I feel like we are in urgent need of understanding what bisexuality is.

[15153321]

I would rather fight the people calling gay men who wont sleep with women "bigoted" than fight the bi men who call themselves gay or straight.

But that's the thing, I was reffering specifically of cases when those ppl are the same. I was giving the example of the ppl that call themselves gay or straight and call actual gay men bigoted for not wanting to be with women, when they are. I see that as trying to redefine a label that has existed for decades and that has meant one thing for that whole time until now. And for no reason, as well, since there is a label that does accurately describe them.

prevent others if what they are doing is not harmful to others directly (or indirectly eventually too

Do you see how what I'm saying falls under what you are saying here? Bisexual ppl that refuse to use the rightful label and are trying to redefine a label that does not belong to them whilst shaming ppl that do belong in that label for not recreating actions they participate in, to me, causes them harm, even if indirectly.

 

[15153321]

By the way as to what I get turned on by exactly?

I actually can watch straight porn but I am not focusing on the woman at all. Its how huge the guys dick looks on their tiny hands! (Edit: If I eventually do decide to watch straight porn, I) Usually enjoy women giving men hand jobs and sometimes blowjobs (but straight guys enjoy that *gwak gwak* noises too much I guess cause I hate hearing women do that! Hahaha)

Its usually a quick 30 sec clip of a porn scene but its straight porn!

Yeah, I mean, I feel like that's almost a universal reaction. There are plenty of very attractive str8 porn stars and if you can get past the fake screeching those poor women have to utter to play it up for the camera, it can be a turn on to see a man just feel pleasure.

 

[15153321]

I won't say there aren't situations where it makes sense to draw a line. A cis man who only fucks cis women and never even looks at men is not gay, clearly. But if "gay" best describes the culture he associates with himself.

Being gay isn't a culture, though?
Being gay is a sexual orientation. Gay is a label that describes what a person feels sexually attracted to, so saying that a man that calls himself gay but goes on having sex with women is wrong isn't prescriptive.

he finds men attractive sometimes

That's exactly what bisexual is, though. Like, idk if I'm not expressing myself correctly here, but can you not see how it can be damaging for bi men to call themselves gay when they fuck women?

 

[CoburnAisling]

Being gay isn't a culture, though?
Being gay is a sexual orientation. Gay is a label that describes what a person feels sexually attracted to, so saying that a man that calls himself gay but goes on having sex with women is wrong isn't prescriptive.


That's exactly what bisexual is, though. Like, idk if I'm not expressing myself correctly here, but can you not see how it can be damaging for bi men to call themselves gay when they fuck women?

So, the way I wrote that sentence was specifically to head off your exact argument. I said if "gay" best describes the culture he associates with himself. Meaning I'm acknowledging that "gay" isn't actually a culture, but that for him, that word describes the culture that exists that he associates with himself. It doesn't matter that you don't get that association, because you are not him. His associations are not the same as yours. You don't get to tell him his aren't valid.

Bi/Pan men using "gay" to describe themselves is perfectly fine. I already described exactly why I myself do that.

What you are arguing for is literalism. And while I get the draw as an autistic person, believe me—ultimately, people are a lot more important than accuracy. And if we can tell the difference, we don't NEED to alert everyone else to it. We can just let it exist for what it is, and do things however suits us when it's our turn to make the choices.

I've been learning a lot of big lessons about my autism in the last few days, coincidentally, and that very paragraph was one of them.

 

[15153321]

So, the way I wrote that sentence was specifically to head off your exact argument. I said if "gay" best describes the culture he associates with himself. Meaning I'm acknowledging that "gay" isn't actually a culture, but that for him, that word describes the culture that exists that he associates with himself. It doesn't matter that you don't get that association, because you are not him. His associations are not the same as yours. You don't get to tell him his aren't valid.

Bi/Pan men using "gay" to describe themselves is perfectly fine. I already described exactly why I myself do that.

What you are arguing for is literalism. And while I get the draw as an autistic person, believe me—ultimately, people are a lot more important than accuracy. And if we can tell the difference, we don't NEED to alert everyone else to it. We can just let it exist for what it is, and do things however suits us when it's our turn to make the choices.

I've been learning a lot of big lessons about my autism in the last few days, coincidentally, and that very paragraph was one of them.

Okay, I can concede in all of that but you, once again, failed to address my last argument.
You're talking as if bi men identifying as gay whilst fucking women affects absolutely nobody but themselves which at first glance might seem like the case but it's not.

