On Topic Discussion What do you think about bisexuals?

[luckynumbah7]

@Rolyo,

I didn't say you'd visit for good reasons. There's quite a few things that can be done, online or off, when you know sets of information. And you don't strike me as a particularly ethical type. Moral, maybe, but those are so malleable depending on what someone wants. If you had a decent ethics you'd reply to what people actually wrote and not (snerk) claim acceptance equals someone considering they have a right to you whether they like you or not/wanting to fuck you.

Which you apparently still think, (the concept if not the specifics, regardless of genders involved).

I don't need anyone's belief in who I've slept with. Why you think I'd would, only god knows. Off the cuff I'd guess peer pressure, but you're not anywhere close to being my peer. Then again, your profile says student so I imagine you just sort of float to that response.

Since y'could stand with reminding of certain immutable facts; Belief doesn't do a goddamn thing in the face of reality. Anyones' belief, really. Yes, including yours. Who someone fucks isn't a mind over matter kind of thing.

I gave rough numbers because I responded to Vitamin's response to you regarding women, masculinity, sex, and who straight men sleep with.

Which I'm sure men know the specifics about since macho one upmanship is so honest coming from guys in the locker room/bars/on the bloody sidewalk. Hell, at least most guys are aware that their friends tend to lie in the sexual interest department (in one way or another, holy hell there's a lot of ways to skew the line there, - it's usually by omission). But by talking with you, you'd think they consider that area sacrosanct - only the ghost of Pamela Anderson need apply.

That's really not how life, or sexuality, works.

Did you happen to have a previous avatar of a hot air balloon in rainbow colors, by chance?

 

[Rolyo85]

I did not.

And most of your post didn't address anything I've ever written anywhere, so I'm assuming you're really just a very bad reader.

You made a great point though - it's not a matter of faith and mind over matter. If you want a dick inside you, or to put yours inside other dudes, you're simply not straight. If you exclusively or almost exclusively want to do that, you're not bi. It's not a matter of how you call yourself, it's a matter of who you are and what you do.

 

[mikey3000]

My boyfriend is here for the weekend. He's helping my kids with with their homework while I nurse a headache and my wife is cooking dinner for us all. I think bisexuals rock!

 

[mikemizanin729]

If any guy on this website thinks Katy Perry's hot then your bi.

 

[luckynumbah7]

@Xbuzzerzx,

People largely can't really hide of obfuscate their race as far as widely recognized phenotypical traits... skin color, features, etc. Some people can... and many of them do. I suspect there are a lot more people, especially in the South, with at least some small tributaries of black blood in them than is ever announced publicly.

People can, however, obscure ethnic origin. And they very widely do so based on whatever social pressures or attitudes are acting on people's perceptions of certain groups at any given time.

People mistake one race for another all the damn time. People can't even guess weight with any accuracy, why do you believe they can identify facial features and skintone and also match it to genetic history (which is what race means when it's at home with its feet up) that people can't see at all? If memory serves the concept of race is a social construct (much like money). Doesn't make it any less real, for a given value of real. Because it's a social construct it's prone to....conflation. And also inflation. Think of it as the Brown People Are Interchangeable, Kick 'Em All Out + the infamous Wasn't His Nose Bigger sketch artist, when talking about particular 'phenotypical characteristics'.

I'm talking about assuming a mixed-race African to be Indian or Native Americans for, well, everyone else under the planet - happens all the damn time, from what I understand. It's so common stand-ups have their own routines around it. And you can't create a joke on a routine that doesn't happen often or people won't conceptually understand it, otherwise it's not funny.

Sexuality is far more comparable to ethnicity than to race. There's some unknown percentage of all non-straight people who can be largely identified as "probably not straight" when people meet them. And a lot more that you can't tell. But you can't "scan" everyone and tell what their sexuality or their sexual attractions are.

People fuck up guessing sexuality constantly when they see a thing, assume that thing fits into what they already know of the world, and then go on to further guess that whatever features, attributes or characteristics that they consider anomalous to their particular grouping means a specific thing.

"How can you be gay, you seem so masculine!" isn't a trope for nothing. I see the handful of people that others happen to guess the sexuality right on to be.....lucky guesses. No more and no less. And sometimes they're not lucky guesses because people are trying to get read in a certain way without also bringing down the Wrath of Straight Bigots on their heads. Which is where I suppose the "He was just too gay, yer honor. He hit on me, I swears!" defense started to rear its head.

