bullshit.

Who else is, besides me and Fass? Come on people, gather 'round and help stop this idiocy.
I'm with you. There are heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals. All three exist, and when one mocks either of the others, or acts patronising, calling them confused about what they "really" are, it's biggotry, whoever it comes from.
what about those of us who know what we want, but don't fit into any of your labels?

i'm an androgynous male. i like masculine males, androgynous males, feminine males (but not with tits), androgynous females, and masculine females. i really don't like vaginas, but i have no problem with getting blown by a chick. this renders your labels inadequate, because they base orientation on preferred gender(s) and gender on genitalia. i fail to see how not identifying with any of these labels would adversely affect a romantic relationship, with you or anyone else.
[Edit: On closer examination of your preference list, you definately aren't the person I thought you were.]

Whether you're Nair or not, the fact that some members of either gender are attractive to you means that you're bisexual. Obviously you have some specific criteria and prefferences that aren't fully contained in mainstream labels, but we all have our prefferences that go beyond our gay/straight/bi label.

Um...... Wow I just started playing this game like 3 days ago:p and uh its cool and all that I guess. Then I move over to the forum and... well... what the fuck is wrong is with everyone??????? So your brain chemistry is fucked up and you dont know if you like boys or girls or boy-girls. Congradumafuckalations for that (insert applauding smiley here) but seriously if there was no "real" bi-sexual would there be a title calling it bi-sexual with a definition in the dictionary??? About the comment that gays think bi-sexuals are confused gays. I would say (as a heterosexual) that gays are confused straight people so that means gay's don't exist.... Oh wait I just stumbled on a point didn't I. Hey go play the game and forget about your sexual preference for once this is a game not a porn site. As the great Paul Harvey would say "Good-Day"

Whether you're Nair or not, the fact that some members of either gender are attractive to you means that you're bisexual. Obviously you have some specific criteria and prefferences that aren't fully contained in mainstream labels, but we all have our prefferences that go beyond our gay/straight/bi label.

in the most technical sense, i am bisexual. that's what i tell my doctor and stuff.

however! it's not very practical for me to identify as such, because i really don't enjoy "normal" intercourse with women, which largely prevents me from having "normal" romantic relationships with women. i don't lead a bisexual lifestyle, as it were.

And once again, everyone forgets about asexuals, people who simply have no desire to have sex.

And once again, everyone forgets about asexuals, people who simply have no desire to have sex.
And?
This is about bisexuals not asexuals.

And once again, everyone forgets about asexuals, people who simply have no desire to have sex.

unless you can rip off your arm and watch a new human being grow from the bloody stump, i will continue to regard all humans as sexual beings.

Of course bisexuals exist. What else would you call someone who is sexually attracted to males and females?

As for homosexuals who adopt the arrogant attitude that there is no such thing as a bisexual, they need to realize that the fight of the bisexual and that of the homosexual is one and the same. That both are the fight for the right to be who they are and to be viewed and treated equally.

I think that would have more to do with hormones than sexuality, really...
OK i maen its MORE instinct to be sexual in such a way tthan to be something of CHOICE.. like.. im gay.. youre strait, get it? like you just grew up liking women.. i like men.. they like both..


doid that make sense/?

mmk, like, bi's have sexual ADHD, while others just stick with one sexuality..

did that make any sense?
Actually, it's more like sexual dyslexia, but meh! :)

Actually, it's more like sexual dyslexia, but meh! :)
seriouosle im sorry fro what im bout to post but..
Do yu think sexuality is by choice?

OK i maen its MORE instinct to be sexual in such a way tthan to be something of CHOICE.. like.. im gay.. youre strait, get it? like you just grew up liking women.. i like men.. they like both..


doid that make sense/?
You need to drink more. It did indeed make more sense.

And once again, everyone forgets about asexuals, people who simply have no desire to have sex.

Are you telling us you have no sexual organs?

seriouosle im sorry fro what im bout to post but..
Do yu think sexuality is by choice?


lol. I don't know about Eut, but I can't remember ever deciding to be heterosexual... I just kinda started feeling very attracted to women.

You need to drink more. It did indeed make more sense.
the fact that i drakn almost a whoel bottle ov vodka is logic.. maybe alcoholism is for me?

wtf did i just sa?y

lol. I don't know about Eut, but I can't remember ever deciding to be heterosexual... I just kinda started feeling very attracted to women.
OK see i am wasted! but see, u are just born that way! if i ewas born to be bi i wold just accep[rt it and go on wih life abnd portn,... not beibf what the nmsjority is.. i nmeed to pee.. brhb

did i confuse ppl?

OK see i am wasted! but see, u are just born that way! if i ewas born to be bi i wold just accep[rt it and go on wih life abnd portn,... not beibf what the nmsjority is.. i nmeed to pee.. brhb

Obviously, dude.