Again I will reiterate, there are bisexual men out there that cling onto the label of gay for whatever reason (porn stars cuz it seels more money, other ppl, I truly don't know) whilst shaming actual gay men for not being with women, calling them close-minded, etc.

I also wanna reiterate that this isn't a one time thing or done by one or two ppl, this has been a growing sentiment I've witnessed in the past 2 years or so and I know you can argue that it's only online, but it bleeds onto real life.

 

[Cum_is_Great]

But that's the thing, I was reffering specifically of cases when those ppl are the same. I was giving the example of the ppl that call themselves gay or straight and call actual gay men bigoted for not wanting to be with women, when they are. I see that as trying to redefine a label that has existed for decades and that has meant one thing for that whole time until now. And for no reason, as well, since there is a label that does accurately describe them.

Do you see how what I'm saying falls under what you are saying here? Bisexual ppl that refuse to use the rightful label and are trying to redefine a label that does not belong to them whilst shaming ppl that do belong in that label for not recreating actions they participate in, to me, causes them harm, even if indirectly.

No, I understood exactly what you meant. You still can fight those specific people on the front of their ignorance by fighting against calling gay men who won't sleep with women bigoted.

See that specifically is the problem. Calling gay men bigoted if they wont sleep with women. You dont fix that by policing what each person calls themselves sexually. Because if each of those same bisexual men fixes your concern, and calls themselves bisexual, how does that stop the harm of being called bigoted out of ignorance? That's the main thing you want to stop right?

We have a venn diagram.

Two circles, Left being "Bisexual men who call themselves Gay" and the right being "People who call Gay men bigoted for not sleeping with women"

The problem is with the right circle but you keep focus on the left. The left circle does not CAUSE the right. But they do have overlap. Fighting to remove the left circle will still leave the right one. That's my point. That's why I focus my attention on the right circle.

Hopefully I made myself clear. I understand what you are saying. Its just that the thing you are saying is the problem isnt what you seem to be focusing on is all.

 

[15153321]

No, I understood exactly what you meant. You still can fight those specific people on the front of their ignorance by fighting against calling gay men who won't sleep with women bigoted.

See that specifically is the problem. Calling gay men bigoted if they wont sleep with women. You dont fix that by policing what each person calls themselves sexually. Because if each of those same bisexual men fixes your concern, and calls themselves bisexual, how does that stop the harm of being called bigoted out of ignorance? That's the main thing you want to stop right?

We have a venn diagram.

View attachment 119985261

Two circles, Left being "Bisexual men who call themselves Gay" and the right being "People who call Gay men bigoted for not sleeping with women"

The problem is with the right circle but you keep focus on the left. The left circle does not CAUSE the right. But they do have overlap. Fighting to remove the left circle will still leave the right one. That's my point. That's why I focus my attention on the right circle.

Hopefully I made myself clear. I understand what you are saying. Its just that the thing you are saying is the problem isnt what you seem to be focusing on is all.

That actually makes a lot of sense.

I feel like there's more nuance there, but I understand what you are saying.

My main thing was that I was understanding that what you said separated those two circles entirely, which, of course, was a misunderstanding.

 

[Cum_is_Great]

That actually makes a lot of sense.

I feel like there's more nuance there, but I understand what you are saying.

My main thing was that I was understanding that what you said separated those two circles entirely, which, of course, was a misunderstanding.

Glad we came to a mutual agreement and understanding!

And yeah theres a LOT more nuance of course. But I type slow and on a small phone keyboard. And I make mistakes and am lazy hahahaha

But I like these discussions and such to promote self reflection and introspection.

 

[CoburnAisling]

He answered your response to me perfectly with what he said, so that's that, I guess, haha. Glad things came to an understanding.

 

[FrankieGuile]

No one ever said that people aren’t intelligent. What I said is that some people aren’t honest with themselves. I’m far from condescending . He asked me what I would call him, so I did.

You say you're "far from condescending" but not far from being presumptuous. How do you know "people aren't honest with themselves?" Do you read minds, or do you merely believe people lie to themselves when their beliefs run counter to what you want them to believe?

 

[lukaeber]

In these past couple of years I've been seeing more and more people misunderstanding the label of bisexual and other sexual/romantic iterations.

Thread after thread, post after post, tweet after tweet of "gay" men saying they find a specific thing about women sexually attractive, or a specific sexual act with women to be enticing or even desirable. The same thing with "straight" men feeling the same thing about men.

