Bi-sexuality.

[wolfchylde]

Really most other reasons seem to boil down to that person thinking gay sex is gross, and they're just not accustomed to the idea like some people are. Evidently some people think it's equivalent to something like bestiality, when really it isn't.

A lot of the 'gay sex is gross' *seems* to stem from just having a ton of pre-conceived notions about gay sex (or any sort of homosexual behavior).

Another example of your argument can be found in cuisine: We eat stuff people from other cultures would gag at, and HOO BOY do you see lots of things people eat in other cultures/countries that we'd have to be *paid* to eat Cultural influence can't be overlooked in discussing people's sexuality.

 

[wolfchylde]

Okay friend of mine who's been following this over my shoulder asks: So where in the scheme of things does cuddling fit? He identifies as mostly straight, but will pretty much cuddle with any gender because he likes cuddling that much. I must admit that for straight guy he has no physical hangups about leaning up against other guys OR gals, and doesn't really seem to prefer one over the other. So is there an accepted level of physical intimacy we've decided is required before we start wandering into sexuality territory (hopefully I didn't just confuse the shit out of any readers here :/ )

 

[Hawk eye1466]

My policy is I can be friends with just about anyone and I dont care if your gay straight or bi if you come on to me and dont know I'll just say im not gay and we are still friends but if you keep trying i will get annoyed
but i really couldnt care less about what you do in your bedroom thats your own business

 

[SirDoom]

-snip-

Did you even bother reading the first part of my post, where I rail against the terms? I assumed after that, I could say "somewhere in the middle" without the fairly obvious "somewhere in the middle of what society perceives as straight and what they perceive as bisexual". I guess not.

In any case, I WOULD consider myself between those technically (well, on one axis, anyway). Like I said, I don't like any of the terms, and I am certainly not any of the three. I don't like guys, girls, or both. I like certain traits, regardless of gender.

As for the Kinsey scale, personally, I find it to be a worthless piece of garbage. You can't define all human sexualities on a 0-6 scale, and saying "This scale is right!" is just as misinformed as saying, say "You're either straight or gay, and there's no middle ground!"
At any given time, I am between 0 and 6 on that scale, never staying in one spot for too long. That's because the scale runs on a line- The more straight you are, the farther to the left you are, and the more gay you are, the farther to the right.

Honestly, the closest definition to what I actually am is pansexual, but if I said that nobody would know what the hell I was talking about. So I tried to shove my views somewhere on that linear axis... fail.

 

[Fawcks]

I'm wondering if the stereotype that bi people are more likely to cheat is true.

Anyone wanna confirm/deny this?

I was engaged for two years and was entirely faithful to my spouse for all four years.

Outside of a relationship, I am pretty easy, I'll admit. But inside a relationship? 100% devoted.

 

[Thespian]

Observing this thread, I was reminded of an interesting seminar I attended on Human Sexuality.
I think it's important to note that Sexuality and Romance and Love are not all intertwined. I think it's quite possible to love someone even if there is no romance there due to sexuality, just as we all know it's possible to Sexually Romance someone without Loving them. Likewise, it is quite ordinary to Romantically Love someone without wanting to get involved with them Sexually. Sometimes, people just want to cuddle. Sometimes people strongly love their friends. This all varies. I dunno, just a little tidbit.

Also:

-snip-

Hai ther.
I've been following your posts, and I must say I applaud your open-mindedness and your refusal to conform, but I think your view is slightly flawed.

First of all, the Kinsey Scale never claimed to include every single person. Keep in mind it was made in the 1950s. Prior to Kinsey's research, there was absolutely no comprehensive work done on human sexuality. Everything was kept quiet and under wraps, don't ask don't tell. Thus, Kinsey's scale is but a base for more work to be done upon, and it is actually highly effective at "classifying" human sexuality.

However, if you look at some additions to Kinsey's Scale (as well as 0-6, it now includes "X", being asexual or non-sexual - a good start) or some of the later versions (Benjamin's Sexual Orientation Scale, or SOS, which includes transsexualism) you will find that they expressly explain that "the seven types cannot be sharply separated", "Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects." and finally "An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life. A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist."

