On Topic Discussion What do you think about bisexuals?

[xbuzzerx]

I'm having trouble with the concept of fantasizing about something you'd never do.

You're a sci fi fan, and you keep track of and post a wide variety of subjects about future techs and the future repercussions of future possible techs.

Did you never fantasize about being alone in a room with George W. Bush? I did. It wasn't sexual, trust me. It's also nothing I'd do to anyone in real life.

Also, visit the Fetish area and check out the wide number of illegal things people talk about and label as pure fantasy.

 

[Kulindahr]

I am still waiting to hear about the reasons for why a guy who totes loves girls would "choose" to only do guys. Kuli is the expert in all things bisexual, so he must know.

In other words, you're trying to derail the actual discussion into something irrelevant -- just like you want to make 20 = 0.

 

[Gentleheart]

I am still waiting to hear about the reasons for why a guy who totes loves girls would "choose" to only do guys.

I suggest you get comfortable, because you'll be waiting a long time.

At this point, I'm just sitting here cracking up at this nonsense.

 

[TX-Beau]

I'm having trouble with the concept of fantasizing about something you'd never do.

I fantasize about putting a stake through Ted Cruz - I don't actually want to kill someone, I'd never do it, but there you are.

 

[Kulindahr]

For me the threshold isn't subjective. It's whatever is required to be strong enough to actually act on. It's about what you feel biologically directed to do: not about what you "might be open to doing, possibly, if the right kind of situation fell into your lap." That's why all this numbers/percentages nonsense is just for the sake of discussion.

Almost by definition, that's subjective. It's why Rolyo's argument is nonsense: he claims to be 80/20 or something, and is evidently using the definition you posed above, except he's saying 20 isn't strong enough to actually act on, which makes his claim nonsense: if it isn't strong enough to act on, by this definition that 20 is wrong.

When people date only one gender all the time... they are showing you what they are biologically driven towards.

Not necessarily; the biological is only one factor. Rolyo thinks that no bisexual would ever go for a partner of the same sex in a heteronormative society, which means that at least he thinks it's more than just biological -- which is true.

 

[TX-Beau]

For me the threshold isn't subjective. It's whatever is required to be strong enough to actually act on. It's about what you feel biologically directed to do: not about what you "might be open to doing, possibly, if the right kind of situation fell into your lap." That's why all this numbers/percentages nonsense is just for the sake of discussion.

Social pressures can be strong enough to push you one way or the other, a lot of us are proof of that, that didn't make any of us bisexual, and usually fucked us in the head more than anything, but it's not simply about biology, which is another reason I prefer definitions based in actions over ones based in comparative sociology.

If you don't have sex with both genders, you aren't bisexual.

 

[Rolyo85]

In other words, you're trying to derail the actual discussion into something irrelevant -- just like you want to make 20 = 0.

No, actually, it's WILDLY relevant in a discussion about bisexuality, to explain why in a heteronormative society with all manner of pressure to do girls, a guy who wants to do it would choose not to. There's very little more relevant than this haha.

 

[Kulindahr]

You're a sci fi fan, and you keep track of and post a wide variety of subjects about future techs and the future repercussions of future possible techs.

What's that got to do with sexual fantasy?

Did you never fantasize about being alone in a room with George W. Bush? I did. It wasn't sexual, trust me. It's also nothing I'd do to anyone in real life.

I would never want to be in the same room as George Bush, so no, I've never fantasized about it.

Also, visit the Fetish area and check out the wide number of illegal things people talk about and label as pure fantasy.

If they're posting about doing illegal things,those posts should be deleted.

 

[Rolyo85]

Not necessarily; the biological is only one factor. Rolyo thinks that no bisexual would ever go for a partner of the same sex in a heteronormative society, which means that at least he thinks it's more than just biological -- which is true.

Lol, another one in a long line of things Rolyo did not say.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Almost by definition, that's subjective.

There's nothing subjective about saying that someone who identifies as attracted to both genders, but pursues only one, is either mistaken or dissembling about what their actual impulse is. Well, outside of extraordinary circumstances. Maybe they're bi and living on an all-male, all-gay nuclear submarine year round or something. But for most people in most ordinary lives, finding same gender partners is actually substantially more logistically difficult and the odds are much longer against you than finding heterosexual partners of the opposite gender. So it's hard to buy that it would just be random happenstance.

 

[Kulindahr]

I fantasize about putting a stake through Ted Cruz - I don't actually want to kill someone, I'd never do it, but there you are.

If you'd never do it, then fantasizing about it makes no sense.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, actually, it's WILDLY relevant in a discussion about bisexuality, to explain why in a heteronormative society with all manner of pressure to do girls, a guy who wants to do it would choose not to. There's very little more relevant than this haha.

Motivations for choices are irrelevant to orientation.

 

[Rolyo85]

If you'd never do it, then fantasizing about it makes no sense.

What kind of bizzaro statement is this? People fantasize about stuff they wouldn't do ALL the time. That's why it's called fantasizing omg...

 

[Kulindahr]

Lol, another one in a long line of things Rolyo did not say.

You just said it in your previous post.

 

[Rolyo85]

Motivations for choices are irrelevant to orientation.

No they aren't. And if you actually had an answer, you would have given it. Your aggressive evasion here tells me everything I need to know about your house of cards

 

[TX-Beau]

If you'd never do it, then fantasizing about it makes no sense.

Sure it does, contemplating it makes me feel like a bad boy, but alas, even for the good of mankind - I'm not a murderer.

 

[Rolyo85]

You just said it in your previous post.

There's a gigantic chasm between "why would a bisexual man choose to never have sex with women when there is so much pressure to do it?" and "a bisexual man would never have sex with men."

You're not good at putting words in my mouth, so please stop trying to claim that me saying A means I think F.

 

[xbuzzerx]

If you'd never do it, then fantasizing about it makes no sense.

Generally either not being able to do something or knowing you can't do something or not being willing to do something in reality is why you fantasize about it... it's kind of the definition of fantasizing.

Why would you fantasize about something you actually do all the time in real life?

 

[xbuzzerx]

Motivations for choices are irrelevant to orientation.

The problem though is that many of the exceeding flimsy bases upon which to claim bisexual orientation which are now being vehemently defended as legitimate also qualify large swaths of both gay and straight people as being bisexuals who are apparently dishonest about it.

 

[Kulindahr]

There's nothing subjective about saying that someone who identifies as attracted to both genders, but pursues only one, is either mistaken or dissembling about what their actual impulse is. Well, outside of extraordinary circumstances. Maybe they're bi and living on an all-male, all-gay nuclear submarine year round or something. But for most people in most ordinary lives, finding same gender partners is actually substantially more logistically difficult and the odds are much longer against you than finding heterosexual partners of the opposite gender. So it's hard to buy that it would just be random happenstance.

By this concept, an awful lot of guys I went to college with were asexual: they had attraction to females but never pursued any.

And finding same-gender partners isn't difficult at all, unless you live so far in the backwoods there's no place to go and meet people of the same gender who might return your interest.

Um, where did "random happenstance" come from? Other than it sounds like that's how you think people meet potential partners.