I feel that these ppl say stuff like this because they truly don't understand what being bisexual means.

They think that a bisexual person must be 50% attracted to men and 50% attracted to women and because they mostly feel attracted to one of the sexes (gender?), they choose to identify with one of the more known sexual orientations (Gay/Straight) even though they don't belong in them.

Bisexual ppl can be 99% attracted to men or women and still be bi. There are also different romantic iterations like homoromantic/heteromantic that people are simply not aware of.

This leads to a bunch of bisexual men pushing the narrative that, for example, gay men can be find women sexually attractive and still "remain" gay. Or the same with str8 men.

We should urge ppl to better research sexual and romantic orientations, I think it's very important.

I consider myself 100% guy. Never had any desire to do anything sexually with another woman. When I was younger, and still very involved in my religion, I dated a woman for a while. She was my best friend, but the most we ever did was kiss (very short pecks on the lips). It did nothing for me.

I love watching straight porn, though, for the men. Maybe it's weird, but watching a hot guy eat pussy turns me on almost as much as anything. I have no desire at all to do it myself.

Does they put me somewhere below 100% on the gay-straight spectrum? Maybe ... I don't really care. I do think there is a difference between watching women in porn and actually having a desire to do something sexual with a woman. Probably just a matter of degrees on the Kinsey Scale I guess.

I do think there is a difference, that some people are in denial about, between sexual orientation and sexual pleasure. A guy liking prostate play does not make him sexually oriented to other men. Prostate play feels good ... more straight guys should do it. The false idea that sticking something in your butt is, by definition, a "gay" act prevents a lot of men from having more sexual pleasure. I think the same thing can be said about pretty much any sexual act. Sticking a dick in your butt can feel good too, even if you aren't sexually attracted to men. Sexual orientation is a very personal thing that is defined by how you feel/think about other people. It's not defined by what you do, IMO.

 

[chpoof]

Bi/Pan men using "gay" to describe themselves is perfectly fine. I already described exactly why I myself do that.

You described that very well, in fact. However, I respectfully disagree with you on your first sentence here, especially since the overwhelming majority of bi men end up dating and settling down with women, not men. (I don't know if this is the same for pan, but maybe it is?) If "gay" actually means both bisexual and homosexual, then you basically don't have a term to describe exclusive same-sex orientation, unless you go clinical and say "homosexual."

This is an issue that disproportionately affects gay men and not gay women, as gay women always have the option to fall back on the label "lesbian" instead of "gay," which many of them do anyway and nobody questions. Gay men do not have another term we can go to to emphasize a strictly same-sex attraction, unless we say "homosexual" like I indicated.

If people are more important than accuracy, then isn't it actually better for people to use terms to describe themselves that are more accurate and less confusing? Doesn't that actually benefit them in the long run? How does a gay-identified bisexual who marries a woman explain to his family, who may have rejected for being gay, that he wasn't gay in the first place? And how does he respond to their sudden acceptance of him because he's now living a "normal" heterosexual life? And how does he explain to his friends in the gay community, to whom he always presented himself as gay and who accepted him as gay, that he wasn't really gay after all? I can understand why some of them would feel hurt and betrayed. I realize this is a complicated scenario, but things like this do happen.

Food for thought...

 

[chpoof]

According to you guys and others who are adamant about people labeling themselves as bisexual and even not needing to put a percentage, a vast majority of humanity is now bisexual. Does that help anything..? Not really. Because now people are assuming because I got hard watching a woman orgasm solo, I'm suddenly bisexual. I dont want to do anything sexual with a woman. I don't pursue women. I mostly enjoy male-male sex or male solo sex. But occasionally watching a woman having genuine pleasure and orgasms while having sex is hot to me.

The gold star gay thread proved to me that there are other gay men who think no self respecting true gay man can ever be gay and been with a woman, EVER. even if trying to learn their sexuality. If they have been with a woman once, by societal pressure or whatever, they are now bisexual forever even if they didnt like or enjoy the experience.

I think it's important to distinguish between porn and real life. Getting turned on by something you see in a pornographic context does not necessarily equate to real life. I too can watch all kinds of things in porn that turn me on but that I have no interest in pursuing in my personal life, such as watching a woman orgasm or sucking dick through a gloryhole. To me, those fall under the umbrella of human sexuality, which I find alluring and exciting because I think sex organs are beautiful and erotic, orgasms are exciting, etc.

