On Topic Discussion What do you think about bisexuals?

[otters]

Having an Continental Eurocentric POV, I must say I cannot really see gay/queer/LGBT (etc., whichever term you want) animosities against bi (or heteroflexible etc.) people — I guess in the quaint Arcadian area where I live (the next Global or «Alpha Cities» are 3 and 4 hours away) they understand eachother as allies.

As mentioned before, former Prime Minister of France rather preferred to IGNORE the mere existence of gay life in her country:

«[Édith Cresson] also said, talking about the sexual proclivities of Anglo-Saxon males, " Homosexuality seems strange to me. It's different and marginal. It exists more in the Anglo-Saxon tradition than the Latin one."»

I'm wondering: what is the straight (etc., whichever adjective you want) majority's perception of Gay/Queer/LGBT (etc., whichever term you want) in the Anglosphere / the Protestant world IN CONTRAST to the perception in the Latin word/Catholic influenced regions?

And, in how far does this particular majority's perception bias the OWN perception of the groups in question? Especially regarding the interaction of the subgroups so to say?

 

[cgymike]

Send a dalek after all fake sexuals.

EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE EXTERRRRRRRRRRRRRMINATE

 

[ElmosToe]

.....

You haven't said anything new.

You refuted my claim that it is normal to date multiple people and that it has been normal throughout the history of dating, hence why I provided the example of dating practices in the 1950s. Aside from being busier and utilizing new technology, not much has changed as far dating goes. Some people will have sex, some won't, that's a moot point, unless sex to you means getting more involved with someone, in that case I would suggest pursuing an old fashioned concept of dating where sex is not involved until a committed relationship is forged. Last time I checked people still go out to dinner, get a coffee or a beer or see a movie as a perfectly acceptable date that doesn't even need to be accompanied by a kiss let alone a fuck.


And I'm going to repeat myself yet again, since your excuses can still yet again be refuted by my point....

I wouldn't want to be a partial partner to someone in some important respect nor would I want a partial partner.

^this applies to anyone, regardless of orientation or gender not just bisexual men or even some bisexual men. Anyone can say that crap to you to put you in that place and of course you're not going to date them if they say that upfront if that is not what you are looking for.

But why is that fear only relegated to "some" bisexual men? Why wouldn't you have that fear about anyone especially since many gay men don't want an emotional connection and only want a hook up or sex? At least those bisexual men are being honest and upfront with you about it, where some gay men will just play you, string you along and use you until you've become too emotionally invested not to get hurt.

Personally, I would prefer honesty.

 

[cgymike]

Honesty to admit you are really gay..yep.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

so internet 2 webistes slap up fix labaulls wot a 1st worlds gert technololooy of up latest ans folk rush it wens start ans tick away tens why intenret 1 no make tick on folk heads world ova?
_ans rewhite hisotry books -

ans all planet great supa educate 1st worldas cans nookys wit out a manuals or sumthang

thankyou

 

[bankside]

Monogamy applies to being in a committed relationship after the initial dating phase has progressed from exclusivity to commitment, not going on a second date with little Joey on Sunday.

I repeat....
IT IS BIZARRE FOR SOMEONE TO WANT TO BE OR EXPECT TO BE IN AN EXCLUSIVE, COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP AFTER THE 2ND, 3RD OR 4TH DATE.

No, "monogamy" was not expected. Virginity and chastity were expected, certainly in the public eye. And people who wanted otherwise had a hard time, and they certainly would not have made claims that the prevailing social norms were bizarre. That would have been considered an outlandish claim.

People did not have social permission to carry on simultaneous sexual relationships until they clicked with someone and picked someone to be exclusive with. If you think that was part of the history of dating, you're kidding yourself.

The most you could do is hope to dance with a few different people of the opposite sex in the same evening, under the watchful eyes of each others's parents. Monogamy vs non-monogamy never came into it because sex was not an option. Any violation of that taboo would have resulted in social exclusion.

Even during and after the sexual revolution, it is normal for people to figure out they are compatible and to narrow things down to just one person before having sex. Yeah they are not assuming marriage yet, but they have enough of an attention span to focus on one person at a time. Not bizarre at all even if you think it is.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

No, "monogamy" was not expected. Virginity and chastity were expected, certainly in the public eye. And people who wanted otherwise had a hard time, and they certainly would not have made claims that the prevailing social norms were bizarre. That would have been considered an outlandish claim.

People did not have social permission to carry on simultaneous sexual relationships until they clicked with someone and picked someone to be exclusive with. If you think that was part of the history of dating, you're kidding yourself.

The most you could do is hope to dance with a few different people of the opposite sex in the same evening, under the watchful eyes of each others's parents. Monogamy vs non-monogamy never came into it because sex was not an option. Any violation of that taboo would have resulted in social exclusion.

