no shit hamish, i did specify they were ones i'm not prepared to associate myself with. unlike "woman", or "feminist", which also have dodgy connotations but you don't hear me rejecting them.

did it ever work?

ase

Just remember that the little sleazy connotations attached to the word 'bisexual' are still there no matter what word you use in its place. Most people can decode the euphemisms. It's bisexuality itself that scares people, and renaming it 'pansexuality,' 'ommisexuality,' 'frobnitz,' or any other word won't change things one bit.

Yay for ILE being back. I mean it. Yay.

I wonder if bisexual influence is valid?

Actually I am worried that like JANET STREET PORTER I may haf a crush on the boy from the Pizza Express 60s advert. Not the one on the 70s one for he haf too much of a tache. The 80s one has a grebt mobile phone though.

GENIUS!!!

I use it because it's all I've got. Pan- or omnisexual are simply untrue as well as being pretentious pap. I do feel quite tempted by polysexual (men, women, both at once...), but it has the same tang of intolerable pomposity.

hells bells thats remarkably close to my situation. how come i'm such a het-girl-chaser?

i don't think anyone should be put down for choosing to use or not use a particular category to define themselves. i'm not going to be told off because i won't call myself a bisexual. the reason i don't call my sexuality anything is cos i like PEOPLE, not their sex!!!!

Heh

rickyt, that was such a mark s way of paying me out.

"sexual" = sleeps with either

(the prefix "bi" is redundant)

Now imagine if Gary Numan called the song that instead.

THE BI GENERATION Aug 2 2004
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sexandslimming/tm_objectid=14486237&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=the-bi-generation-name_page.html

By Jane Ridley

THEY'RE the "anything goes" generation of female clubbers who get their kicks from snogging other women on the dancefloor - to the delight of many male onlookers.

Nearly a third of Britain's female revellers consider themselves bisexual and almost half have had some sort of sexual experience with another woman, ranging from kissing to fondling and full sex...

amongst the market research:

Which of these celebs would you most like to have a bisexual experience with?

a) Abi Titmuss 20%
b) Rebecca Loos 18%
c) Madonna 24%
d) Britney Spears 31%
e) Emma from Big Brother 7%

Eh? All those celebs are women. For a bisexual experience would the partner not have to be an hermaphrodite? Or is it that the 'l' word would be too scary in this form of market research eh?

Yeah, I'm laughing my dyke ass off.

See
- Watching hardcore pron - it's a great laugh
- Having fights when very drunk - it's a great laugh
- committing petty acts of vandalism - you've guessed it.

Also I want to screen-print a t-shirt of the above.

http://knowyourmeme.com/i/898/original/1238091407355.jpg

(g)a(y)-men

former

LOL

Sometimes I gaze deep into the beautiful folds of the petals of a rose, and then I cram my dick into them.

Sept. 23 is apparently Celebrate Bisexuality Day, enjoy.

*gets misty-eyed reading the posts from vanished ILXors*

The posters around campus are annoying; they've all got the skeeziest guys and girls on'em.

Years before he fully outed himself (to hardly anyone's surprise), and back when he still hadn't fully recovered from a strict Christian upbringing, my closest friend had this intriguing belief system: That even though The Good Lord wasn't crazy about homosexuality, He reserved His true wrath for (practicing) bi's, the implication being that, having been granted the gift of free will and the opportunity to choose one's sexuality, one had the obligation to choose the RIGHT path; i.e. heterosexuality. He's left all that behind him now, and may never have actually truly thought that way. But it was a kinda interesting viewpoint, I thought.

I'm 3 days late to the Bisexuality Day party. damn! Reading the discussion above is pretty depressing, btw, for all the really really bad opinions w/r/t gender and sex. Its like once bisexuality comes up everyone becomes a Victorian idiot.

