I am officially confused now.
Whoops, meant opposite! Lol.
I am officially confused now.
No, "bisexual" doesn't mean any of that. You can be bi and prefer men or women, you can be bi and desire mostly either genre most of the time.
I feel like people are just irrationally afraid of that term - probably because most people know so little about bisexuality.
Of course. But the generally accepted modern cultural definition is an equal attraction to both sexes. That was my point and it is demonstrably untrue.
It's not being defensive, it's about not changing definitions and labels just because you feel like it.
A straight person is someone who is only attracted to their opposite gender, and only engages in sexual activity with that gender. Unless of course the extent of activity with the opposite sex is a kiss as a dare or something outlier like that. Or something situational like having a threesome where the third addition is another guy. There is no such thing as a straight person who is attracted to, and engages in sexual conduct with the same sex, quite the contrary, there is a predefined term to describe such sexuality, and that is being bisexual. Being bisexual doesn't mean you have to be equally attracted to both men and women, just that you are or can be, in any capacity, attracted to both genders. These definitions exist for a reason.
really? i question this.Of course. But the generally accepted modern cultural definition is an equal attraction to both sexes. That was my point and it is demonstrably untrue.
Heterosexual Male Gaf is having more gay sex than half of gay Gaf, THE FUCK?
Also, this isn't fair!
But what if you don't have any attraction to the same sex but have had sex with them in the past? Just because you enjoy the sex doesn't mean your sexually attracted to a person.
Why would you have had sex with them in the past if you've never been remotely interested in or attracted to them? Surely to have sex with someone, there needs to be some level of basic attraction or arousal, if even a bare minimum.
Why would you have had sex with them in the past if you've never been remotely interested in or attracted to them? Surely to have sex with someone, there needs to be some level of basic attraction or arousal, if even a bare minimum.
It is a definition some people put forward. Meanwhile, bisexuals and sexologists generally say nope. Sexuality if put on a line isn't a line with 49.5% of it being the gay range then 1% bi then 49.5% straight range. Bisexuality isn't a fence, it is a field.Of course. But the generally accepted modern cultural definition is an equal attraction to both sexes. That was my point and it is demonstrably untrue.
It isn't rocket science, it's bisexuality. Bisexuality doesn't mean you're attracted in equal amount and equal frequency to both genders, it just means you can be attracted to either gender. That's what bisexuality is.
The universe is once again insane. I think we're going in circles, though, I just won't be able to understand this.
Of course. But the generally accepted modern cultural definition is an equal attraction to both sexes. That was my point and it is demonstrably untrue.
Because sometimes people just enjoy sex and it doesn't always have to do with attraction, it could be just whats available at the time, you don't have to be attracted to someone to fuck them.
According to who? I would say every bisexual person I know still tends to spend more time engaging in sexual conduct with one gender more than the other. I think like any person, bisexual people have their preferences too.
I heard about this book last week, and was a bit put off by how it was characterized in this review.
I haven't read the book (and don't know if I will), but I felt rather put-off by the portrayal.
Heres a direct quote from the chapter discussing fraternity hazing: Akin to the contention by some feminists that rape is about power and violence and not sexual desire, one might argue that homosexual contact within hazing-presumably forced, or at least falling within the previously discussed rhetorical framework of fuck or die-tells up little about the sexual fluidity of straight men and more about mens impulse or socialization to dominate one another by any means necessary (including homosexual touching.) So, Ward basically disregards the argument that such instances are rape/assault, and presses forward with her narrative of mens aggressive sex drive. Horrifying and sad that straight white men arent even worthy of being considered victims (survivors), even when all the signs say they are victims (survivors). Some men walk away from these hazing rituals severely damaged, both physically and emotionally. They often resort to excessive binge drinking just to endure the experience, and they almost always follow up with more binge drinking and drugs. Even if they do feel deeply violated, theyre told by their peers that everyones been through it, and if you have a problem you must be gay and thereby not welcome. My god. My god. That is sexual assault. Period.
Yep. I'm bisexual, but not bi-romantic. I have sex with men, but that's it. Never had any inclination towards romance and a long-term relationship.
Maybe I just love boobs too much to consider ever spending my life away from them.
I'd argue you do. Otherwise how do you even keep it up? It's not like we walk around with constant boners lol, generally something has to arouse you no? If you're arguing there needs to be no sexual attraction what so ever, and it's only the animalistic urge to simply fuck, if it was legal and acceptable in society, would that same person be able to say, engage in intercourse with an animal? Eg, would they be able to stay hard whilst fucking an animal too? Or a child, or whomever or whatever else?