I was agreeing with you, by stating that I never made any "choice" to be heterosexual, I just am, and knew I was as soon as I started having sexual thoughts and feelings. And I think homosexuals and bisexuals are the same way, that's just how they naturally feel and have always felt, and the only decision that may have been involved might have been to accept their orientation or live in denial.

seriouosle im sorry fro what im bout to post but..
Do yu think sexuality is by choice?
Seldom. I think that when it comes to our sexuality, most of us are almost exclusively hormone-driven, whatever that works out to in practice.

And once again, everyone forgets about asexuals, people who simply have no desire to have sex.
So sex is a non-issue for asexuals?

Why should their lack of sexuality become an issue for us then?

Obviously, dude.

I was agreeing with you, by stating that I never made any "choice" to be heterosexual, I just am, and knew I was as soon as I started having sexual thoughts and feelings. And I think homosexuals and bisexuals are the same way, that's just how they naturally feel and have always felt, and the only decision that may have been involved might have been to accept their orientation or live in denial.
Thank you, im going to bed..

Thank you, im going to bed..
Into which bed shall we pour you? :D

Seldom. I think that when it comes to our sexuality, most of us are almost exclusively hormone-driven, whatever that works out to in practice.
this is the one thing i dis agree with you on.. when you are bon, you get your sexual prefences.. i was born gay.. you were born strait.. you dont decide to be attracted to a certin sex.. its one or the other.. or neuteral if you know what i mean..

ok if you will excuse me im going to eat some pasta salad and drin kthis booze.. night.

Into which bed shall we pour you? :D
Tghe bed with the down pillows :fluffle:

Thats why I put it in there ... cause I thought so but was not sure (and a BIT drunk lol)
I'm the person the joke's with so, yes, it is indeed a joke aimed at me as a bisexual rather than bisexuals full stop.

It is obvious that they don't exist, just look at the evidence.

It is obvious that they don't exist, just look at the evidence.

What... I don't exist? Sorry, I'll climb back into the big book of fairytales, then.

[Actually, I have two theories. I'm either bisexual or asexual. I'm attracted to both sexes equally, but not sexually.]

What exactly is the difference? How can you be "a little bit" bisexual? Either you can find both sexes attractive or you can't.

there's a very large difference between finding someone of a certain sex attractive and actively desiring sexual relations with them/their gender.
plus as you say there may be different levels of attraction...

but at what point this becomes "bisexual" i think is the difficult question.


for me, just off the top of my head you have different levels of sexuality with respect to someone

you can recognise attraction but feel no associated sexual connotations
you can find them attractive (to different degrees)
you can physically desire them
you can fantasise about them
you can actively pursue sexual relations (flirt or whatever)
you can have sexual relations with them


if all that is equal with respect to both sexes, then the person would undoubtedly be "bisexual"
if not equal, but some of those 'sexual levels' are still shared between the sexes, then the person could be said to be "a little bit bisexual", but majoritively one way or the other (gay or straight)
and then of course, there's people who won't even recognise that a member of the same sex can be (or is) attractive, either by their own willpower and decision or naturally, and i suppose they wouldn't be bisexual at all...

at what point in this made-up list one becomes bisexual is subjective and probably down to the person in question.

so in answer to the OP (yes i know i'm jumping in with my opinion a bit late but meh) yeah i'd say there definatley is such a thing as bisexual, but you can't say it is one thing or another - sexuality is not discrete but continuous, dynamic and very, very subjective.

Ya, sure they exist.
Likewise.

there's a very large difference between finding someone of a certain sex attractive and actively desiring sexual relations with them/their gender.
plus as you say there may be different levels of attraction...

but at what point this becomes "bisexual" i think is the difficult question.


for me, just off the top of my head you have different levels of sexuality with respect to someone

you can recognise attraction but feel no associated sexual connotations
you can find them attractive (to different degrees)
you can physically desire them
you can fantasise about them
you can actively pursue sexual relations (flirt or whatever)
you can have sexual relations with them


if all that is equal with respect to both sexes, then the person would undoubtedly be "bisexual"
if not equal, but some of those 'sexual levels' are still shared between the sexes, then the person could be said to be "a little bit bisexual", but majoritively one way or the other (gay or straight)
Hmm... interesting... That does all make sense. I was really opposing the idea that being bisexual means some sort of equal attraction to males and females.

But I suppose I'd say that the line I'd draw where you become bisexual is with sexual attraction and I'd say that your 2nd, 3rd and 4th "levels" are fairly interlinked and not all that different (for example, how can you physically desire someone without fantasising about them?). They're what I'd call being attracted to someone, or specifically being sexually attracted to someone (though the lines are all blurred and I'm not sure what the distinction is).