(actually, Kinsey himself said the final two)

So you see, the Scale understands that the varying forms of sexuality are not sharply distinguishable, can be applied differently during different times in someone's life (as you said) and most of all that it is not perfect, but a seven point scale is better than nothing. This happens all the time in Science, we have to make certain assumptions due to the fact that no form of classification will be 100% accurate. To every rule there is an exception.

 

[Crazycat690]

Well since the thread creator no longer say what the thread is about I am unable to reply.

I have no problem with any kind of sexuality, being an atheist I'm open-minded and tolerant =) It's not wrong, greedy or against nature since it occurs among other animals too.

Basically all male giraffes are bisexual, leaning in favor of homosexual. The species reproduces from the roughly 1/5 sexual encounters for the average male giraffe that is with a female.

I don't care what sexuality people are. "Whatever floats your boat." (As long as it's legal.)

Now that's interesting

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

In any case, I WOULD consider myself between those technically (well, on one axis, anyway). Like I said, I don't like any of the terms, and I am certainly not any of the three. I don't like guys, girls, or both. I like certain traits, regardless of gender.

**blinks**

And obviously all straight people are attracted to ALL people of the opposite gender.
And all bisexuals are attracted to all guys and girls.

**pauses for effect**

Clearly that is not true. I like some guys, and I like some girls, dependant on their traits. "I like certain traits, regardless of gender" is how most people define bisexual.

As for the scale, I'm not a huge proponent of it. It's a useful tool, but also an outdated tool. It IS 50+ years old. Might be time for an updated version that uses the current society as a basis, rather than the 1950s. However, it does make discussions easier (common ground, common set of terms). Your earlier comment made it sound like you were using the scale, so I used it in my reply. If you don't like it, fine.

What I'm saying is that bisexual is the space between two points, not a third point.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Nothing should stop you from being you want in this world, or who you want to be with. ♥

A very beautiful thought, my dear. Totally incorrect, but beautiful nonetheless. The truth is that if people look beyond societal labels and other such nonsensical platitudes, you're going find more often than not that what a sole person wants is highly irrelevant. And maybe nothing should stop you from being what you want, and being with who you want. But I guarantee you, something will try. Many, many somethings.

You contradict yourself. He said "nothing should stop you"

You said "totally incorrect" and then said that someone will try to stop you, adding "and maybe nothing should stop you"

Aylaine never said that nothing would, or that it would be easy. He said should, which you agreed with. Therefore the original statement (which only ever indicated should) was correct. Nothing should stop you. Many things will try anyway, but they shouldn't.

 

[SirDoom]

-snip- (again)

I just like to be specific really, that's all. I don't want "the grey area in the middle", I want "Ok, on a RGB colour scale, it's 84:83:84". I guess that's why I oppose the term bisexual- Since it's so rare to find someone who likes ONLY masculine or ONLY feminine traits, that would put most people in the grey area somewhere, and a single unified term isn't much use when it includes such a wide range of people (some of which have basically polar opposite views).

I'm the same way with most things, really. If your classification system isn't a 3+ dimensional array of different values, it's not good enough =)

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I just like to be specific really, that's all. I don't want "the grey area in the middle", I want "Ok, on a RGB colour scale, it's 84:83:84". I guess that's why I oppose the term bisexual- Since it's so rare to find someone who likes ONLY masculine or ONLY feminine traits, that would put most people in the grey area somewhere, and a single unified term isn't much use when it includes such a wide range of people (some of which have basically polar opposite views).

I'm the same way with most things, really. If your classification system isn't a 3+ dimensional array of different values, it's not good enough =)

Well, the terms in this case are designed or ball-park generalizations. If you want something that specific, what you really want is a modern, revised, much more precise version of the Kinsey scale. 0-6 really isn't enough, and as pointed out, a vertical axis would be helpful for adding asexuals through nympho maniacs. Also, something for thoughts vs actions might be nice.

Human sexuality is complex. Being able to say "I'm here on the spectrum" is nice. But, when random person X on the street wants to know what your sexual preference is (if you don't just tell them to screw off) it's nice to be able to use a quick, easy to understand generalization.

 

[Pointer]

People that are bisexual are greedy. They want a hot dog and a taco and they want it now.