I would have assumed that irrespective of whoever or whatever it is you were fucking, there still needs to at least be some level or arousal. At least that's my personal perspective.
I'd argue you do. Otherwise how do you even keep it up? It's not like we walk around with constant boners lol, generally something has to arouse you no? If you're arguing there needs to be no sexual attraction what so ever, and it's only the animalistic urge to simply fuck, if it was legal and acceptable in society, would that same person be able to say, engage in intercourse with an animal? Eg, would they be able to stay hard whilst fucking an animal too? Or a child, or whomever or whatever else?
I would have assumed that irrespective of whoever or whatever it is you were fucking, there still needs to at least be some level or arousal. At least that's my personal perspective.
Isn't this just about people denying their own identity? I am all for equal rights, see no difference in two men, women, or men and women being in love, but the thought of me personally being attracted to a man is about as realistic as me being in love with a door handle or a tire.
I'd argue you do. Otherwise how do you even keep it up? It's not like we walk around with constant boners lol, generally something has to arouse you no? If you're arguing there needs to be no sexual attraction what so ever, and it's only the animalistic urge to simply fuck, if it was legal and acceptable in society, would that same person be able to say, engage in intercourse with an animal? Eg, would they be able to stay hard whilst fucking an animal too? Or a child, or whomever or whatever else?
I would have assumed that irrespective of whoever or whatever it is you were fucking, there still needs to at least be some level or arousal. At least that's my personal perspective.
I'd argue you do. Otherwise how do you even keep it up? It's not like we walk around with constant boners lol, generally something has to arouse you no? If you're arguing there needs to be no sexual attraction what so ever, and it's only the animalistic urge to simply fuck, if it was legal and acceptable in society, would that same person be able to say, engage in intercourse with an animal? Eg, would they be able to stay hard whilst fucking an animal too? Or a child, or whomever or whatever else?
I would have assumed that irrespective of whoever or whatever it is you were fucking, there still needs to at least be some level or arousal. At least that's my personal perspective.
Lets not go down this path. This is the same faulty logic people use to make the argument that men can't be raped.
Men can get it up for sexual encounters with people they're not attracted to. Simple as.
Someone hasn't seen a certain Vice documentary where dudes were fucking goats. I'd give you a link but I'd think it would shatter your world where people only have sex with what they are attracted to
I had wondered about romantic attraction as it fits into this discussion, thinking that some percent of these straight men could identify as such based on being heteroromantic.Yep. I'm bisexual, but not bi-romantic. I have sex with men, but that's it. Never had any inclination towards romance and a long-term relationship.
Maybe I just love boobs too much to consider ever spending my life away from them.
Men can get it up for sexual encounters with people they're not attracted to. Simple as.
Mechanical stimulation is enough to induce climax. With the improper coupling of sex and gender in common definitions, people often feel that because they climaxed from mechanical stimulation by X, they must be attracted to X. This is untrue, although attraction towards your source of mechanical stimulation enhances the overall experience in emotional terms and a lack of attraction may discourage someone from voluntarily receiving mechanical stimulation from X, attraction is not necessary to climax: if it was necessary, how would masturbation work? Attraction amplifies sexual experience and a lack of it may heavily detract, but it is not necessary.I'd argue you do. Otherwise how do you even keep it up? It's not like we walk around with constant boners lol, generally something has to arouse you no? If you're arguing there needs to be no sexual attraction what so ever, and it's only the animalistic urge to simply fuck, if it was legal and acceptable in society, would that same person be able to say, engage in intercourse with an animal? Eg, would they be able to stay hard whilst fucking an animal too? Or a child, or whomever or whatever else?
I would have assumed that irrespective of whoever or whatever it is you were fucking, there still needs to at least be some level or arousal. At least that's my personal perspective.
Mechanical stimulation is enough to induce climax. With the improper coupling of sex and gender in common definitions, people often feel that because they climaxed from mechanical stimulation by X, they must be attracted to X. This is untrue, although attraction towards your source of mechanical stimulation enhances the overall experience in emotional terms and a lack of attraction may discourage someone from voluntarily receiving mechanical stimulation from X, attraction is not necessary to climax: if it was necessary, how would masturbation work? Attraction amplifies sexual experience and a lack of it may heavily detract, but it is not necessary.
What, of course men can be raped. But for a guy to rape another guy, I'd imagine he'd need to at least be bisexual, or take some form of arousal from it. If not just the attraction to the guy himself, some sort of arousal from domination or control. I don't really buy that we can fuck anything or everything and not require any level of arousal or attraction at all, but that's just me.