So I guess I see it more simply. There are stages but I'd draw a clear cut line at being sexually attracted to males and females - finding them attractive, fantasising about them and physically desiring them which are all very very similar things in my mind.

Also, with the last thing you said I'm wary with what you say in relation to the last two "levels" - if we stay in our relationship together and I never have or pursue any sexual relations with a woman because I was young while I started seeing you and we stay monogamous, does that make me less bisexual? I wouldn't say so.
I don't think sexuality is based on actions but on "built-in", natural attraction.

unless you can rip off your arm and watch a new human being grow from the bloody stump, i will continue to regard all humans as sexual beings.

The same thing can be said against homosexuals. Only bisexuals and heterosexuals reproduce.

I still would like to think I had some grasp of basic logic a few years ago though... :p
How old are you now?

OK see i am wasted! but see, u are just born that way! if i ewas born to be bi i wold just accep[rt it and go on wih life abnd portn,... not beibf what the nmsjority is.. i nmeed to pee.. brhb
Christ, that was illegible. Go to bed.

The same thing can be said against homosexuals. Only bisexuals and heterosexuals reproduce.
Funny that. How come a homosexual friend of mine has children conceived in the normal way?

How old are you now?
16

16
Whoaz

Whoaz
?
How old did you think I was? You've seen pictures (I assume) so it can't be that far off.

What... I don't exist? Sorry, I'll climb back into the big book of fairytales, then.

[Actually, I have two theories. I'm either bisexual or asexual. I'm attracted to both sexes equally, but not sexually.]
Yes and how appropriate you use the word fairy.

Inquriing minds want to know.
*Sigh* We've been over this so very many times before.

Based on what is known about primate sexuality, and based on examination of human cultures and sexuality throughout history, it is extremely likely that the "heterosexual versus homosexual" dichotomy is an invention of human society. The majority of human beings are probably not "born gay" or "born straight." Our sexuality may be partially influenced by genetic or physiological factors that exist at birth, but a large part of our sexual orientation is determined environmentally.

To be very clear: this does not in any way mean that an adult's sexual orientation is something they can change at will. It does not mean that being gay or straight is simply a choice that is consciously made by each individual. What it does mean is that our sexuality, like our personality, is shaped by more than our DNA. Pretty damn obvious, if you ask me.

And, frankly, I'm a bit tired of people telling me that bisexuals don't exist. I am one, and have been my entire life. I remain fundamentally confused by the concept of exclusive heterosexuality or homosexuality, since to me it seems as odd as a person saying they are only attracted to brunettes or only attracted to people with green eyes. I accept that most people identify as gay or straight, and I don't have any interest in changing their minds about their own sexual orientation, but I still think it's weird. :)

The same thing can be said against homosexuals. Only bisexuals and heterosexuals reproduce.
Homosexuality has never been linked to infertility.

Also, with the last thing you said I'm wary with what you say in relation to the last two "levels" - if we stay in our relationship together and I never have or pursue any sexual relations with a woman because I was young while I started seeing you and we stay monogamous, does that make me less bisexual? I wouldn't say so.
I don't think sexuality is based on actions but on "built-in", natural attraction.
This is a good point. I know bisexuals who, for one reason or another, have never had sexual relationships with persons of their own gender (or persons of the opposite gender).

This shouldn't come as a surprise; there are plenty of people who don't have very many sexual partners in their lifetime. I've got a male bisexual friend who has been with his first boyfriend for the last 11 years, and they're not showing signs of breaking up. He's only had sex with this one person, and this one person happens to be of his same gender, but that doesn't mean he's "only gay." It means he is a bisexual who has only had sex with one person, and that person only has one gender :).

Um...... Wow I just started playing this game like 3 days ago:p and uh its cool and all that I guess. Then I move over to the forum and... well... what the fuck is wrong is with everyone??????? So your brain chemistry is fucked up and you dont know if you like boys or girls or boy-girls.

I know that I find both males and females attractive. I have never been confused about that. I am only confused by the fact that the majority of the people around me seem able to ignore half the hotties in the world :).


Congradumafuckalations for that (insert applauding smiley here) but seriously if there was no "real" bi-sexual would there be a title calling it bi-sexual with a definition in the dictionary??? About the comment that gays think bi-sexuals are confused gays. I would say (as a heterosexual) that gays are confused straight people so that means gay's don't exist.... Oh wait I just stumbled on a point didn't I. Hey go play the game and forget about your sexual preference for once this is a game not a porn site. As the great Paul Harvey would say "Good-Day"
If you don't like having discussions about sexuality, this is not the forum for you.

Our sexuality may be partially influenced by genetic or physiological factors that exist at birth, but a large part of our sexual orientation is determined environmentally.

