Why do some gay men have a problem with bisexuals?

stephen_n

OldNotWIse wrote: »

What????? Where did I say that?????

And tbh, if you are willing to consider "curiosity" as a valid component of the bisexual population, then I care little for your views.

I didn't say you said it, I was saying it is a reason why you might view the amount of bisexual people as being so small despite evidence to the contrary!


What would you describe as a valid component? Are you attracted enough to members of the opposite sex, to have intercourse with them? If you read what I posted properly though, I was making an allowance for that and reducing the overall figure!

28064212

mango salsa wrote: »

Sorry what?

I'm not attracted to black people or asians. Do you think that makes me racist?

No, I specifically said racist reasons.

I'm not (generally) attracted to black people either. It's a fact that black people tend to share many physical attributes. Typically, I don't find those features attractive

If I said I'm not attracted to black people, they're lazy/they steal/they're not intelligent, those are racist reasons

28064212

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You dont think basing my decisions about who I date on my own personal experiences is acceptable? Unbelievable how reactionary and sensitive some people are here...

I already addressed that point:

28064212 wrote: »

Do you really believe that? Given the vanishingly small sample size that anyone could possibly have an example of, extrapolating that to a huge section of the population is utterly ridiculous. Especially when the characteristic is totally unrelated to the behaviour. For a start, why did I pick blonde hair? There's a good chance all the ditzy sluts were also drivers. Should I assume all drivers are ditzy sluts? All women who like pink? What about just all women?

And once again, who you decide to date is none of my concern. But when you publically proclaim that someone's orientation makes them more likely to be promiscuous, or cheat, or share any other attribute other than their orientation, you will be called out on it

OldNotWIse

Medusa22 wrote: »

Would you be offended if I said that I would only go out with bi-sexual women because gay women are butch and promiscuous so it could never work out? I'm just curious because I am offended when someone says that they wouldn't go out with me as a bi-sexual because they think that I would be promiscuous.

I never said I do not date bisexuals because they are promiscuous. Can everyone stop being so hysterical?

To be honest, I am secure and happy enough in my own skin and with my own sexuality to not give a rodents backside what people think about me, or whether or not they want to date me. If you read some of my earlier posts you will see that I was attacked a few years ago in a well known gay pub for being a "straight tourist" because I am feminine. I didn't rush home and shave my head.

OldNotWIse

28064212 wrote: »

I already addressed that point:


And once again, who you decide to date is none of my concern. But when you publically proclaim that someone's orientation makes them more likely to be promiscuous, or cheat, or share any other attribute other than their orientation, you will be called out on it

28064212

OldNotWIse wrote: »

"you" in the general sense. But you can also include "more likely to leave you for the 'easier' route"

OldNotWIse

28064212 wrote: »

"you" in the general sense. But you can also include "more likely to leave you for the 'easier' route"

But you said I would be "called on it" - so when you reply directly to my post and "call me" on something, and then you realise that I haven't actually said the thing you are calling me on, I'm supposed to believe you were referring to everyone else? Why not reply to them???

28064212

OldNotWIse wrote: »

But you said I would be "called on it" - so when you reply directly to my post and "call me" on something, and then you realise that I haven't actually said the thing you are calling me on, I'm supposed to believe you were referring to everyone else? Why not reply to them???

Because you were replying directly to my posts in an ongoing discussion. And the line I used for calling you out on it was "If you're going to make claims about a large group of people based on their sexual orientation, you are going to be called out on it"

OldNotWIse

28064212 wrote: »

Because you were replying directly to my posts in an ongoing discussion. And the line I used for calling you out on it was "If you're going to make claims about a large group of people based on their sexual orientation, you are going to be called out on it"

No, you said "But when you publically proclaim that someone's orientation makes them more likely to be promiscuous, or cheat, or share any other attribute other than their orientation, you will be called out on it"

28064212

OldNotWIse wrote: »

No, you said "But when you publically proclaim that someone's orientation makes them more likely to be promiscuous, or cheat, or share any other attribute other than their orientation, you will be called out on it"