Yeah someone posted a pretty dperessing NYT article on some other threat that essentially said the male bi is the secret gay.

threat = thread

"heterosexual" = sleeps with opposite "homosexual" = sleeps with same
"sexual" = sleeps with either

(the prefix "bi" is redundant)

― stripey, Thursday, May 2, 2002 5:00 PM (8 years ago) Bookmark

brilliant stuff...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/health/05sex.html

This was it...it was posted in the "opinions that make you want to leave the room etc" thread.

well, the article in question (from 2005, if we're talking about the same thing) is horrible, presenting some inconclusive research findings as this "shocking expose" of dishonest/self-deluding male bisexuals. but the underlying research is interesting, and perhaps significant. dunno to what extent it's been supported or expanded.

oops, abbott just linked it. yeah, that one.

The results of the study could have been interpreted as "guys who self who self-identity as hetero are actually bi" as well... But studies that focus on penile arousal or whatever are silly I think. IMO the test isn't "does this dick turn you on?" its "would you actually like to suck this dick?"

yeah, but by limiting itself to genital arousal, a study like this can accurately measure a specific physiological event with clear ties to general sexual arousal. in other words, it's a damn good way to filter out what people might believe about their own desires, so that we can hear what their bodies have to say on the subject. which isn't the final word by any means, but it is interesting in itself and even (potentially) useful. problem is that sensationalists always want to jump to unjustified, quasi-scientific conclusions like, "See, i told you! Male bisexuality is a lie."

The results of the study could have been interpreted as "guys who self who self-identity as hetero are actually bi" as well...

not sure how this follows...

I guess this would be a good place to talk about something I call the "male bisexual game" that may or may not be "a thing."

Basically, it amounts to two or more guys, sometimes in a party or with mixed company, basically one-upping each other with homoerotic innuendo. This, to outsiders, usually just looks like some guys ribbing each other in a fairly juvenile way )w/ gay jokes)... but between the participants there are clear winks and nods. As it slowly cranks up it either dissipates if something changes to the mood or whatever but often times it will culminate in something like actual groping or making out. The idea is to not drop the pretense of being straight though; appearing to observers that you're just giving each other shit and "bro-ing down" but are in actuality signalling to each other we are on the same page re: sexual orientation.

The point of this game is hard to figure out. Part of it, I think, is to develop awareness between bisexual men that they are potential mates, but sometimes the sexual orientation is already out in the open and it seems to be done either to kill time, build sexual tension just for fun, or to slyly "get away with something" in front of oblivious straight people.

The game doesn't work when attempted around homosexuals though. They pick up on it pretty quick and are like "you guys should either go fuck each other right now or just shut the fuck up! jeez!"

I guess I won't get any confirmation about this whole dynamic though, seeing as bisexual males don't actually exist so there
are none to respond to this post. :(

xp contenderizer, from the article:

"But the men in the study who described themselves as bisexual did not have patterns of arousal that were consistent with their stated attraction to men and to women. Instead, about three-quarters of the group had arousal patterns identical to those of gay men; the rest were indistinguishable from heterosexuals."

ie you could say: "The heterosexuals results were indistinguishable from 1/4th of the bisexual results" - heterosexuals are clearly lying to themselves and are actually bi.

They are using "heterosexuals" as a control group -- thats the problem with the study. Its basically worthless.

yeah, but that's just semantic sleight of hand for lols, though.

xpost

clearly I need to attend Viceroy's parties.

and they're not doing that at all (using hets as a control). there isn't really a control group here, or rather each subgroup is treated as its own control. you have three groups: straight, homosexual and bi - in terms of expressed orientation. penile response in each group is measured in response to erotic images of men and women. straits and gays, it seems respond physiologically to the imagery that's associated with their expressed orientation. male bisexuals, however, are much more likely to respond to one type of imagery (straight or gay, depending on the subject) than the other. this doesn't really say anything about whether male bisexuality exists, but it's an interesting piece of the human behavior puzzle.

It's always just him and some dude flirting and grabbing the other guy's taint all night. xp

not 'some dude' of ilx fame, any dude is what I mean

XP but when they compare one groups results to another, and there's no real control group to stand alone, there's not much validity to the comparisons.

Sorry, I am taking a research methods class and I think its having an effect on my posting.

It's always just him and some dude flirting and grabbing the other guy's taint all night. xp
― Mormons come out of the sky and they stand there (Abbbottt),

Hey anyone can join in, I'm not exclusionary...