Genetic... I'm sure a race of gay people would last a long time. :rolleyes:

People are all naturally bisexual; but, natural instincts push us towards the ppposite sex simply for reasons of natural survival, but push others into the arms of the same sex in order to control the population and leave a select few in the middle.
This post contains several crucial misconceptions.

1) "Natural instincts" don't control human sexuality. They may influence it, but you need to give humans a little more credit...we've got these monstrous frontal lobes that tend to interfere with instinct at every possible opportunity.

2) Natural selection will not, by definition, favor any behavior or trait that decreases reproductive success. An animal with an "instinct" for species-wide population control will be less reproductively successful than an animal without such an altruistic instinct, and thus this trait will be selected out of the population.

3) Reproductive success is not defined exclusively by how many babies you can make. It is actually defined by how much of your genetic material gets into future generations. This creates several important wrinkles:
-You are as biologically related to your brother or sister as you would be to your own offspring. Thus, helping your brother or sister to survive and reproduce is as "reproductively successful" as helping your own offspring survive and reproduce.
-If you do choose to produce your own offspring, merely having the babies is not reproductive success. Rearing offspring that are themselves able to thrive, reach adulthood, and reproduce is the ultimate goal. An individual who produces 10 babies but only has one survive to adulthood is less reproductively successful than an individual who has 2 babies and rears both successfully.
-Homosexual behavior has been documented to INCREASE reproductive success in numerous species. This is often due to advantages of brood care; in many species, the survival and success of offspring increases in proportion to how many adults are caring for the young. If a female mates with a male, but has "gay" relationship with another female, then she may increase the number of adults who are bringing in food, grooming the young, watching for predators, etc. Another situation is one in which there are significant limitations on resources, such that building a new nest and trying to have one's own brood is very unlikely to be successful...in these situations, some animals will remain in their parents' nest and help to rear their younger siblings. As outlined above, this can be as "successful" at passing on the genes as producing one's own nest. Obviously in this case it would not matter if the animal in question was "gay" or "straight."

Genetic... I'm sure a race of gay people would last a long time. :rolleyes:
As I have described in a post already, homosexuality does not necessarily equate to reduced reproductive fitness. Homosexual individuals are just as able to biologically reproduce as heterosexuals, and their choice of a same-sex life partner has never been shown to decrease their ability to rear offspring. Thus, a race of homosexuals would be just as likely to survive as a race of homosexuals. Indeed, in view of the radical overpopulation occuring today, a race of homosexual humans might survive longer than a race of heterosexual humans due to a reduction in the rate of natural resource depletion.

Hmm... interesting... That does all make sense. I was really opposing the idea that being bisexual means some sort of equal attraction to males and females.

But I suppose I'd say that the line I'd draw where you become bisexual is with sexual attraction and I'd say that your 2nd, 3rd and 4th "levels" are fairly interlinked and not all that different (for example, how can you physically desire someone without fantasising about them?). They're what I'd call being attracted to someone, or specifically being sexually attracted to someone (though the lines are all blurred and I'm not sure what the distinction is).
well they were just arbitary levels i made up off the top of my head.
but i do think there can be a distinction drawn between being attracted to someone and desiring sexual relations.

like me for example: i can recognise attractiveness in men, and on occasion be attracted to them, but i simply do not - not by force of will or choice, just thats how i feel - desire any sexual encounter or actually desire men at all. hence the distinction i draw. as i said its all subjective and probably different for everybody anyway.


So I guess I see it more simply. There are stages but I'd draw a clear cut line at being sexually attracted to males and females - finding them attractive, fantasising about them and physically desiring them which are all very very similar things in my mind.

not in mine. subjective and relative, see. just like you were saying about your 12/14 year old logic, what is true for you isn't true for everyone. all i was saying is the way i see it.

Also, with the last thing you said I'm wary with what you say in relation to the last two "levels" - if we stay in our relationship together and I never have or pursue any sexual relations with a woman because I was young while I started seeing you and we stay monogamous, does that make me less bisexual? I wouldn't say so.
I don't think sexuality is based on actions but on "built-in", natural attraction.
whether or not you act on those natural impulses - again, out of choice or just because you don't feel that strongly attracted one way or another - is just as important in practical terms as what you feel inside.
but the problem is this is becoming now about labelling...

As I have described in a post already, homosexuality does not necessarily equate to reduced reproductive fitness. Homosexual individuals are just as able to biologically reproduce as heterosexuals, and their choice of a same-sex life partner has never been shown to decrease their ability to rear offspring. Thus, a race of homosexuals would be just as likely to survive as a race of homosexuals. Indeed, due to current population strains, a race of homosexual humans might survive longer than a race of heterosexual humans, due to a reduction in the rate of natural resource depletion.


But it does equate to readiness to have sex with those of the opposite sex.