Pointing out that many gay men hide their homosexuality and identify as straight, sometimes even awkwardly so when everyone around them "can tell" that they are gay, is simply a known and accepted given. It's not controversial to point out, it doesn't raise any eyebrows.

Raises my eyebrows something awful. When someone says everyone knows I'd hope they usually refer to a lifetime of family and friends noticing the dude isn't dating women. If they're guessing that way because of a lisp and a love of colors, I know quite a few straight guys that'll give 'em some damn long lectures. Funnily enough, that's usually how they get into the activist circles, being aggrieved about how they're treated because of others' assumptions. Seriously limits the dating field too, from what I understand.

 

[luckynumbah7]

I did not.

And most of your post didn't address anything I've ever written anywhere, so I'm assuming you're really just a very bad reader.

You made a great point though - it's not a matter of faith and mind over matter. If you want a dick inside you, or to put yours inside other dudes, you're simply not straight. If you exclusively or almost exclusively want to do that, you're not bi. It's not a matter of how you call yourself, it's a matter of who you are and what you do.

Dude, it's two pages behind or so. One main stupidity with several smaller stupidities going "It is too!" to back it up. Stupidity being a synonym for your posts in this context. It's not like even the dimmest among us can forget it that quickly. "I did not" doesn't come into it.

Also, you need to learn to read for content and how to set up statements and reasonings for the conclusion/opinions given. How the fuck are you passing college courses without the basics?

And despite how it sounds, I don't mean that in an insulting manner. What you have is your opinions with little realistic content to back it up, as it were.

 

[bankside]

Have you ever known a hot/popular girl who claimed to be bi?

If you have, you wouldn't even say with a straight face that what she faces and what a male coming out as gay faces are similar let alone identical.

Women generally benefit from greater social licence to express their sexual orientation fluidly. But that wasn't my point; I was talking about the reaction to gay vs. bi men. And even with women, the point has already been made:

Hell, for that matter, straight men don't like bi/lesbians either, for the most part. They like women who'll focus on them during sexual situations.

Yup. While many unbiased and open-minded straight guys can surely relate to lesbians in solidarity as others who appreciate female sexuality, there are a hell of a lot of straight guys who only see lesbian sexuality as a performance for their arousal - a performance that turns sour if the women truly don't give a damn about performing for the guy.

You've never had sex with straight men btw.

Two things:
First, Some people learn by doing. Guys can have sex with straight guys who are bi-curious. If they like it, they're now bi. If they like it so much that they never want to sleep with women again, they're gay. If it doesn't work for them and their interest in guys dissolves, they go back to being straight guys who are not bi-curious any more.

Second,
Without intruding too much on luckynumbah7's private life, I think dismissing someone's sexual experience with straight men as an impossibility, when that guy posts that he's a transsexual male, neglects the obvious possibility that trans guys may well have personal insight and experience with straight guys prior to their transition.

 

[Kahaih]

. . . . .


Yup. While many unbiased and open-minded straight guys can surely relate to lesbians in solidarity as others who appreciate female sexuality, there are a hell of a lot of straight guys who only see lesbian sexuality as a performance for their arousal - a performance that turns sour if the women truly don't give a damn about performing for the guy.



. . . . .

How is it you come by this information/assessment?

You posted with such conviction; it has to be more than a wild guess.

Do you have any published data, or just a lot of free time and some good spyglasses?

 

[Gentleheart]

My boyfriend is here for the weekend. He's helping my kids with with their homework while I nurse a headache and my wife is cooking dinner for us all. I think bisexuals rock!

I'd love to see/read your wife's version of this very post.

 

[luckynumbah7]

How is it you come by this information/assessment?

You posted with such conviction; it has to be more than a wild guess.

Do you have any published data, or just a lot of free time and some good spyglasses?

You don't need spyglasses to note fetishizing. Women's sexuality as a fetish and a commodity links below . The first references prostitution since it's a rather large example. That said, there's a difference between selling a service and a client viewing yourself as that service.

http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v10n1/Monto.pdf

http://campusblueprint.com/2013/03/...y-the-performance-model-is-infinitely-better/

There's also many, many books written about the subject, some of them of a personal nature. It illustrates (and rather well at that) how women's sexuality is seen as a performance to benefit men instead of themselves.

Takes about 3 minutes to glean the general content of links for a search. Surprised you haven't tried to look information up yourself instead of relying on others to do it for you. Cross referencing and double checking information is always a ...beneficial habit to cultivate.