Seriously though, I believe this story. Sexuality has always been a fluid thing, and to some it it also a power thing. I mean, it's common knowledge that in ancient times(Roman times IIRC) that it was common for men to sleep with other men, or homosexuality being used in ancient miltary as a morale booster of sorts.
It is a definition some people put forward. Meanwhile, bisexuals and sexologists generally say nope. Sexuality if put on a line isn't a line with 49.5% of it being the gay range then 1% bi then 49.5% straight range. Bisexuality isn't a fence, it is a field.
A straight person is someone who is only attracted to their opposite gender, and only engages in sexual activity with that gender. Unless of course the extent of activity with the opposite sex is a kiss as a dare or something outlier like that. Or something situational like having a threesome where the third addition is another guy.
Mu buddy was in a frat and he said he had to take it up the butt to get accepted. I couldn't tell if he was joking but he said it with a straight face.
Sorry, should have further clarified: raped by women.
The rest of my post addressed this. When it comes to identity, it just has to be significant enough to the individual. When it comes to behaviour or attraction, things like the Kinsey scale break it up into subcategories and it doesn't mean people have to identify with it.Sure, but this casting of the situation is an excluded middle fallacy. The scale isn't two giant gay and straight blocks with an immeasurably tiny bi spot, but defining it as two tiny straight and gay spots with everything in between lumped together in one "bi" category is similarly problematic. All the tediously defensive declarations of absolute straightness these discussions always produce aside, if we applied that standard then a way smaller portion of NeoGAF posters would qualify as straight than one would typically judge from meeting those posters in day-to-day life.
When you get down to it, it's probably more useful in some ways to break that scale down much more finely -- so that "straight" might be limited to a fairly narrow definition. That's certainly part of why people start coming up with terms like "heteroflexible," "K1," "mostly straight," etc. But in our context where most people don't interrogate sexuality at this level of fine-grained detail, it's much easier to give all of these labels some conceptual space than it is to force everyone unwillingly into a giant bi bucket.
Did he thank you for the napkins and hospitality?
He wasn't straight.
He was bi-curious.
Had he actually sucked your dick, he would then be bi-sexual.
Craigslist definitions. Not mine.
It's not being defensive, it's about not changing definitions and labels just because you feel like it.
A straight person is someone who is only attracted to their opposite gender, and only engages in sexual activity with that gender. Unless of course the extent of activity with the opposite sex is a kiss as a dare or something outlier like that. Or something situational like having a threesome where the third addition is another guy. There is no such thing as a straight person who is attracted to, and engages in sexual conduct with the same sex, quite the contrary, there is a predefined term to describe such sexuality, and that is being bisexual. Being bisexual doesn't mean you have to be equally attracted to both men and women, just that you are or can be, in any capacity, attracted to both genders. These definitions exist for a reason.
I've heard there's this thing... It's called being Bisexual and supposedly people can be attracted to both genders.... it's just a rumor tho don't @ me
This is all very confusing. I think the term straight should be reserved to describe men that don't have sex with men. Too much messing around with language with all of this. When you start messing with words and meanings, you get more words to mean other things. There are already too many words out there.
The former is called Rape, and isn't sex. The latter is Bi sexual. Deep down he'd rather do it with a willing partner regardless of sex, than just jerk off.But sex in prison is probably less about attraction to the opposite sex, and more about exerting power over others, or just wanting to put your dick in a hole. If it is literally satisfying a crude physical urge, and the only available orifice is a male one, I would hesitate to call that gay or bisexual. The key being the potential lack of attraction to a gender and it being more about physical satisfaction.
Its an interesting thought. I wonder what sexuality would be like if we didn't have religion.I wonder how we'd view sexuality if we weren't conditioned by our respective societies to separate and classify them so heavily.
Animals probably don't give a fuck.
Pretty good, actuallyI wonder what sexuality would be like if we didn't have religion.
Its an interesting thought. I wonder what sexuality would be like if we didn't have religion.
Didn't TLC have a show on this? My Husbands not gay or something like that. Interesting.
Here's a neat diagram that's not limited by hetero/homo. I'm sure it's not in anyway complete, but more comprehensive than most. I personally identify as gynephilic.
![]()
By the "one drop" logic, Gay Men who have sex with women due to social pressures would be bi.
And similarly, many straight men, especially younger men, have a very ambivalent relationship to womens bodies and many feminists have written about this at length. The sort of natural state of womens bodies, the smell of their vagina, their armpit hair, their leg hair straight men are only attracted to womens bodies to the extent that they have been very carefully modified.
I have no idea what I'm looking at here....