But it does equate to readiness to have sex with those of the opposite sex.
Not necessarily. The gay men can enjoy sexual relations to 'extract' the required material, and then pass it to the gay woman who can enjoy sexual relations to inplant that material. And I'm sure they'd all enjoy the process as much as heterosexuals do when procreating. :p

well they were just arbitary levels i made up off the top of my head.
but i do think there can be a distinction drawn between being attracted to someone and desiring sexual relations.

like me for example: i can recognise attractiveness in men, and on occasion be attracted to them, but i simply do not - not by force of will or choice, just thats how i feel - desire any sexual encounter or actually desire men at all. hence the distinction i draw. as i said its all subjective and probably different for everybody anyway.

I think all adult human beings experience that distinction. Or if they don't, then they really should. Most of us can feel physical attraction toward people who we simultaneously do not desire sexual contact with. There can be a variety of reasons for this.

For instance, on the floor I work on there is a secretary who is known throughout the building as "Hottie McJackass." He's obscenely hot, like something out of a magazine, but he is also the most collosal jackass you could ever hope to meet. I find him extremely physically attractive, but I have absolutely no interest in having any kind of physical contact with him. I have never fantasized about him (except one time when I fantasized about going upside his head with a stapler), despite knowing that he is the sexiest creature in our building.

But it does equate to readiness to have sex with those of the opposite sex.
That is not relevant to the issue of population survival. Homosexuals are capable of biological reproduction and brood care. Homosexual individuals appear to show interest in having and rearing children with roughly the same frequency as heterosexuals. There is no reason to assume that a population of 100% homosexuals would "die out."

In some ways, the homosexuals might be more reproductively successful. For instance, homosexuals are signficantly less likely to experience unplanned pregnancies, which means that a larger percentage of pregnancies would be planned and prepared for. This typically is linked with improved conditions for children. While fewer children would probably be born in such a population, the children that were born would be more likely to receive attentive and deliberate parenting.

It is also possible that there would be more communal living situations due to a mingling of biological parents with gay partnerships (i.e. a gay man and a gay woman produce a biological child, but each wishes to have a gay life partner, so the biological child has 4 parents right off the bat). Contrary to the modern myth of the "traditional" nuclear family, human families have historically been far more communal than the two-parents-plus-kids situation that we see today. I don't know that such communal situations would necessarily be better for kids, but you can see how they might be.

I don't want to imply that gay people are inherently better parents, or that heterosexuals are all careless or irresponsible parents. I don't think that a parent's sexual orientation determines their fitness to have and rear children. I'm simply pointing out that there is no particular reason why homosexual societies would have a lower net fitness than heterosexuals.

like me for example: i can recognise attractiveness in men, and on occasion be attracted to them, but i simply do not - not by force of will or choice, just thats how i feel - desire any sexual encounter or actually desire men at all.
But then I'd say that isn't sexual attraction, obviously, which is why I made the distinction from just general attraction.

not in mine. subjective and relative, see. just like you were saying about your 12/14 year old logic, what is true for you isn't true for everyone. all i was saying is the way i see it.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you say about different levels of attraction etc. I would agree with the basics of what you're saying. My point is only really that I think there is a clear cut line, in the midst of those levels, where it becomes bisexuality and not just "appreciating attractiveness" or something like that.

whether or not you act on those natural impulses - again, out of choice or just because you don't feel that strongly attracted one way or another - is just as important in practical terms as what you feel inside.
How so? And what do you mean by "important in practical terms"?

In a case where both people are in the exact same situation and one person choses to act on sexual attraction, perhaps I could see that person being "more" bisexual, though even then it could just be a different personality and opinion on sexual relations.
But with situations such as my own, or a situation with a closeted homosexual, or any type of virgin... I can't see how this can follow through. If my desires and attraction are just as strong as another bisexual, how can I be less bisexual just because I haven't done anything sexual with a female? Does a virgin have "less" of a sexual orientation or a "weaker" sexual orientation than someone who's had sex?

I just don't understand this idea/view at all. Help! :p

*snip*

But how does the homosexual man arouse himself for procreation?

Does a virgin have "less" of a sexuality or a "weaker" sexuality then someone who's had sex?

In a way, yes. If you think you would like something, but have never actually tried it, then you are in a position that is very different from somebody who has tried it and KNOWS they like it.

Sexually inexperienced people often have very unrealistic ideas about what sex is going to be like. They are in love with what they think sex is, but the reality sometimes will come as a bit of a disappointment. Some kids fantasize about sexual activities that turn out to be no fun at all in real life (a classic example is having sex on the beach, with sand ending up in various unpleasent places).

Think about it this way: two America kids who are in love with the idea of back-packing through Europe. One of them has been to several European countries, has gone camping numerous times, and has stayed in youth hostels a lot. The other has never even been on an airplane, has never gone camping, and doesn't know that "backpacking" will involve staying in places other than hotels.