And on to "promiscuous or cheat", I could have added "or steal, or be lazy, or be stupid" and it would still have been a valid sentence without it meaning that you said those things. It is a catch-all list, as evidenced by the last part

OldNotWIse

28064212 wrote: »

And on to "promiscuous or cheat", I could have added "or steal, or be lazy, or be stupid" and it would still have been a valid sentence without it meaning that you said those things. It is a catch-all list, as evidenced by the last part

Seriously? You tell me I am going to be "called on something". I point out to you that in fact I never said that thing. Then you try to tell me that your post was directed at posters "in general" and not me. I ask why then you felt the need to reply to me. You then lied about what you had said, and when I pointed out what you had actually said to me you come back with...this???

28064212

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Seriously? You tell me I am going to be "called on someting". I point out to you that in fact I never said that thing. Then you try to tell me that your post was directed at posters "in general" and not me. I ask why then you felt the need to reply to me. You then lied about what you had said, and when I pointed out what you had actually said to me you come back with...this???

You're misinterpreting what I said. I obviously didn't lie, since I did a direct copy and paste. I may not have used the specific instance you referred to, but that's was, again, a misinterpretation.

For the record, no, I don't believe you ever said bisexuals are more promiscuous, or more likely to cheat.

But when you (both specifically you, and in general) publically proclaim that someone's orientation makes them more likely to share any other attribute other than their orientation, you will be called out on it.

stephen_n

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Seriously? You tell me I am going to be "called on something". I point out to you that in fact I never said that thing. Then you try to tell me that your post was directed at posters "in general" and not me. I ask why then you felt the need to reply to me. You then lied about what you had said, and when I pointed out what you had actually said to me you come back with...this???

Yes because the reason you descriminate against bisexual people is the important thing, not the fact your descriminating!

Medusa22

Ok, I think I misunderstood you. You don't want to date bi-sexuals because you think that most of them will eventually date the opposite sex? While I don't have the same opinion as you on that I don't find that opinion to be bi-phobic. I think that is more of an issue of insecurity than anything else.

OldNotWIse

stephen_n wrote: »

Yes because the reason you descriminate against bisexual people is the important thing, not the fact your descriminating!

Dont try to change the subject. I will say it again, I never called bisexuals cheats or promiscuous. Are you going to address this?

OldNotWIse

Medusa22 wrote: »

Ok, I think I misunderstood you. You don't want to date bi-sexuals because you think that most of them will eventually date the opposite sex? While I don't have the same opinion as you on that I don't find that opinion to be bi-phobic. I think that is more of an issue of insecurity than anything else.

Yes that is my reason (and loosely based on the fact that any that I dated in the past have done this - one is even married now, no problem with that, wish her all the best etc)

I suspect it is an insecurity on my part, but are we not all carrying some insecurities based on our personal experiences/hurts etc? And also because I feel (for me, I'm not saying they will all do it), if I was bisexual, I think I would try to just put all my energy into dating the opposite sex (but yes this would be my issue because I want children and would prefer to live a "normal" (whatever that is) life. This is just what I suspect I would do, then again I am not bisexual so I dont know how I would act if I was. I forced myself to be with men in the past (I was actually a virgin until I was 26 because I was so sure I was gay) and then I just got this crazy idea that if I "got used to" being with men, it would be ok and I could learn to live "that life". I feel sad for the person I was then, that I put myself through that in order to try to be different but I came out the other side more sure than ever lol

Mace Windu

floggg wrote: »

Dude, you do realise that not every married man who claims to be a bisexual is really bisexual (in the true sense of the word)?

You mean married men who are in fact gay? Well, I think their number is leveled out by the married men who just occasionally fancy something hard in their... err... let's say mouths, but who find the idea of two men falling in love with each other completely alien. They call themselves bisexual, too, while they are more like straight by conventional definition.