XP but when they compare one groups results to another, and there's no real control group to stand alone, there's not much validity to the comparisons.

well, one can say that, but this study doesn't purport to be definitive in that sense. that's why i fault the interpretation/spin attached by the NYT article, but not the study itself. and the article does mention the study's biggest apparent defect: its small sample size. that's a much bigger issue than how (or whether) it should generate control data.

again, it seems to me that all three groups sort of "control" for one another. this may be less than ideal, but the comparison is the point, and it's not an unreasonable approach, given the small sample size. all an orientation-blind control group would give us baseline data regarding the percentage of the male population who respond sexually to images of men vs. the percentage who respond to images of women. that data is very like available elsewhere, and wouldn't really shed much light on these results anyway.

what's really required is similar data on straight, gay and bisexual women.

erm, "all an orientation-blind control group would give us would be baseline data regarding..."

Oh I know that the interpretation is all from the NYT, I should have made that clear. And also, I realize that sex/gender researchers have to use these kinds of studies and have very little funding for big sample sizes and all that.

I guess my real problem with it is that it can be used to insinuate bisexual men are either liars or really just gay, and that's not really the studies fault.

And yes there should obv. be a corollary study involving women.

Dr. Bailey has been accused of serious ethical violations in the past. (I haven't read the book in question, so I can't give my point of view on this.)

As an aside, my sexual orientation went from a weak 2 (it was a strong 2 when I posted earlier in this thread) to a strong 3 after I finally got my bipolar disorder properly treated. (I had noticed in the past that I was more interested in men when I was depressed and more interested in women when I was happy.) I don't have any insights into this, but I thought I'd mention it.

Sorry, I mean 2 and 3 on the Kinsey sexual orientation scare. Very outdated, I know, but it's good as a shorthand.

well, from that wiki article, it sounds as though the accusations of "serious ethical violations" could just as easily be described as "malicious harassment".

...of the four women who complained to Northwestern, two acknowledged that they were aware they would be included in Bailey's book in their letter to the university. The other two were not described in the book.

...While one critic compared his work to Nazi propaganda, and another posted pictures of his children on her website with sexually explicit captions, other critics believe that their actions against Bailey and his book represent legitimate comment on a topic of public interest.

but yeah, i don't know enough about what went on to have an opinion one way or the other.

I don't think the Kinsey scale has enough numbers between "2" and "3" if you know what I mean. Put me down for 2.25.

I've thought for some time now that probably a lot of those of us who feel a strong attraction to the opposite sex just don't bother exploring same sex attraction much or even actively push it down when we're young; after all, heterosexuality is still so much 'easier' in our society so if the opposite sex is satisfying to us we're a lot less likely to concern ourselves with exploring other weaker tendencies.

100% OTM. I got enough torment for Insignificant Manliness growing up, I was hardly going to go around passing out signed invitations to get the shit beat out of me.

I'm like a 4.5 I think

I know I "actively pushed it down" when I was young but it didn't go away. I don't think you need to "explore" same-sex attraction, it either happens or not. If it happens frequently, its hard to ignore and pretend it isn't part of your basic psyche.

But like you said, heterosexual relationships are just easier in many ways so unless a same-sex individual comes along that is just irresistible I think a lot of bisexuals just fall into the heteronormative lifestyle for convenience and to avoid problems (if its even that conscious of a choice).

I'm not sure if this is "selling out" but I sometimes feel that way.

^^^ I sometimes personally feel like a sell-out is what I meant to say there.

Oh I just realized by explore you meant like "pursue"... Yeah, no way was I going to try and hit on boys in Junior High, lol. Watching them play shirtless basketball was enough for me, I didn't much want to get dragged behind a truck for a few miles on the freeway.

"I think a lot of bisexuals just fall into the heteronormative lifestyle"

I don't like to think of it this way, because it implies that everyone has some kind of single true sexual nature and I don't think it's that simple. I mean yes, I think there are people who find the same sex so attractive and the opposite sex so relatively unattractive that only a homosexual identification makes sense, and vice versa. But once you get into the murkier area in between I think it's hard to say who is "really" a bisexual and who is "really" hetero/homo.