Does this mean that the second kid feels any less strongly about wanting to backpack through Europe? Of course not! It simply means that the second kid does not have as much experience upon which to base their preferences.

I would not classify virgins as having "less" sexuality or "weaker" sexuality. Sexuality is largely about your own understanding of what you think you want. Lots of us think we want things that turn out to be the opposite of what we are looking for, and losing your virginity doesn't necessarily protect you from that :). A virgin may have less information to work with than somebody who is more experienced, and (as with all things) experience usually helps people figure themselves out a bit more, but that doesn't mean virgins are clueless or stupid or that their sexual feelings should be disregarded.

But how does the homosexual man arouse himself for procreation?
Um, in pretty much the same way as a heterosexual man. The male contribution to procreation is sperm, so any act that allows sperm to be obtained from the male will do.

I don't know how much of the "birds and the bees" you are familiar with, but babies can be made without inserting a penis into a vagina.

It is also now quite possible to make a baby without ever causing the biological father to become aroused. As sad as this may seem to you, male erections and orgasms are not required for human reproduction.

EDIT: In addition, there are a great many gay men who have produced biological children in the "natural" manner. I personally am friends with a pair of young men whose father is (and has always been) gay. Their father married their mother (who is also gay) because both wanted to please their families by making a traditional family. They produced children using the "normal" methods, but did not engage in "recreational" sexual activity together. This is just one example of how gay men can, and do, have sex with women and produce biological children without the aid of technology.

Um, in pretty much the same way as a heterosexual man. The male contribution to procreation is sperm, so any act that allows sperm to be obtained from the male will do.

I don't know how much of the "birds and the bees" you are familiar with, but babies can be made without inserting a penis into a vagina. The penis does not make babies.

Less of the patronisation please :P. A race which is dependent on "turkey basters" isn't likely to be successful.

Less of the patronisation please :P.

I was not attempting to patronize you. You seem to have some misconceptions about the mechanisms of human reproduction, so I am trying to be clear in order to avoid confusion. I am sorry if I offended you.


A race which is dependent on "turkey basters" isn't likely to be successful.
Why not? As I have said, such a group might experience fewer unplanned pregnancies, and thus fewer pregnancies over all, but there is no reason to assume that this would mean that the society was "less successful."

Unless you define "success" by the number of pregnancies you can create, which is (forgive me) a very silly standard to use.

I was not attempting to patronize you. You seem to have some misconceptions about the mechanisms of human reproduction, so I am trying to be clear in order to avoid confusion. I am sorry if I offended you.


Why not? As I have said, such a group might experience fewer unplanned pregnancies, and thus fewer pregnancies over all, but there is no reason to assume that this would mean that the society was "less successful."

Unless you define "success" by the number of pregnancies you can create, which is (forgive me) a very silly standard to use.

I mean continuity of the gene-pool, by success. Not in quantity, but in longevity. Perhaps I'm talking about an obsolete dependence on purely natural reproduction... again.

I mean continuity of the gene-pool, by success. Not in quantity, but in longevity. Perhaps I'm talking about an obsolete dependence on purely natural reproduction... again.

You assume gay people would have gay children? That's like assuming straight people would have straight children. Nevertheless, why would the gay children of gay parents be less likely than their parents to have children?

You assume gay people would have gay children? That's like assuming straight people would have straight children. Nevertheless, why would the gay children of gay parents be less likely than their parents to have children?

No, I said homosexuality could hardly be genetic.

-snip-
Ah, I think I phrased what I said very badly. I didn't mean sexuality but sexual orientation (because I wasn't specifying bisexuality, homosexuality etc, I wrongly shortened it to "sexuality") which is quite different.

I agree with everything you said in terms of sexuality and experience - what I meant was to question whether a virgin/someone inexperienced is "less" of their sexual orientation.

You assume gay people would have gay children? That's like assuming straight people would have straight children. Nevertheless, why would the gay children of gay parents be less likely than their parents to have children?

And as for the second point...I was saying that gay people are less likely to have children than straight people. That is true, isn't it?

No, I said homosexuality could hardly be genetic.

You are failing to argue for why it could "hardly be genetic."

I mean continuity of the gene-pool, by success. Not in quantity, but in longevity.

Yes, I know. And there is no reason to believe that a homosexual population will lack this kind of success in the long-term.


Perhaps I'm talking about an obsolete dependence on purely natural reproduction... again.
In part, yes. But you are also assuming that homosexuals cannot or will not reproduce "naturally." This is an incorrect assumption.

And as for the second point...I was saying that gay people are less likely to have children than straight people. That is true, isn't it?