Medusa22

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Yes that is my reason (and loosely based on the fact that any that I dated in the past have done this - one is even married now, no problem with that, wish her all the best etc)

I suspect it is an insecurity on my part, but are we not all carrying some insecurities based on our personal experiences/hurts etc? And also because I feel (for me, I'm not saying they will all do it), if I was bisexual, I think I would try to just put all my energy into dating the opposite sex (but yes this would be my issue because I want children and would prefer to live a "normal" (whatever that is) life. This is just what I suspect I would do, then again I am not bisexual so I dont know how I would act if I was. I forced myself to be with men in the past (I was actually a virgin until I was 26 because I was so sure I was gay) and then I just got this crazy idea that if I "got used to" being with men, it would be ok and I could learn to live "that life". I feel sad for the person I was then, that I put myself through that in order to try to be different but I came out the other side more sure than ever lol

Well I can understand where you're coming from. For me it's different because I don't want children and anyway I have an illness that would make it dangerous and complicated so I don't even need to consider it. I also tried to focus all of my energy on men but life got in the way and I fell in love with a woman and I'm not the type of person to take the easier route if it doesn't make me happy. I suppose it is different for you because you're gay but you tried to force yourself to be with men but it didn't work and so you are with a woman and you are happy. I tried to avoid women too but I didn't succeed either

Mace Windu

stephen_n wrote: »

Funny thing is, I reckon with the huge amount, of repressed hostility you feel towards your own sexuality, it's not surprising you resent others.

Diagnoses again... We are going in circles with them. Can't you think of something new, like me being greedy, or selfish?

Every time I say that — given a choice — I'd rather be straight than gay, there are lots of people who smirk understandingly and say "aahh, the internalized homophobia!" Which doesn't make much sense, it's just being honest with oneself despite the political correctness.

Imagine a private jet. Most of us, 99% of us, are not given a choice of owning one. Unless your first name is Sergey and your last name is Brin, you either had been born into a family that can afford one, or not. Moreover, owning a jet does not make you a better person, or a worse person, does not make you happier or less happy. But it's hard to deny that, with all other things being equal, you'll get from A to B much faster and with much more comfort than a person who doesn't own a jet.

So no, I don't feel pity for myself because of my sexual orientation, nor am I "jealous" of others being hetero. But I'm not going to deny — merely for PC, or because everyone else chooses to deny it — that my life would be easier, and I'd have like 1000x more chance of having children if I were straight.

Hope it makes sense — and look forward for new creative diagnoses based on the mere fact that I would not date a bisexual (and would not advise anyone, should my advice be asked for).

28064212

Mace Windu wrote: »

Imagine a private jet. Most of us, 99% of us, are not given a choice of owning one. Unless your first name is Sergey and your last name is Brin, you either had been born into a family that can afford one, or not. Moreover, owning a jet does not make you a better person, or a worse person, does not make you happier or less happy. But it's hard to deny that, with all other things being equal, you'll get from A to B much faster and with much more comfort than a person who doesn't own a jet.

Except owning a jet is a choice. Your analogy also falls down on the fact that having a private jet is objectively better than not having one. Being straight is not objectively better than being gay.

And most importantly, you are taking your personal opinion, and assuming that everyone else must feel the same way

stephen_n

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Dont try to change the subject. I will say it again, I never called bisexuals cheats or promiscuous. Are you going to address this?

I'm not changing any subject, the subject is and always was descrimination based on sexuality!

Mace Windu

28064212 wrote: »

Except owning a jet is a choice. Your analogy also falls down on the fact that having a private jet is objectively better than not having one. Being straight is not objectively better than being gay.

"Objectively better" is too vague. In particular, it makes life easier in one particular aspect — getting from A to B when A and B are far apart and have an aerodrome of some sort. In all other aspects it's pretty useless. So does being straight — it makes life easier in a very limited, but (for me) significant aspect of life.

Mace Windu

mango salsa wrote: »

So you are extrapolating based on 1 poster that all bisexual men who don't settle down with women sleep around with married men?