 

[mikemizanin729]

I think, therefore they are.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Oh oh, and there's this, which might be an easier start for people when they're trying to discuss sociological trends.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160738399001139

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J041v17n02_03

Granted, the last one has to do with the male gaze theory when applied to gay men so it isn't an article discussing the trend when focusing on women, but it does discuss how the same theory affects men. Either way, same damn theory. Which is part of the larger discussion on the objectification and 'selling' of women, it just works in bit of a different manner because hey, gay men aren't women.

So, what do you think the chances are that the original topic will resurface instead of having a bunch of gay men try to make pithy quotations and bastardized reasonings for denying shit they haven't experienced?

 

[xbuzzerx]

People mistake one race for another all the damn time.

Completely missed point. Nowhere did I claim that people around the planet correctly identify race without fail. The point was that if you are born with phenotypical traits associated with a certain race-- skin tone, features, etc., you can't hide these. People may not correctly guess what your race is but they can, more often than not, easily spot traits that put you either inside of, or outside of, their own group. Let's not reinvent history where only a particularly sharp-eyesight, particularly discerning minority of people had to point out for all the others which people didn't look like us/belong. That's just the not the way it generally worked.

People fuck up guessing sexuality constantly when they see a thing, assume that thing fits into what they already know of the world, and then go on to further guess that whatever features, attributes or characteristics that they consider anomalous to their particular grouping means a specific thing.

"How can you be gay, you seem so masculine!" isn't a trope for nothing.

This is another tangent about whether or not any traits are strongly correlated with how wildly correct or wildly incorrectly people guess at someone's heterosexuality or not. That wasn't the point of my post and it's perpendicular to this thread. The point was that self-labels for things that can't be observed or measured easily-- like ethnicity, like sexuality-- are going to have a big problem of contamination in the accuracy of the answers you receive. You can see this in demography. You can see this in ethnography. You can see this in the fact that half of Americans think they are descended from Pocahontas. And you can see it with every stripe of gay man who is not comfortable accepting his sexuality and goes around calling himself straight or whatever else.

Self-labels are not intrinsically sacrosanct, nor are they invariably truthful. That's the point.

 

[pat grimshaw]

How is it you come by this information/assessment?

You posted with such conviction; it has to be more than a wild guess.

Do you have any published data, or just a lot of free time and some good spyglasses?

Bankside might be one of those people who go through life with the ability to listen as much as talk. He may pay attention to real human beings as much as to hot-housed idealogical theories. And he may be an eldergay.

 

[bankside]

How is it you come by this information/assessment?

You posted with such conviction; it has to be more than a wild guess.

Do you have any published data, or just a lot of free time and some good spyglasses?

I observe the straight people I know and have met and where we have talked about sexuality. Or where some of them have cracked a few fine observations about sexuality without necessarily having to have a conversation.

My observation is that some guys are fascinated with lesbians, and they relate to a lesbian as a fellow aficionado of the female form. But a lot of them are somewhat juvenile on the topic and think that a same-sex female couple represents nothing more than an opportunity for two women to service the one guy in all of his fantasies of a FMF three-way. The idea that the two Fs have zero interest in making that happen because they're quite content with each other and not remotely bisexual, is more than some wee minds can handle.

I've also heard from enough female straight friends who've rejected come-ons from straight guys at bars, and more than one woman on more than one occasion has been called a dyke just for not giggling with joy at the prospect of fucking some random straight dude. They use that insult because they think to be a dyke is to be unworthy of dignity.

 

[luckynumbah7]

@Xbuzzer,

Completely missed point. Nowhere did I claim that people around the planet correctly identify race without fail. The point was that if you are born with phenotypical traits associated with a certain race-- skin tone, features, etc., you can't hide these. People may not correctly guess what your race is but they can, more often than not, easily spot traits that put you either inside of, or outside of, their own group. Let's not reinvent history where only a particularly sharp-eyesight, particularly discerning minority of people had to point out for all the others which people didn't look like us/belong. That's just the not the way it generally worked.

You misinterpreted what I said. I don't believe it has anything to do with some tiny group of individuals being able to discern which people don't belong while the rest of them make mistakes on visible characteristics. What I think is that people latch onto something that seems 'other' to their chosen social circle and attache beliefs and actions to it that have nothing to do with the trait observed.



This is another tangent about whether or not any traits are strongly correlated with how wildly correct or wildly incorrectly people guess at someone's heterosexuality or not. That wasn't the point of my post and it's perpendicular to this thread. The point was that self-labels for things that can't be observed or measured easily-- like ethnicity, like sexuality-- are going to have a big problem of contamination in the accuracy of the answers you receive. You can see this in demography. You can see this in ethnography. You can see this in the fact that half of Americans think they are descended from Pocahontas. And you can see it with every stripe of gay man who is not comfortable accepting his sexuality and goes around calling himself straight or whatever else.