In a society where we don't have to have children, then of course. You fail to explain why, in a society where everyone is gay, gay people would be less likely to have children. And since when does "less likely" mean "don't have at all?" We don't need to have as many children as people are having today to sustain a human population. You're being heteronormative, which is a silly perspective to have when talking about gay people, since we're not heterosexual, you know.

You are failing to argue for why it could "hardly be genetic."

You didn't ask me to; you asked me to argue for why it would be genetic.

The reason I think a race of gay people is unlikely, is because traditionally it would not have survived, due to gay men not being attracted to women.

In part, yes. But you are also assuming that homosexuals cannot or will not reproduce "naturally." This is an incorrect assumption.

I find it heterosexist to define the way heterosexuals reproduce as the only "natural" way to do it.

*will not touch this thread with a 10-metre pole*

You have a 10 metre pole? You must be popular.

In a society where we don't have to have children, then of course. You fail to explain why, in a society where everyone is gay, gay people would be less likely to have children. And since when does "less likely" mean "don't have at all?" We don't need to have as many children as people are having today to sustain a human population. You're being heteronormative, which is a silly perspective to have when talking gay people, since we're not heterosexual, you know.

In a society where everyone is gay, I'm pretty sure gay people would instinctively want to procreate... which could almost stop them from being gay. Heteronormative...you seem to be assuming I'm straight. ^^

bisexual usually happens when someone like the same and opposite sex, but to me you should stick to hetero

You didn't ask me to; you asked me to argue for why it would be genetic.

But you're using a "their children would be gay, and thus wouldn't have children" as an argument to try to prove a point that it would not be genetic.

The reason I think a race of gay people is unlikely, is because traditionally it would not have survived, due to gay men not being attracted to women.

My not wanting to fuck women has nothing to do with me not wanting children. I plan on having children.

Ah, I think I phrased what I said very badly. I didn't mean sexuality but sexual orientation (because I wasn't specifying bisexuality, homosexuality etc, I wrongly shortened it to "sexuality") which is quite different.

I agree with everything you said in terms of sexuality and experience - what I meant was to question whether a virgin/someone inexperienced is "less" of their sexual orientation.
Well, what I was getting at is that virgins may have less of a realistic idea of their own sexual orientation. For instance, in college I encountered many young women who got the idea that lesbian relationships would be magically free of the typical relationship problems. They idealized gay relationships, and chased an ideal that does not exist. They thought that by swearing off of men they would be able to escape heartbreak, or that by dating a woman they would automatically have a partner who would be better able to sexual satisfy them.

The reality is that gay relationships have all the same problems as straight relationships. Gay relationships aren't any worse than straight ones, and sometimes escape many of the gender-typing hangups of straight relationships, but gay relationships are still interactions between different human beings. Human beings make mistakes. Human beings have flaws. Gay humans can be just as clueless or thoughtless or selfish as straight human beings.

There are young girls who romanticise heterosexuality to an extend that is terrifying. They fall in love with a kind of relationship that never exists. They fantasize about a kind of sexual contact that does not exist. This happens with homosexuality as well. Virgins are more likely to fall prey to this (though they certainly aren't the only ones to do it) because they have less experience with the reality of sex and relationships.

In a society where everyone is gay, I'm pretty sure gay people would instinctively want to procreate... which could almost stop them from being gay.

I'm gay. I want to have children. How would having a child stop me from being gay?

Heteronormative...you seem to be assuming I'm straight. ^^

You don't have to be hetero to be heteronormative. It is heteronormative itself to assume that.

But you're using a "their children would be gay, and thus wouldn't have children" as an argument to try to prove a point that it would not be genetic.



My not wanting to fuck women has nothing to do with me not wanting children. I plan on having children.

But traditionally, to be obsolete again, it would have been more difficult for a gay man to maintain an erection during intercourse with a woman...

I find it heterosexist to define the way heterosexuals reproduce as the only "natural" way to do it.
I know, that's why I put it in scare quotes.

My not wanting to fuck women has nothing to do with me not wanting children. I plan on having children.
And me enjoying heterosexual sex has nothing to do with my desire for procreation. I like heterosexual sex a whole lot, and I have a heterosexual partner right now who I really love to shag, but I also have no interest in procreating.

So look at that! We've got a gay person who wants babies and a "straight" person who doesn't! I wonder which one of us is more likely to be "successful" at making babies?

I'm gay. I want to have children. How would having a child stop me from being gay?

I said almost...I didn't mean it was literally true.

You don't have to be hetero to be heteronormative. It is heteronormative itself to assume that.

How ironic.

But traditionally, to be obsolete again, it would have been more difficult for a gay man to maintain an erection during intercourse with a woman...

Umm, then you must have missed all those gay men who married women and fathered children when they couldn't leave the closet. And those men who do so today.

And here's a shocker - I've had sex with women! No problem keeping an erection going.