Now, some people will argue this to the extreme, saying that because I can be turned on by something with women, then I must be bi. But that's simply not the case. I have no attraction to women and have never once pursued anything other than friendship with women. There are also those who would argue that because my husband had sex one time with a woman back when he much younger (and drunk) and still figuring out his sexuality that he must be bi. Also not the case. But these are extreme arguments based on rigid boundaries, and I think what this thread is mostly talking about here (please correct me if I'm wrong) is guys who feel genuine and consistent attraction to both genders and/or pursue that attraction. It's not manufactured or forced, but natural to them. Those guys are actually bisexual, regardless of how they may insist on adhering to a gay or straight label for whatever reason.

 

[Call_Me_Dave]

You say you're "far from condescending" but not far from being presumptuous. How do you know "people aren't honest with themselves?" Do you read minds, or do you merely believe people lie to themselves when their beliefs run counter to what you want them to believe?

I’m not a condescending person, period. You don’t know me. Those who do migjt disagree with you. I joined this thread because I’ve seen people, here and in real life, call themselves straight, all while looking to and/or fucking around with men on a regular basis. I’m not saying this as a blanket statement, but merely saying that there is a population of folks who seem hell bent on denying who they are, and it’s both sad and dishonest. I’m not taking about those who can get hard when a naked woman is on your screen. You don’t have to like it, it’s just something I’ve seen as true. There is still tons of gray areas for people to be in, and that’s beyond fair, but I only was speaking about one group of people.

 

[WilliamG]

I'm I the only one here with BI in his profile..?

 

[Call_Me_Dave]

I'm I the only one here with BI in his profile..?

I’m going to guess that the % of people who are vs the % of people who out in their profile is vastly different.

 

[WilliamG]

I’m going to guess that the % of people who are vs the % of people who out in their profile is vastly different.

99% means there's a chance!

 

[FrankieGuile]

I’m not a condescending person, period. You don’t know me. Those who do migjt disagree with you. I joined this thread because I’ve seen people, here and in real life, call themselves straight, all while looking to and/or fucking around with men on a regular basis. I’m not saying this as a blanket statement, but merely saying that there is a population of folks who seem hell bent on denying who they are, and it’s both sad and dishonest. I’m not taking about those who can get hard when a naked woman is on your screen. You don’t have to like it, it’s just something I’ve seen as true. There is still tons of gray areas for people to be in, and that’s beyond fair, but I only was speaking about one group of people.

If that is the case, then your statement would have been more honest had you said, "in my experience some people I have known aren't honest with themselves." But you didn't. You made the blanket statement that "people aren't honest with themselves" and asserted that "if people were more honest, more people would be open to being bi." Your implication is clearly that people who are not open to being bi are not being honest with themselves. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but that entitlement does not make it bulletproof to challenges of being presumptuous and condescending. I hope we agree you are not the Great Interpreter of peoples' authentic sexual identities. You might object to being labeled condescending, but the shoe does fit in this case.

 

[15153321]

If that is the case, then your statement would have been more honest had you said, "in my experience some people I have known aren't honest with themselves." But you didn't. You made the blanket statement that "people aren't honest with themselves" and asserted that "if people were more honest, more people would be open to being bi." Your implication is clearly that people who are not open to being bi are not being honest with themselves. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but that entitlement does not make it bulletproof to challenges of being presumptuous and condescending. I hope we agree you are not the Great Interpreter of peoples' authentic sexual identities. You might object to being labeled condescending, but the shoe does fit in this case.

I love ppl that come online looking for a fight. Do you have nothing better to do?
The man has been referring to a specific group of ppl, something he reiterated in the post you replied to, here:

people, here and in real life, call themselves straight, all while looking to and/or fucking around with men on a regular basis

Having that in mind, everything he declared pertained to this specific group of people, not all bisexual people.

Reading comprehension is very important.

 

[FrankieGuile]

I love ppl that come online looking for a fight. Do you have nothing better to do?
The man has been referring to a specific group of ppl, something he reiterated in the post you replied to, here:

Having that in mind, everything he declared pertained to this specific group of people, not all bisexual people.

Reading comprehension is very important.

I come here looking for pretense, and this thread is hunting ground abundant with game. The poster was referring to anyone claiming a sexual identity not approved by that poster's personal experience. I stand by my posts.

Discernment in reading for subtle false narratives is also very important.