Even during and after the sexual revolution, it is normal for people to figure out they are compatible and to narrow things down to just one person before having sex. Yeah they are not assuming marriage yet, but they have enough of an attention span to focus on one person at a time. Not bizarre at all even if you think it is.

wen romans arenas busy watchin " people" serve up fa breakfast no ones a commplain no use kinfes ans a fork

anyway

_luv modern ways a puttin thangs of stills tadays_

thinkyou

 

[ElmosToe]

No, "monogamy" was not expected. Virginity and chastity were expected, certainly in the public eye. And people who wanted otherwise had a hard time, and they certainly would not have made claims that the prevailing social norms were bizarre. That would have been considered an outlandish claim.

People did not have social permission to carry on simultaneous sexual relationships until they clicked with someone and picked someone to be exclusive with. If you think that was part of the history of dating, you're kidding yourself.

The most you could do is hope to dance with a few different people of the opposite sex in the same evening, under the watchful eyes of each others's parents. Monogamy vs non-monogamy never came into it because sex was not an option. Any violation of that taboo would have resulted in social exclusion.

Even during and after the sexual revolution, it is normal for people to figure out they are compatible and to narrow things down to just one person before having sex. Yeah they are not assuming marriage yet, but they have enough of an attention span to focus on one person at a time. Not bizarre at all even if you think it is.

so basically you are equating going out on a date to having sex?

in my book, dating does not equal sex, although sex may be involved.

This is why I stated previously that apparently we need to define dating here in this thread to have a discussion about it.
Because what you are talking about is not what I am talking about. I have defined the concept of dating multiple people many times now and it is not a difficult concept to grasp. Buzzer brought up the concept of wanting monogamy when dating....monogamy applies to being in a committed romantic relationship with someone, when you start dating someone, you are not in a committed romantic relationship with them, it is bizarre to think you are.

If people do not and have not dated more than one person at a time then why did people use the term "going steady" back in the 1950s? Why do people use the term "exclusive."?

If you are saying that people do not date more than one person at a time and that dating multiple people has not been part of the history of dating then I have I entered the twilight zone and this site truly is fucked.

Have fun living in your alternate universe.

 

[mikey3000]

Honesty to admit you are really gay..yep.

I just realized, you sound like a closeted gay dude proclaiming his straightness just a little too much. If you like pussy, it's ok. Really.

 

[cgymike]

^You exceed your own standards of denial by obfuscating behind a comment like that. If you even casually reviewed my extensive posting history, you would realise I am not into women in that way.

You "just realized"

Sure man...keep drinking the kool aid and buying the lie or should I say bi ing...

Besides wanna be straights don't "stuff a dozen lubed brussel sprouts" up their ass....a joke man...a joke...

 

[mikemizanin729]

^You exceed your own standards of denial by obfuscating behind a comment like that. If you even casually reviewed my extensive posting history, you would realise I am not into women in that way.

You "just realized"

Sure man...keep drinking the kool aid and buying the lie or should I say bi ing...

Besides wanna be straights don't "stuff a dozen lubed brussel sprouts" up their ass....a joke man...a joke...

Time to set Pam onto you.

 

[cgymike]

^Always sticking the proverbial oar in shit creek aren't we?

 

[mikemizanin729]

Aren't you sticking your nose Into a bisexual thread where it's not wanted.

Honesty to admit you are really gay..yep.

So if all bisexual men are really GAY does that mean that all GAY men fuck women as well??

 

[ElmosToe]

I want to be a blueberry when I grow young.

 

[mikey3000]

Aren't you sticking your nose Into a bisexual thread where it's not wanted.



So if all bisexual men are really GAY does that mean that all GAY men fuck women as well??

You'd be shocked to learn that plenty of gay dudes fuck women and still call themselves 'gay'. ! I know! Shocking! But still kinda funny. Tons on here too. Look around. That's why I don't care much for what ever labels people give themselves. Really doesn't matter.

 

[cgymike]

^Then they aren't really gay but whatever you want to self identify as - your choice. It's a free country as they say...oh wait u r in Toronto...never mind.

 

[otters]

^Then they aren't really gay but whatever you want to self identify as - your choice. It's a free country as they say...oh wait u r in Toronto...never mind.

I just like it so much when people living in a state where, inter alia, prosecutions for sexual relations between cousins take place — talk big about «freedom» of their country —— and even dare to compare with other, more openminded countries ^^

 

[sixthson]

Haven't we thought enough about bisexuals now? Can't we move on to less controversial things like racism in the gay community or why cut is better than uncut? For the latter we'll need pics, of course.

 

[otters]

Haven't we thought enough about bisexuals now? Can't we move on to less controversial things like racism in the gay community or why cut is better than uncut? For the latter we'll need pics, of course.

^^ read my face:

 

[mikemizanin729]

^Then they aren't really gay but whatever you want to self identify as - your choice. It's a free country as they say...oh wait u r in Toronto...never mind.

Pam has a message for you.