If you are bi this is not meant as an insult, imma just let you know that the above is true. For example one girl I know dates men for sex and women for cuddling. She gets the best of both worlds without the annoyances of the others. Think about your relationships and you will find the pattern to be true.

Um... no, I won't. Because I'm a bisexual, and I love sex with women. I also love sex with men. I don't get up after getting laid and run off to someone else - not only is that silly, it's impolite.

I also have been with the same partner (not telling you which gender) for the past 8 years. Sometime we arrange for a "guest" in the bedroom (my partner is also bi) to mix things up, but 90% of the time I am with my partner and I get everything I want or need.

See this is where I have to stop you and say that you are in a situation that would not happen for the overwhelming majority of the populace. Even being able to set up a threesome is probably beyond the average man or woman, regardless of their tastes. And the fact that you call that "spice" in your sex life really just undermines the whole "I'm not greedy" thing. I'm not saying you are a bad person or anything, I'm just saying you want and regularly get the best of both worlds. You even visit a third world and get things that few ever do.

First off, read your original post. I was stating that I didn't find sex with men superior or only turn to women for "cuddling" - which your post implied. I also dislike the deeper premis that I can't get everything I want out of a single partner. For the last 8 years, I have. Does that include a fairly interesting sex life? Yes. But I'm still getting that from a single romantic partner who enjoys and participates in the same. Thus, if I look "at my relationship pattern" I do not find your statment true.

Secondly, as mentioned in another post of mine above, being a slut has nothing to do with being bisexual. I was bisexual long before I was sexually active.

In the first kiss thread, I mentioned that I didn't have my first kiss until I was 17. This is because I used to be a shy, nerdy, A grade getting, socially inept wall-flower. I was still bisexual then (although I didn't know the term existed). I just couldn't get a date to save my life.

So how could I have been greedy? I spent years with nothing to "eat" at all. When I finally started "eating" (in college) I tried both "hot dogs" and "tacos" and both were good. I only ever had one at a time, though, often with long gaps between samplings.

After college, I met someone who had similar inclinations. Have I had an awesome sex life since then? Yes. But that is more because my partner and I have amazing sexual chemestry, and like lots of the same stuff.

So stop calling me (or other bisexuals) greedy. Most straight people I know have had MORE sexual partners than I have. Just because I pick from both genders doesn't mean I pick more people.

Its great that you said that. Its wonderful even. I'm glad you have a great relationship. Really I am. It just doesn't change my opinion. And that all that is. I won't make you see my way, though I think it is the correct interpretation of this situation.

Good day mam.

 

[Gunner_Guardian]

Heh, my first girlfriend was Bi-sexual. Very interesting girl, we're on good terms now too.

I like bi-sexuals, they're interesting people to meet. I don't know why people say they're greedy, most I know are monogamous. Maybe they don't like the idea of competing against both teams or perhaps their jealous of a freedom?

I don't know why we use these black and white terms, is not human sexuality not the same as liking any other 2 things like 2 types of ice cream? You can like both, hate both, like one, or perfer one or anything inbetween.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Okay friend of mine who's been following this over my shoulder asks: So where in the scheme of things does cuddling fit?...

Cuddling is, amongst not merely humankind but mammalkind the norm. It's our society that is odd out for wanting to keep each other at arm's reach. In most cultures, world-wide, though, humans are completely okay with direct contact with each other, without the necessity of sexual subtext.

Consider pet owners and the way they (commonly) interact with their critters. The energy that is exchanged between them is the way mammals generally interact for comfort and companionship. Some anthropologists hypothesis if we weren't so stuck up, we could be less hung up regarding sexual relationships and sexual matters.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

You contradict yourself. He said "nothing should stop you"

You said "totally incorrect" and then said that someone will try to stop you, adding "and maybe nothing should stop you"

Aylaine never said that nothing would, or that it would be easy. He said should, which you agreed with. Therefore the original statement (which only ever indicated should) was correct. Nothing should stop you. Many things will try anyway, but they shouldn't.

Don't ever correct me, especially if it's just to correct my grammar.

It appears that you are wrong again.

I didn't correct your grammar. I corrected your logic. You claimed that "A" was both true and untrue, which is an error in logic. You were also rather unkind about it.

Also "don't ever correct me" isn't particularly polite either. If it was an attempt at intimidation, it has failed.