No, I am not extrapolating. But that person said exactly what I did — that based on his experience all bisexuals are married

stephen_n

Mace Windu wrote: »

Diagnoses again... We are going in circles with them. Can't you think of something new, like me being greedy, or selfish?

Every time I say that — given a choice — I'd rather be straight than gay, there are lots of people who smirk understandingly and say "aahh, the internalized homophobia!" Which doesn't make much sense, it's just being honest with oneself despite the political correctness.

Imagine a private jet. Most of us, 99% of us, are not given a choice of owning one. Unless your first name is Sergey and your last name is Brin, you either had been born into a family that can afford one, or not. Moreover, owning a jet does not make you a better person, or a worse person, does not make you happier or less happy. But it's hard to deny that, with all other things being equal, you'll get from A to B much faster and with much more comfort than a person who doesn't own a jet.

So no, I don't feel pity for myself because of my sexual orientation, nor am I "jealous" of others being hetero. But I'm not going to deny — merely for PC, or because everyone else chooses to deny it — that my life would be easier, and I'd have like 1000x more chance of having children if I were straight.

Hope it makes sense — and look forward for new creative diagnoses based on the mere fact that I would not date a bisexual (and would not advise anyone, should my advice be asked for).

Diagnosis? Not all, you clearly stated you would if you had the choice, not be gay. How could that be considered as anything but hostility towards your sexuality. You accept who you are but you don't want to be that person and if you had the choice you wouldn't! Therefore you resent bisexuals because you believe they have the choice, which is a falacy. It's quite simple, it's not a diagnosis, it's what you have said in your posts!

Annasopra

Mace Windu wrote: »

No, I am not extrapolating. But that person said exactly what I did — that based on his experience all bisexuals are married

No; that's not what he said at all. Putting a smily face at the end does not make something true or factual.

Mace Windu

stephen_n wrote: »

Not all, you clearly stated you would if you had the choice, not be gay.

Right.

stephen_n wrote: »

How could that be considered as anything but hostility towards your sexuality.

Oh, easily. People say "I wish I was..." or "I wish I could..." all the time, it doesn't make them hostile to themselves. To use the jet analogy, if you are standing in a hour-long queue for airport security, and you say to yourself "I wish I had a private jet" — does that mean you hate your life, your family, your job and your achievements? No. It just means you are sick of waiting in queue, not more not less.

stephen_n wrote: »

You accept who you are but you don't want to be that person and if you had the choice you wouldn't!

I also don't want to queue for airport security. But it's not going to change, so this does not occupy my mind for more than any other minor permanent annoyment would.

stephen_n wrote: »

Therefore you resent bisexuals because you believe they have the choice, which is a falacy.

Of course they do have a choice, and from my experience most of them eventually choose a family with a woman (I am only talking about bisexual men here). I have a choice of trying to meet someone, I have a choice of — once meeting someone — pursuing that relationship further or not, etc. So do they. Amoebas don't. Humans do. If I didn't have a choice, I'd still be in love with Keanu Reeves, just like I was when I was 15 and he was still young.

Mace Windu

mango salsa wrote: »

No; that's not what he said at all. Putting a smily face at the end does not make something true or factual.

Yes, that's exactly what he said: "So we bisexuals are best off with each other. Most men I've been with are married." I wrote the same, that from my experience most bisexual men end up marrying.

marienbad

stephen_n wrote: »

Diagnosis? Not all, you clearly stated you would if you had the choice, not be gay. How could that be considered as anything but hostility towards your sexuality. You accept who you are but you don't want to be that person and if you had the choice you wouldn't! Therefore you resent bisexuals because you believe they have the choice, which is a falacy. It's quite simple, it's not a diagnosis, it's what you have said in your posts!

If someone expressed a wish to be born in the USA would that make them anti Irish ?

stephen_n

marienbad wrote: »

If someone expressed a wish to be born in the USA would that make them anti Irish ?