Self-labels are not intrinsically sacrosanct, nor are they invariably truthful. That's the point.

I never claimed self labels were sacrosanct. What I said was there's a difference between respecting self labels (because they're complicated as hell most of the time), taking into consideration people's own version of how they experience events and an 'outlier' reporting on observable behavior. I think they're all mutually exclusive actions - people can do one without the others. I just don't believe it's wise because then we'll have a more of a clusterfuck than before, like when people doing observations ignored self-identity entirely.

That wasn't so much a tangent as me replying to the post where you said "There's some unknown percentage of all non-straight people who can be largely identified as "probably not straight" when people meet them. And a lot more that you can't tell. But you can't "scan" everyone and tell what their sexuality or their sexual attractions are."

I can find no information based on observable data where people can guess someone's sexuality by observing their characteristics. They just guess, and sometimes they get it right. To me it seems to be a self-perpetuating internal delusion that someone can tell sexuality upon meeting when no sexual cues (coded by society, blah blah blah) are deliberately given. Most of those 'cues' are based on stereotypes, and while some people play them up (flamboyantly "I'm gay!" tanks, for example), quite a few other people fall in the act-that-way bracket (sands lgbt pride pins) because that's just their everyday behavior. I don't consider such cues (fancy clothing, lisp, femme presentation, high voice, meticulous clothing, general campyness) to be linked to sexuality itself. I doubt you do either, so how did you come to your conclusion that people can sometimes tell anothers' sexuality when that person doesn't say what their sexuality is? Unless I've misread the above quote entirely, in which case, what was your meaning there?

 

[bankside]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/11/0...t-face-shapes-and-gay-men-are-more-masculine/

A new study has suggested that there are physical facial differences between gay and straight men, and that gay men actually rank as typically more masculine.
The findings were made at the Center for Theoretical Study at Charles University, Prague, and the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.
Interestingly, the data indicated that the faces of gay men were consistently ranked as more masculine than those of straight men.

 

[Rolyo85]

Two things: First, Some people learn by doing. Guys can have sex with straight guys who are bi-curious. If they like it, they're now bi. If they like it so much that they never want to sleep with women again, they're gay. If it doesn't work for them and their interest in guys dissolves, they go back to being straight guys who are not bi-curious any more.

Second, Without intruding too much on luckynumbah7's private life, I think dismissing someone's sexual experience with straight men as an impossibility, when that guy posts that he's a transsexual male, neglects the obvious possibility that trans guys may well have personal insight and experience with straight guys prior to their transition.

On those two:

1. No, you're not "now" anything. You were always that, you just didn't know/recognize/accept it. And you will remain so, whether you know/recognize/accept it or not, and however you decide to call yourself instead. Which has been my point the entire time. While people may lay claims to identities, those identities are ultimately a thing about them that exists independently from how they label it. If you're bi, you're bi, whether you'll call yourself straight or not. If you're gay, you're gay, whether you want to call yourself bi or not.

2. My apologies. In the entire mashup of half-arguments and responses to points I'd never made, I failed to notice that he's trans. I was wondering what that whole spiel about transsexuals was, now it makes more sense. And I withdraw what I said - the straight guys thing makes sense too.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I never claimed self labels were sacrosanct. What I said was there's a difference between respecting self labels (because they're complicated as hell most of the time), taking into consideration people's own version of how they experience events and an 'outlier' reporting on observable behavior. I think they're all mutually exclusive actions - people can do one without the others. I just don't believe it's wise because then we'll have a more of a clusterfuck than before, like when people doing observations ignored self-identity entirely.

As someone else said... this isn't rocket science.

There are gay guys who identify as straight.

There are gay guys who identify as bi.

Both of these aren't telling the truth, they are picking a different label for a variety of motivations.

Saying the first is a "well, duh." Saying the 2nd produces a shit fit on demand, reliably. But it's a case of people yelling at you to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I guess we're all supposed to pretend he isn't there.

 

[dereperez]

As someone else said... this isn't rocket science.

There are gay guys who identify as straight.

There are gay guys who identify as bi.

Both of these aren't telling the truth, they are picking a different label for a variety of motivations.

Saying the first is a "well, duh." Saying the 2nd produces a shit fit on demand, reliably. But it's a case of people yelling at you to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I guess we're all supposed to pretend he isn't there.

A quasi-"Wizard of Oz" reference! I guess I can't be straight for knowing that.