I guess I'm saying this as someone who discovered some vague inklings of same sex attraction relatively late, having basically no memory of them from earlier in life, and still feeling like opposite sex attraction is much stronger. So maybe my view just suits my particular experience.

Yeah if you get married in a monogamous relationship it can make you feel like you "fell into" something, just thx to the nature of being married. Like not just because it's heteronormative institution (tho that helps), but bcz you're only externally acting out any desires with this one person. It's not just one gender, it's one person you've wed yourself to.

It may not be a "single true nature" but it feels like getting a college degree, like 'well even if I love 18th century lit everyone is going to look at my degree and see nothing but an electrical engineer.'

(fwiw I like being married a lot more than this simile is making it sound)

Oh i'm not trying to be essentialist when I say "bisexuals" I am just using the label for shorthand...
My intention was basically to agree with you, but I think I somewhat misunderstood your post.

I was just trying to say that people who have sexual attraction to both sexes have the opportunity to choose between them and many will choose the more socially acceptable situation (a heterosexual relationship) and I was wondering if this was just a form of conformity and "selling out."

I'm not sure it is because its been my experience that the queer community isn't really that receptive or welcoming to bisexuals (even though there is a B in LGBT), so its either conform or try and build some sort of bisexual community that would likely just be seen by society as a pervert club or something.

Like, if my wife and I showed up to a gay rally, the assumption would be that we were "straight allies" and not part of the "queer community."

So I guess I wonder if you have to be actively bisexual to be considered actually bisexual, or otherwise you're just some kind of poseur.

Yeah that sort of relates to my hard time understanding the term too, like if you're not a 'practicing' bisexual what makes you bisexual? But at the same time we accept the idea that someone can be "gay" while not having sex with men, perhaps even NEVER having had sex with men. So I guess what I'm getting at is (1) I don't know, (2) this thread

Here's a good article about the "myth" of male bisexuality:

http://daily.gay.com/hot_topics/2010/09/my-gay-world-bi-any-other-name.html?cid=6a01156e9cba4c970c013487ace6fa970c#comment-6a01156e9cba4c970c013487ace6fa970c

But oh boy are the comments depressing though... this is a common sentiment:

"I am curious about bisexuality. It just boggles my mind that men can be bisexual. Not that it matters, but it causes a lot of confusion. There are many gay men who can have sex with a woman. There is a lot of stigma and shame attached to being gay. Are these bisexuals? There have been scientific studies which have shown that in men, at least, sexual attraction is one or the other but not both. As usual there are a chorus of activists that claim that the studies are flawed and blah blah blah because it goes against the reality they built for themselves. I think they can label whatever they want, but bisexual men do more harm to the gay rights and recognition than anyone. Bisexuals screaming about acceptance is crazy."

"If your cock is in my mouth, your gay! Your in the candy store and mom says u can pick only one candy. Pick it and move on! Men and women are not the same sexually. Women have boobs that one can touch and another canal hole. Men have a tangable organ (cock and balls) that squirts semen. totally different. Not equal. A cock can get off in any wet hole. Bixesuals sit on the fence play well maybe I am and maybe I'm not. Give us a break and stop playing so the rest of us can find a monogamous relationship."

"If they say I want to experience my other side, then they are gay, no matter what they want to label it. There is no bisexual closet."

"I think "bi" guys say that, so they won't be associated with the word "gay", in truth everybody should be respected regardless of what their sexuallity is, in my opinion their is no such thing as "bi" and I say that because once a person has been with the same sex it is a "gay act" and he or she can try to be 'straight" if they want, but in reality they are gay, and don't want to be associated with that one word GAY!!"

I think the message is clear...

Men have a tangable organ (cock and balls) that squirts semen.

this sentence sums up everything wrong with the human condition

I mean, I am pretty certain my organ (cock and balls) is not tangable but then again I shower every day

Its just so sad -- these are all comments from gay men who have no doubt suffered oppression and indignities and they are oblivious to the fact that they are doing the same thing to another group!

agreed. i mean, if you don't believe in gender and orientational fluidity at this point, then i'm just like, 'get the fuck out of my very queer house.'

i think we should not overlook that a woman's canal hole is, by comparison, intangable

I can tell you from personal experience that this is not true

Yeah that sort of relates to my hard time understanding the term too, like if you're not a 'practicing' bisexual what makes you bisexual?