So if your born Irish but want to be a US citizen, that isn't a rejection of who you are? Even though the concepts are not remotely transferable. I can choose to be an American citizen I can't choose to be anything other than bisexual, unless your suggesting in some way that I can?

marienbad

stephen_n wrote: »

So if your born Irish but want to be a US citizen, that isn't a rejection of who you are? Even though the concepts are not remotely transferable. I can choose to be an American citizen I can't choose to be anything other than bisexual, unless your suggesting in some way that I can?

Please stop answering questions with a question. Is wishing to be born in the USA anti Irish - yes or no ?

floggg

Mace Windu wrote: »

You mean married men who are in fact gay? Well, I think their number is leveled out by the married men who just occasionally fancy something hard in their... err... let's say mouths, but who find the idea of two men falling in love with each other completely alien. They call themselves bisexual, too, while they are more like straight by conventional definition.

If they occasionally like to have sex with a man but can't see themselves falling in love with one, they aren't straight, they are repressed homosexuals or bisexuals.

Straight guys who are into anal stimulation get pegged by their wife. Not ****ed by another dude.

floggg

Mace Windu wrote: »

stephen_n wrote: »

Funny thing is, I reckon with the huge amount, of repressed hostility you feel towards your own sexuality, it's not surprising you resent others.

Diagnoses again... We are going in circles with them. Can't you think of something new, like me being greedy, or selfish?

Every time I say that — given a choice — I'd rather be straight than gay, there are lots of people who smirk understandingly and say "aahh, the internalized homophobia!" Which doesn't make much sense, it's just being honest with oneself despite the political correctness.

Imagine a private jet. Most of us, 99% of us, are not given a choice of owning one. Unless your first name is Sergey and your last name is Brin, you either had been born into a family that can afford one, or not. Moreover, owning a jet does not make you a better person, or a worse person, does not make you happier or less happy. But it's hard to deny that, with all other things being equal, you'll get from A to B much faster and with much more comfort than a person who doesn't own a jet.

So no, I don't feel pity for myself because of my sexual orientation, nor am I "jealous" of others being hetero. But I'm not going to deny — merely for PC, or because everyone else chooses to deny it — that my life would be easier, and I'd have like 1000x more chance of having children if I were straight.

Hope it makes sense — and look forward for new creative diagnoses based on the mere fact that I would not date a bisexual (and would not advise anyone, should my advice be asked for).

Do you find it in any way strange or ironic that you find it ludicrous that people would make assumptions about your attitudes and way of thinking based on your own comments and statements, yet you have no problem making assumptions on a bisexual persons attitudes and way of thinking based solely on their sexual orientation?

Mace Windu

28064212 wrote: »

Except owning a jet is a choice.

Oh, and by the way, it's not a choice. At least not for 99.9% of the earth population, outside of Gulf Coast.

stephen_n

marienbad wrote: »

Please stop answering questions with a question. Is wishing to be born in the USA anti Irish - yes or no ?

You are trying to compare two things that bare no relationship to each other! Being born in one country and wanting to come from another country is not nessecarly anti the country of origin but could be depending on the reasoning behind it!

Now answer this question as it is an accurate parallel, if he was born black and wanted to be white, what would that be in your opinion?

Mace Windu

floggg wrote: »

If they occasionally like to have sex with a man but can't see themselves falling in love with one, they aren't straight, they are repressed homosexuals or bisexuals.

If I like to wake up next to a man, the same one every day, preferably, but I wouldn't mind casual sex with a woman occasionally (like once a year) — does that make me a repressed straight or repressed bisexual?

No, it makes me a gay man who occasionally (like once a year) wouldn't mind casual sex with a woman.

floggg

marienbad wrote: »

Please stop answering questions with a question. Is wishing to be born in the USA anti Irish - yes or no ?

It's evidence that you are unsatisfied to a certain degree with being Irish.

People who are happy with where they are born don't wish to be born elsewhere. I certainly don't wish I was born anywhere else.

stephen_n

Mace Windu wrote: »

If I like to wake up next to a man, the same one every day, preferably, but I wouldn't mind casual sex with a woman occasionally (like once a year) — does that make me a repressed straight or repressed bisexual?

