Can a guy be bisexual?

[ThatOtherFan]

@ TOF, I'm using my phone so it's not up there

Actually I was wrong it's on the previous page, but nonetheless... you better be glad I semi-like you or wouldn't repost this shit...

It complicated in how we label ourselves and how others label us.

What about a woman that experiments, but finds that it's not for her, and continues to live her life as a "straight" woman? Same scenario for a "straight" male?

What about a gay male who can find the opposite sex attractive, but doesn't act on it, nor does he have the desire to act on it.

Sexuality is complicated.

We put ourselves in a box and give labels to understand something that is innate and different for every person.

I mean, technically it's a "box" or a "label" to even say we're all innately, to some extent, bisexual. However, IMO, it's a better viewpoint to have of something that again in it's essence is different for every person.

[trackboy]

We meaning just you because you can't read. Don't get mad at me that Miss Google is failing you

It's a Jay-Z lyric, babe. Get on your cultural references. You dropping your associates date like it's crucial. I would've gotten mine two years ago if I went to a community college.

[henrietta.]

Actually I was wrong it's on the previous page, but nonetheless... you better be glad I semi-like you or wouldn't repost this shit...

Then he/she is straight. If they continued to experience same gender sexual encounters, then they would be bi.

[henrietta.]

I'm not a Jay Z listener so I really don't care I didn't read the rest, because I really don't care to, but feel to reply to this post as if I would care to read it in your head smart one

[ThatOtherFan]

Then he/she is straight. If they continued to experience same gender sexual encounters, then they would be bi.

The notion that they would be open enough to experiment with their sexuality goes back to what I was saying about sexuality being a complicated issue.

[henrietta.]

The notion that they would be open enough to experiment with their sexuality goes back to what I was saying about sexuality being a complicated issue.

I understand what you're saying (basically the same as what Roc was saying). To me the person is straight because they have no desire to sexually be with the same sex again.

[ThatOtherFan]

I understand what you're saying (basically the same as what Roc was saying). To me the person is straight because they have no desire to sexually be with the same sex again.

If you had to apply a "label" to it, I would say straight as well... but the point is that sexuality isn't a cut and dry. I think (and again, controversial...lol) most people would fall in the "gray" area. If there truly was any way gage it.

[henrietta.]

If you had to apply a "label" to it, I would say straight as well... but the point is that sexuality isn't a cut and dry. I think (and again, controversial...lol) most people would fall in the "gray" area. If there truly was any way gage it.

Oh I say a lot of folks fall into the gray area nowadays compared to decades ago. Folks are more opened and curious about same sex experiences...they just do it on the low, but I think it will be out in the open again in like 5 years.

[Kennita Jo.]

This question is insubstantial to begin with. Bisexuality is nothing but a label. A means for simple people to categorize what cannot be categorized, defined, or explained.

Regardless, whether someone is going to fuck me raw or put a ring on it, what does it matter at the end of the day?

[Aquaria]

This question is insubstantial to begin with. Bisexuality is nothing but a label. A means for simple people to categorize what cannot be categorized, defined, or explained.

Regardless, whether someone is going to fuck me raw or put a ring on it, what does it matter at the end of the day?

lawd

[Kennita Jo.]

lawd

Yah?

[Aquaria]

Yah?

You identified as bisexual up until pretty recently, or at least when you stopped posting. Now labels are for simple people.

[trackboy]

This question is insubstantial to begin with. Bisexuality is nothing but a label. A means for simple people to categorize what cannot be categorized, defined, or explained.

Regardless, whether someone is going to fuck me raw or put a ring on it, what does it matter at the end of the day?

If you they fuck you raw; STDs can abound.

[Kennita Jo.]

You identified as bisexual up until pretty recently, or at least when you stopped posting. Now labels are for simple people.

I did for a period of time, not in the beginning though. Like you said somewhere back in the thread, it's easier to use labels but they also create rules and parameters. But labels are a product of simple minds, no? People who feel like everything has to have a clean-cut classification?

[Kennita Jo.]

If you they fuck you raw; STDs can abound.

[King Baby]

This question is insubstantial to begin with. Bisexuality is nothing but a label. A means for simple people to categorize what cannot be categorized, defined, or explained.

Regardless, whether someone is going to fuck me raw or put a ring on it, what does it matter at the end of the day?

NO!

[Aquaria]

I did for a period of time, not in the beginning though. Like you said somewhere back in the thread, it's easier to use labels but they also create rules and parameters. But labels are a product of simple minds, no? People who feel like everything has to have a clean-cut classification?