Umm, then you must have missed all those gay men who married women and fathered children when they couldn't leave the closet. And those men who do so today.

And here's a shocker - I've had sex with women! No problem keeping an erection going.

Yeah, well, my argument collapses.

I said almost...I didn't mean it was literally true.

What it is, is literally false. Procreation has never stopped anyone from being gay.

How ironic.

I thought so, too.

I thought so, too.
:)

Well, what I was getting at is that virgins may have less of a realistic idea of their own sexual orientation. For instance, in college I encountered many young women who got the idea that lesbian relationships would be magically free of the typical relationship problems. They idealized gay relationships, and chased an ideal that does not exist. They thought that by swearing off of men they would be able to escape heartbreak, or that by dating a woman they would automatically have a partner who would be better able to sexual satisfy them.

The reality is that gay relationships have all the same problems as straight relationships. Gay relationships aren't any worse than straight ones, and sometimes escape many of the gender-typing hangups of straight relationships, but gay relationships are still interactions between different human beings. Human beings make mistakes. Human beings have flaws. Gay humans can be just as clueless or thoughtless or selfish as straight human beings.

There are young girls who romanticise heterosexuality to an extend that is terrifying. They fall in love with a kind of relationship that never exists. They fantasize about a kind of sexual contact that does not exist. This happens with homosexuality as well. Virgins are more likely to fall prey to this (though they certainly aren't the only ones to do it) because they have less experience with the reality of sex and relationships.
But even with idealising relationships or certain sexual orientations, I don't think that has an impact on your actual orientation, just what you want your orientation to be. I don't see how it could actually change your physical desires, unless you were always bisexual and able to be attracted to the opposite sex as well.

It does mean that a virgin could appear less certain about their orientation, or could be less sure herself, but I still don't think that would change the inherent orientation that's a part of them whether they know about it or not.

Also, if this did have an impact, it wouldn't apply to all cases with a virgin and could also apply to non-virgins or even very sexually experienced people who just can't accept reality. I don't think it can be said that a lack of sexual experience necessarily weakens sexual orientation, or that the reverse is true.

But even with idealising relationships or certain sexual orientations, I don't think that has an impact on your actual orientation, just what you want your orientation to be. I don't see how it could actually change your physical desires, unless you were always bisexual and able to be attracted to the opposite sex as well.

Well, that's kind of at the center of this discussion. I am of the camp that believes sexuality is not set by genetics or by "innate" biological traits, though it is most likely influenced by such factors. I believe that a great many psychological factors help to shape our sexual orientation, whether we are conscious of them or not, and a person's beliefs about sexuality will logically contribute to this.


It does mean that a virgin could appear less certain about their orientation, or could be less sure herself, but I still don't think that would change the inherent orientation that's a part of them whether they know about it or not.

Again, I don't know that I believe in "inherent" orientation. It's a murky term, particularly when you start talking about individuals who have not reached sexual maturity.

But just to be extra special clear: this does NOT mean that I believe sexual orientation is a "choice"!!! There is a world of difference between recognizing environmental/psychological factors in sexuality and claiming that individuals can simply choose who or what to be attracted to.


Also, if this did have an impact, it wouldn't apply to all cases with a virgin and could also apply to non-virgins or even very sexually experienced people who just can't accept reality.

Absolutely! And we see this happen all the time! I simply think that virgins may be more LIKELY to do this, on average. But there are plenty of clue-in virgins, and plenty of clueless non-virgins.


I don't think it can be said that a lack of sexual experience necessarily weakens sexual orientation, or that the reverse is true.
Again, I don't like to use the term "weaken." I think sexual experience...informs...sexual orientation. Gathering information TENDS to help people understand things. There are people who just don't seem to learn from experience, and there are people who have a wisdom beyond their own experiences, but speaking in the broadest terms I think the average human gets wiser with experience.

?
How old did you think I was? You've seen pictures (I assume) so it can't be that far off.
That you have a 20 y.o. boyfriend. Just is strange to me. Anyway you do look a couple of years older than 16.

That you have a 20 y.o. boyfriend. Just is strange to me.
OMG! You would think that *I* was totally off the charts! ROFLMFAO!!!

I think there can be, but I also think 90% of the people who say they are, are full of it.

I have met many "bi-sexual" people and while some of them seemed genuine (had been in long-lasting sexual, and romantic relationships with both sexes) it seemed most of them considered themselves bi-sexual because they had kissed somebody of the same sex once, or thought somebody of the same sex was attractive, and my favorite; because 80% of the men that they told about their bi-sexuality thought lesbianism was hot.

Granted, as I'm sure you can tell by that paragraph, 95% of those who I've deemed absolutely full of it were women.

I'm going on the record as "apathetic and unconcerned".