No, it makes me a gay man who occasionally (like once a year) wouldn't mind casual sex with a woman.

It makes you what ever you define yourself as but I would suggest that in general Gay men are not sexually attracted to women in any way!

floggg

Mace Windu wrote: »

If I like to wake up next to a man, the same one every day, preferably, but I wouldn't mind casual sex with a woman occasionally (like once a year) — does that make me a repressed straight or repressed bisexual?

No, it makes me a gay man who occasionally (like once a year) wouldn't mind casual sex with a woman.

Well I don't wish to deny you the right to identify as you see fit but objectively speaking it would mean you likely fall somewhere on the bisexual part of the spectrum.

We can call you predominantly gay if you like though?

floggg

Mace Windu wrote: »

28064212 wrote: »

Except owning a jet is a choice.

Oh, and by the way, it's not a choice. At least not for 99.9% of the earth population, outside of Gulf Coast.

You know you could actually work for one. I'm sure it wasn't easy but if thr likes of Sean Quinn or even Kim Kardashian can work their way towards one, I'm sure with the right ideas and hard work you can too.

Mace Windu

floggg wrote: »

Do you find it in any way strange or ironic that you find it ludicrous that people would make assumptions about your attitudes and way of thinking based on your own comments and statements, yet you have no problem making assumptions on a bisexual persons attitudes and way of thinking based solely on their sexual orientation?

Well, I find it quite logical and easy to make a decision to avoid bi men as potential partners after seeing no success stories. But I find it a bit difficult to call a person who made that decision cynical or jealous, especially after that person explained multiple times how exactly he came to make such decision.

floggg

**** it, I give up.

For the sake of bisexuals everywhere, please continue to avoid them.

OldNotWIse

Medusa22 wrote: »

Well I can understand where you're coming from. For me it's different because I don't want children and anyway I have an illness that would make it dangerous and complicated so I don't even need to consider it. I also tried to focus all of my energy on men but life got in the way and I fell in love with a woman and I'm not the type of person to take the easier route if it doesn't make me happy. I suppose it is different for you because you're gay but you tried to force yourself to be with men but it didn't work and so you are with a woman and you are happy. I tried to avoid women too but I didn't succeed either

They're hard to resist avoid In a way, I dont regret trying to be happy with men (of course given the chance I would probably have done things differently) but I think regret is a very strong word. I suppose now I am so sure of who I am that I look back at that insecure 26 year old and feel like b1tch slapping some sense into her tbh :rolleyes:

Mace Windu

stephen_n wrote: »

It makes you what ever you define yourself as but I would suggest that in general Gay men are not sexually attracted to women in any way!

floggg wrote: »

Well I don't wish to deny you the right to identify as you see fit but objectively speaking it would mean you likely fall somewhere on the bisexual part of the spectrum.

We can call you predominantly gay if you like though?

Right. So most a certain number of gay men have had at least one drunk sex with a person who — in the daylight of the next morning — looked like a complete crocodile. Some experimented with a cucumber. Most would find no problem having sex with a stuffed teddy bear (how difficult it can be, just cut a hole in it, and off you go) or a rubber "erotic" toy that looks like one-seventh of a victim of a chainsaw maniac. So no matter how un-human-like something looks like, it's gay alright.

But whenever someone says he could have sex with a woman, he is immediately expelled from the honorable gay ranks...

I could never understand that :rolleyes:

paulmorro

Mace Windu wrote: »

stephen_n wrote: »

It makes you what ever you define yourself as but I would suggest that in general Gay men are not sexually attracted to women in any way!

floggg wrote: »

Well I don't wish to deny you the right to identify as you see fit but objectively speaking it would mean you likely fall somewhere on the bisexual part of the spectrum.

We can call you predominantly gay if you like though?

Right. So most a certain number of gay men have had at least one drunk sex with a person who — in the daylight of the next morning — looked like a complete crocodile. Some experimented with a cucumber. Most would find no problem having sex with a stuffed teddy bear (how difficult it can be, just cut a hole in it, and off you go) or a rubber "erotic" toy that looks like one-seventh of a victim of a chainsaw maniac. So no matter how un-human-like something looks like, it's gay alright.