I sort of shy away from calling myself bisexual since a) I am not currently "practicing" (I'm in a long-term relationship with a woman) and b) I am not as sexually attracted to men as I used to be. But I also never think of myself as straight, since I've long thought of sexuality as something that incorporates your whole history of behaviors and desires.

it's still pretty remarkable to me just how, for guys, homo sex is interpreted as more authentic, as more expressive of his essential sexual identity, than any previous or concurrent hetero sex. honestly, i have to think of this as a lingering association of 'homosexuality' as sin, and it's always a bit disheartening whenever some married conservative or religious figure is embroiled in gay scandal, it's their liberal opponents who argue this louder than anyone.

I don't follow...?

sorry, a bit unclear -- i just mean, in the interest of scoring points against hypocrisy, it benefits them to interpret homosexual conduct as revealing essential sexual identity -- there's this guy who believe homosexuality is a sin, and who oppresses gay people, but HE IS GAY HIMSELF DO YOU SEE.

idk in short "did gay stuff" does not necessarily mean "is gay" and i just wish ppl would be more sensitive to that

is it more helpful to employ a slightly fuzzy percentage scale? or is that insensitive to the moments where one might tend more towards 100% gay or 100% straight

I believe it when Larry Craig says "I am not gay" but I also believe he likes it in the butt.

idk in short "did gay stuff" does not necessarily mean "is gay" and i just wish ppl would be more sensitive to that

Yes.

After I saw American Beauty, I was confused why everyone seemed so sure that Chris Cooper's character was gay in an essentialist way; all the movie shows us is that he's a tightly wound military dude and that he makes a pass at Spacey in a heated moment. (In retrospect, I was probably giving Alan Ball too much credit.)

jaymc otm. i identify as bi if asked. all the business of "are there really people who enjoy sex with both penises and vaginas??" is amusing but sadly related to wider homophobia i think. since i've been conscious of sexuality i've been on a sort of sliding scale. on 1-10::straight-gay it shifts between like 4 and 7 i guess, big part based on specific people i am attracted to at the time. "bi" of course also leaves out transgendered people.

let's go with "pansexual".

have to admit that the "genital arousal" baseline measure makes a huge amount of sense to me. i mean, i'm straight, more or less. won't say that i've never felt sexual tension with (and perhaps even attraction to) another man, but 99.99999% of my sexual interest is hetero, directed towards women. that attraction manifests itself genitally (ahem), but also psychologically, as a big part of my daily experience as a human among other humans. it manifests to a kinda pervy/crepey degree, i sometimes think, but whatever...

thing is, i'm not particularly homophobic. the idea of gay sex doesn't repulse me at all. nor does it turn me on, but if i were a more adventurous/kinky person with the same basic (basically heterosexual) desires, i could see myself pursuing a much broader variety of sexual experiences. i might do this in the name of experimentation, to challenge myself, for kinky thrills, or for any number of other reasons. if i did do such things, given my basic psycho-sexual underpinnings, i wouldn't magically become gay. i say this because i suspect that my underlying desires would remain overwhelmingly heterosexual. nor do i think i'd be bi. instead, i'd simply be a straight guy pushing his boundaries, picking from a more sexually varied banquet.

that's not to criticize or even interpret anyone else's sexual experience. i do not side with those who consider male bisexuality a fiction.

unsure if i'm bisexual, i'll let ya know?

thank's

:)

unsure if i'm bisexual

it's pretty clear that simple sexual gratification is wholly unconnected to the source of the sexual stimulus. that's what makes masturbation possible. same for sexual fetishism. so, I guess anyone who seeks sexual stimulation and gratification without discriminating as to the gender of their sexual partner would be 'bisexual'.

the older I get the more all this sexual categorization seems extremely secondary to living a happy, kind, and loving life.

otm