Sexuality has characteristics and can therefore be classified and described, and it can be very useful like I said, but can also impose limits on an individual. No, not necessarily. That's like saying classifying different types of clouds is for simple minds because they need a clean-cut classification, or dividing up the earth into countries, states, towns, etc.

Different types of sexuality exist, wouldn't you agree? Therefore why is it simple minded to refer to those differences with unique names? I think the way people apply labels, their view of them, etc, can be simple minded. Labels are just a tool, a convenience. And when it concerns sexuality the nuances of it can be subjective from person to person.

[Kennita Jo.]

Sexuality has characteristics and can therefore be classified and described, and it can be very useful like I said, but can also impose limits on an individual. No, not necessarily. That's like saying classifying different types of clouds is for simple minds because they need a clean-cut classification, or dividing up the earth into countries, states, towns, etc.

Different types of sexuality exist, wouldn't you agree? Therefore why is it simple minded to refer to those differences with unique names? I think the way people apply labels, their view of them, etc, can be simple minded. Labels are just a tool, a convenience. And when it concerns sexuality the nuances of it can be subjective from person to person.

No. Sexuality in essence is purely subjective and therefore cannot be classified. Which is why your cloud comparison is void.

What works for one doesn't always work for the pack. In this case, ever -- I don't believe any two people in the world share the same sexuality. As convenient as they may be, labels are radical, they only cover the ends of the spectrum when the majority falls somewhere in between.

[trackboy]

No. Sexuality in essence is purely subjective and therefore cannot be classified. Which is why your cloud comparison is void.

What works for one doesn't always work for the pack. In this case, ever -- I don't believe any two people in the world share the same sexuality. As convenient as they may be, labels are radical, they only cover the ends of the spectrum when the majority falls somewhere in between.

I agree. I hate labels, especially when it comes to sex. I like what I like; and whose to tell on any given day what that is.

[Aquaria]

No. Sexuality in essence is purely subjective and therefore cannot be classified. Which is why your cloud comparison is void.

What works for one doesn't always work for the pack. In this case, ever -- I don't believe any two people in the world share the same sexuality. As convenient as they may be, labels are radical, they only cover the ends of the spectrum when the majority falls somewhere in between.

I disagree with you. If something has characteristics, it can be described and classified. Sexuality is murky and it's not an exact science, that's why it's difficult and labels can be misleading because you're right, it is nearly infinitely complicated and different from person to person. But to deny there are some general categories and that large groups share a significant number of similarities is to deny reality. If you are attracted to primarily the opposite sex, versus primarily the same sex, there is a definitive difference, and some people can fall into either of those categories. So to name those categories which do exist is not simple minded. The cloud comparison is completely relevant. You're naming differences that exist. They're all clouds, aren't they? So why must meteorologists refer to them as cumulus, vs stratus, etc?

I never said it did But there are general categories and definite similarities among large groups of people, like I just said.

[Kennita Jo.]

I disagree with you. If something has characteristics, it can be described and classified. Sexuality is murky and it's not an exact science, that's why it's difficult and labels can be misleading because you're right, it is nearly infinitely complicated and different from person to person. But to deny there are some general categories and that large groups share a significant number of similarities is to deny reality. If you are attracted to primarily the opposite sex, versus primarily the same sex, there is a definitive difference, and some people can fall into either of those categories. So to name those categories which do exist is not simple minded. The cloud comparison is completely relevant. You're naming differences that exist. They're all clouds, aren't they? So why must meteorologists refer to them as cumulus, vs stratus, etc?

I never said it did But there are general categories and definite similarities among large groups of people, like I just said.

Described, yes, obviously. Classified, in the literal, biological sense? No. And your logic is the same of those who conceived these labels, the same reason they exist -- large groups share a significant number of similarities? Again, no two people share the same sexuality. So similarities mean shit. Grouping "similarities" where something so subjective is concerned is just a quick, sloppy, politically incorrect way to categorize and further humankind's attempt to define and make everything "known." If anything, those groups are only defined by the acceptance of labels. So you're okay with being labeled a "gay," despite the fact that you do have/have had a slight tendency for females. What about those who don't have such a narrowed preference, i.e. the majority? You cannot put that in a box, and if you do, you'd be out of line.

And clouds aren't subjective doll. Clouds are measured by shape and density and such. Can you measure my level of attraction to guys and girls? Can you also give it an appropriate name that accurately defines me but also works for everyone else? No. You can't.

[Aquaria]

Described, yes, obviously. Classified, in the literal, biological sense? No. And your logic is the same of those who conceived these labels, the same reason they exist -- large groups share a significant number of similarities? Again, no two people share the same sexuality. So similarities mean shit. Grouping "similarities" where something so subjective is concerned is just a quick, sloppy, politically incorrect way to categorize and further humankind's attempt to define and make everything "known." If anything, those groups are only defined by the acceptance of labels. So you're okay with being labeled a "gay," despite the fact that you do have/have had a slight tendency for females. What about those who don't have such a narrowed preference, i.e. the majority? You cannot put that in a box, and if you do, you'd be out of line.

And clouds aren't subjective doll. Clouds are measured by shape and density and such. Can you measure my level of attraction to guys and girls? Can you also give it an appropriate name that accurately defines me but also work for everyone else? No. You can't.

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying, and you're being very hostile and rude for no reason.

No, classified as in observing differences and marking distinctions. I'm not looking at it from a judgmental point of view, I'm looking at it as naming a quality. I never implied it was perfect, or covered everyone, or that any one category would completely and accurately define one person, or that people needed to label themselves and each other. Similarities do mean something, I don't understand how you can say that. Labeling can be divisive, as with any type of distinction based on an innate quality, but it can also help you find people who are similar to you. I identify as gay, as I said in this thread. Anyone else will judge me however they want. You can call me gay, you can call me bi-curious, you can call me bisexual, but it's fair to say I'm not straight. That's really all I'm saying. It's up to any individual how they perceive their sexuality and others'. I have a narrow preference? And the majority of people don't? Really? Tell me, who are you attracted to?

Based on the general trend of who or what you're attracted to, yes, it's possible to give a general name to your sexuality. Does it 100% describe every nuance and fiber of your sexual being? No. I never said it did and it doesn't need to and that's not what it's for. I really don't get how someone can be so insistent on being "bisexual" and then turn around and say labels are for simple people. You made a point of continually emphasizing that you were bi

[Kennita Jo.]

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying, and you're being very hostile and rude for no reason.

No, classified as in observing differences and marking distinctions. I'm not looking at it from a judgmental point of view, I'm looking at it as naming a quality. I never implied it was perfect, or covered everyone, or that any one category would completely and accurately define one person, or that people needed to label themselves and each other. Similarities do mean something, I don't understand how you can say that. Labeling can be divisive, as with any type of distinction based on an innate quality, but it can also help you find people who are similar to you. I identify as gay, as I said in this thread. Anyone else will judge me however they want. You can call me gay, you can call me bi-curious, you can call me bisexual, but it's fair to say I'm not straight. That's really all I'm saying. It's up to any individual how they perceive their sexuality and others'. I have a narrow preference? And the majority of people don't? Really? Tell me, who are you attracted to?

Based on the general trend of who or what you're attracted to, yes, it's possible to give a general name to your sexuality. Does it 100% describe every nuance and fiber of your sexual being? No. I never said it did and it doesn't need to and that's not what it's for. I really don't get how someone can be so insistent on being "bisexual" and then turn around and say labels are for simple people. You made a point of continually emphasizing that you were bi

I'm not trying to be.

It helps you find similar people, not those who don't fall so neatly on the spectrum. It doesn't cover nearly anyone, that's my point. And if we go by labels and all of their limitations, it's also fair to say that you're not gay. No, that didn't come out right. The majority does have a narrow preference, but that does not give any just cause to throw us all in the same boat. Doing so is out of line to the portion of people whose preferences are not so narrow, a percentage of the population that is relevant still.

It is not. You cannot measure sexuality or preference or anything related. Such things shift with a single thought and have no infrangible scale to measure with. Because people, you included, were doing exactly what we're talking about, being simple enough to put me in a box that I don't belong in, being "gay." To level with and make my sexuality comprehendible in common standards, I marked myself as such because if I were to be forced into a category, it'd be that one. I was wrong and I no longer label myself.

[Aquaria]

I'm not trying to be.

It helps you find similar people, not those who don't fall so neatly on the spectrum. It doesn't cover nearly anyone, that's my point. And if we go by labels and all of their limitations, it's also fair to say that you're not gay. No, that didn't come out right. The majority does have a narrow preference, but that does not give any just cause to throw us all in the same boat. Doing so is out of line to the portion of people whose preferences are not so narrow, a percentage of the population that is relevant still.

It is not. You cannot measure sexuality or preference or anything related. Such things shift with a single thought and have no infrangible scale to measure with. Because people, you included, were doing exactly what we're talking about, being simple enough to put me in a box that I don't belong in, being "gay." To level with and make my sexuality comprehendible in common standards, I marked myself as such because if I were to be forced into a category, it'd be that one. I was wrong and I no longer label myself.

Must come naturally then.

Ever heard of the gay pride parade You think all of those people don't have different quirks about them? You think they're all in one neat little box, all clones? No, and no one thinks that, and that's not the point of it. The point is that they all, we all, have something in common, something other people don't. Sure, maybe in a perfect world, those difference don't matter. They shouldn't matter, a gay pride parade shouldn't have to exist, there shouldn't be "gay" marriage there should just be "marriage." I understand that point of view, and I understand how labeling is divisive. But, it does help people identify into a greater group, a support system. Obviously, straight people don't identify for that reason. And hell, people don't identify at all or identify for other reasons. The thing is, I don't see why it's so unforgivable to you to look at sexuality on a scale from straight to gay as merely observable differences among people. Obviously some people are asexual, some people are attracted to inanimate objects, but generally, people fall somewhere on that scale. Again, I'm not interested in judging people based on it, it's just merely a fact.

I'm not talking about scientifically measuring sexuality and branding a person for life I'm talking about in passing being able to say what you are or what you aren't in a succinct way. If you don't think sexuality matters at all, if you don't feel the need to label anyone or yourself, that's fine. I thought you were gay because I thought you were in denial. That was close-mindedness on my part and I realize that was wrong. You started out saying you were straight, events occurred I don't feel the need to mention, then you reemerged very "confident" in your sexuality and were very insistent you were bisexual. It wasn't in response to anyone putting you in a box. I remember a quote specifically about true blood because of how ridiculous it sounded, "my bisexuality was going crazy" or something like that you really relished in the label and were proud of it, it wasn't to shut anyone up or simplify things to anyone. And you were very defensive of it too. If you're attracted to both men and women, there's a name for it. People get it, and you move on. I respect you choosing not to label yourself now, but based on the fact that you're attracted to both, it's fair to consider you as bisexual, just like it's fair to consider me gay because I'm primarily attracted to men.

[Kennita Jo.]

Must come naturally then.

Ever heard of the gay pride parade You think all of those people don't have different quirks about them? You think they're all in one neat little box, all clones? No, and no one thinks that, and that's not the point of it. The point is that they all, we all, have something in common, something other people don't. Sure, maybe in a perfect world, those difference don't matter. They shouldn't matter, a gay pride parade shouldn't have to exist, there shouldn't be "gay" marriage there should just be "marriage." I understand that point of view, and I understand how labeling is divisive. But, it does help people identify into a greater group, a support system. Obviously, straight people don't identify for that reason. And hell, people don't identify at all or identify for other reasons. The thing is, I don't see why it's so unforgivable to you to look at sexuality on a scale from straight to gay as merely observable differences among people. Obviously some people are asexual, some people are attracted to inanimate objects, but generally, people fall somewhere on that scale. Again, I'm not interested in judging people based on it, it's just merely a fact.

I'm not talking about scientifically measuring sexuality and branding a person for life I'm talking about in passing being able to say what you are or what you aren't in a succinct way. If you don't think sexuality matters at all, if you don't feel the need to label anyone or yourself, that's fine. I thought you were gay because I thought you were in denial. That was close-mindedness on my part and I realize that was wrong. You started out saying you were straight, events occurred I don't feel the need to mention, then you reemerged very "confident" in your sexuality and were very insistent you were bisexual. It wasn't in response to anyone putting you in a box. I remember a quote specifically about true blood because of how ridiculous it sounded, "my bisexuality was going crazy" or something like that you really relished in the label and were proud of it, it wasn't to shut anyone up or simplify things to anyone. And you were very defensive of it too. If you're attracted to both men and women, there's a name for it. People get it, and you move on. I respect you choosing not to label yourself now, but based on the fact that you're attracted to both, it's fair to consider you as bisexual, just like it's fair to consider me gay because I'm primarily attracted to men.

You could say that.

I get the convenience of it all. They're an easy identifier, yes. My point is that regardless of how easy they make your ever-so-busy life of human interaction, they do not work for everyone, for a large percentage of the population, whether the majority or not. The same people imposing those labels are the ones stereotyping at the mention of them, which makes them moot, unfair. And lest we forget that they are the same labels that have all these teenagers in the news for committing suicide. Perhaps it's not that serious, but when you've never been taunted or abused or put in such a situation, I guess it's all sunshine.

I remember saying something to that effect. I began using it to defend myself and eventually stuck with it for its convenience. Regardless, I've since realized I shouldn't. And I think it's hardly fair.

This is apparently one of those agree-to-disagree things. Left at that.