But whenever someone says he could have sex with a woman, he is immediately expelled from the honorable gay ranks...

I could never understand that :rolleyes:

And then you could advise gays never to sleep with that person. Because of course they're going to end up married to a woman...

Mace Windu

paulmorro wrote: »

And then you could advise gays never to sleep with that person.

No-no. Sleeping has nothing to do with it. In fact, someone wrote, pages ago, that bisexual men kiss differently I am intrigued to the point where I'd actually like to check for myself whether it's true :P

paulmorro wrote: »

Because of course they're going to end up married to a woman...

Sleeping with women doesn't make one bisexual. Fifty or a hundred years ago men and women would marry and have children. And they probably still stayed gay. Unless repetitive sex with the opposite gender can make you bisexual

stephen_n

Mace Windu wrote: »

Right. So most a certain number of gay men have had at least one drunk sex with a person who — in the daylight of the next morning — looked like a complete crocodile. Some experimented with a cucumber. Most would find no problem having sex with a stuffed teddy bear (how difficult it can be, just cut a hole in it, and off you go) or a rubber "erotic" toy that looks like one-seventh of a victim of a chainsaw maniac. So no matter how un-human-like something looks like, it's gay alright.

But whenever someone says he could have sex with a woman, he is immediately expelled from the honorable gay ranks...

I could never understand that :rolleyes:

It's like trying to have a debate with a 2 year old, you pull random and completely unconnected hypothetical sittuations out and try and make out its some sort of coherent argument! So what your saying is now, that if a gay man gets drunk enough he'd shag anything even if it wasn't someone or something that he was sexually attracted to? I feel sorry for your pets when you arrive home drunk and alone so!

floggg

Do you know what, I was going to explain why having a sexual attraction to both men and women (even if you have a stronger preference for one over the other, and only fancy sex with the other occasionally) makes you more "bisexual" than "gay" but on the evidence of this thread there is zero point seeing as you'll come up with a whole truckload of bull**** and we'll get nowhere.

Though the fact that you think it might be true that bisexuals kiss differently says a lot about the rationality of your thought processes.

Mace Windu

stephen_n wrote: »

It's like trying to have a debate with a 2 year old, you pull random and completely unconnected hypothetical sittuations out and try and make out its some sort of coherent argument! So what your saying is now, that if a gay man gets drunk enough he'd shag anything even if it wasn't someone or something that he was sexually attracted to? I feel sorry for your pets when you arrive home drunk and alone so!

No, I'm saying it's quite amusing to be told I'm not even gay since I have had sex with women, or occasionally (very rarely, in fact) wouldn't mind it.

Having an erection in the presence of all kinds of inanimate objects is fine, but if it doesn't drop dead with a live person of the "wrong" gender, you suddenly seize being gay. Nonsense.

1ZRed

floggg wrote: »

Do you know what, I was going to explain why having a sexual attraction to both men and women (even if you have a stronger preference for one over the other, and only fancy sex with the other occasionally) makes you more "bisexual" than "gay" but on the evidence of this thread there is zero point seeing as you'll come up with a whole truckload of bull**** and we'll get nowhere.

Though the fact that you think it might be true that bisexuals kiss differently says a lot about the rationality of your thought processes.

I'm not starting any debate here, but I've had sex with women and the odd time after I said I was gay. I'm not attracted enough to want a realtionship or anything substantial off a woman and I'd be far more attracted to men and want more, so I am gay, but have bi curiosities. No harm, it's all a good laugh.
I no longer call my self bi though, just somewhere in between which is still under the gay label to me.

Mace Windu

floggg wrote: »

Though the fact that you think it might be true that bisexuals kiss differently says a lot about the rationality of your thought processes.

The fact that you are unable to keep the discussion at an abstract level and keep discussing me, tells me a thing or two about your thought processes too :rolleyes: