Redefining Bisexual

[enterends]

So, should we re-label what guys like me ...like? IE: I don't want to date guys - zero interest. I date, hold hands, kiss, fuck and fall in love with females. Period. With guys, I want to get naked, do some oral, massage, body contact, jack and basically just 'get off' to each other's 'maleness' (oh, and no anal). That's it.

now when you say "do some oral" are you giving as well as receiving?

 

[B_Coconutz]

Like what you want. YOU are the only one that can define you.

 

[Smaccoms]

... and yet... everyone on here comes up with a label... and most with some iconic avatar...
I am willing to bet that most of the people on this site label themselves with clothing styles, the cars they drive, grooming choices, and many with tattoos...


Labels are necessary and imagining that you can do without them, or rise above them is just fooling yourself, or a wooly excuse for thinking.

There is a reason men label themselves as straight, despite an interest in sex with other men, a reason biker guy all look like the are punched out by the same factory, a reason all el caminos are driven by assholes.
Brand Identity was not invented and forced upon consumers... it was invented because consumers WANT to be labeled, stereotyped, and identified as having certain traits, or fitting in with certain crowds.

Like it or not, the vast majority of people advertise themselves... Gangsta wearing jerks WANT you to know they are bad asses before you even get close enough to speak.

So lighten up about the fact that you all label others, and, really, want to be labeled, yourself.

You just don't like it when you are MIS-labeled... or when someone doesn't get the message.

( for example... if you are looking for fun, you absolutely would LOVE it if every guy in the room who was willing to have sex with another guy was identifiable by sight... and that they could identify you as similarly interested )

So I applaud the OPs suggestion of new, and more nuanced labeling.

Something more accurate than just "bi"


How about "Roman"? they were a culture whose men preferred relationship with women
but were more than willing to enjoy sexual release with other men...

And "spartan" if your tastes ran more toward relationship and sex with men, but willing to have family with women?


I don't know... but the biggest trouble, it seems to me, with 30% guys, is finding the other guys who feel the same...
who won't get too emotionally attached because they are more gay than straight.

That is NOT because people are labeled... and it won't get easier if NOBODY was labeled.
Its because there isn't a good enough label for other like minded folks to take the risk of approaching.

FACT: Sexual Orientation does not see eye to eye with Sexual Practices.
Thus, the usefulness of labels: the complex combination of the two, and the implications of said combination.

This concept Americans do not understand. We are known for a lack of sexual labels, are we not? That's what I heard anyway...

 

[Smaccoms]

I see your point but I disagree.

Some people do crave to project an identity for themselves - as you point out - and actively choose to embody the dress styles and behavioural codes of a particular scene, but I would suggest the real reason for doing this is actually out of insecurity, out of the fear of not knowing who they are without the falsely constructed projection. The label they adopt is not who they really are at all, merely a symptom of their own conformity.

So at the moment, as it stands with sexuality, people are expected to conform to one of three different labels - gay, straight, or bi - and some simple minded folk believe that these labels define all the posibilities that can exist for a human. Obviously, this is severely limiting, and untrue.

I don't think it would really be much more liberating to have a couple of extra labels - "Roman" or "Spartan as you suggest - to remedy the current status quo. Additionally, having to subscribe to a particular label doesn't allow for the fact that tastes vary and change over time.

I do think you are right to point out that having a fitting label for oneself would assist in finding the right partner(s) for your preferred activities; that's a fair point. But for myself, I'm not sure I could pin it down, and there might be days where I'm not up for a particular activity I might be into on a different occasion. Also, every label comes with a price - because there will be those that approve and disapprove of whatever it is you are saying about yourself. Of course, that might not bother some people so much.

I agree most of all with shard38's point, in quoting Lukas Ridgeston "I'm not heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual. I'm just sexual."

The overall point is that labels are tools meant for a specific purpose, like a hammer and chisel. People simply take it far too seriously, and their quality of life suffers as a result. That is their own personal problem.

Obviously people do not fit into the labels of the world; this is completely besides the point.

 

[Smaccoms]

Actually, I've never driven an El Camino.



Nothing stereotypical about it. Anyone who uses absolutes (i.e. ALL El Caminos are driven by assholes) in that manner is expressing bigotry.



Your loquaciousness is hardly a substitute for logic.

Not very smart are you?

The following is excepted from several PM's I sent to Derbytom in a private discussion of this issue.
i share a portion of my own thoughts as I feel they are pertinent.


...deleted middle part for the sake of space...

Only then will people of mixed sexual repsonse have true community and belonging.

:arms::arms::arms::arms: Not many people understand how psychology and sociology work together so well as you seem to. You are better at thinking than I am though...deduction specifically if I am understanding this concept (and my own damn head!) correctly enough. I like you...a lot

 

[CorsicanU]

I've had to clarify my sexual preferences several times and some people argue with me on what I am or feel. Which is silly, only I know what I like and don't like.

So, should we re-label what guys like me ...like? IE: I don't want to date guys - zero interest. I date, hold hands, kiss, fuck and fall in love with females. Period. With guys, I want to get naked, do some oral, massage, body contact, jack and basically just 'get off' to each other's 'maleness' (oh, and no anal). That's it.

In the past, I've said I'm 'bi', but that doesn't seem to actually fit who I am apparently. Any others out there like me? Or ideas on what the category would be?

Buddy,

Sounds as though you're writing about me, with the exception that my
attachment to other guys might be stronger.
I couldn't identify myself for a long time BECAUSE I WAS TAUGHT TO
IDENTIFY MYSELF in terms (and through concepts) that throughout
history- namely our European History- simply did not exist-
those terms being STRAIGHT, GAY OR BI.

Few (ordinary) people realize the profound extent Victorian England
and second millenium Christianity (though I am practicing) had on
our Western Civilization in terms of sex and masculinity.
Literally, a man's sexuality, which is as varied as their are stars in
the sky, was rewritten and imposed over suceeding generations,
but the evolution of this phenomenon deserves a thread of its own so
I'll defer to just assuring you that YOU FALL INTO THE CATEGORY OF
THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN,

YOU ARE SEXUAL, PERIOD, and excercising normal masculine instinct
through the love and appreciation of women and the occasional
(somewhat tribal) sexual contact with your own gender.
Freud called this behavior among "straight" young males GENDER
CONSOLIDATION and men who, to state it planly, fuck around
with other dudes, masculine as they can be, become better lovers
to women.
Anyone who tells you differently is not only full of crap but stands
in philosophical defiance to everything that has ever been written
about the psychosexual development of males and the sexual
habits of our warrior ancestors of whom the Romans and Greeks are
most notable.
In short,
they were all fucking around with each other and HAD NO LABELS
BESIDES THAT OF... WARRIOR.

Thanks for reading, and thanks for your post.

 

[MelbourneGirl]

I always struggle to find an accurate label for my sexuality, although some others who have posted, I find labels useful.

I don't describe myself as 'bi' very often. I prefer 'omnisexual', or 'pansexual'. At the moment, my orientation is mainly towards men, so perhaps I should call myself 'heteroflexible'? Labels can be fun, as long as you don't take them too seriously!

 

[D_GlennFeckless]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_sexual_behavior - That pretty much sums it up for me, and many others posting to this thread including the OP.

Have fun, stop labeling, be happy with who you are and what you do.

 

[BIGBULL29]

I go to gay clubs but watch a lot of lesbian porn:biggrin1:.

 

[Smaccoms]

Buddy,

Sounds as though you're writing about me, with the exception that my
attachment to other guys might be stronger.
I couldn't identify myself for a long time BECAUSE I WAS TAUGHT TO
IDENTIFY MYSELF in terms (and through concepts) that throughout
history- namely our European History- simply did not exist-
those terms being STRAIGHT, GAY OR BI.

I am slightly confused as to what exactly this sentence is supposed to mean; could you clarify? What were you taught? How much of European History are you aware of to make this assessment? European history is quite vast, with a number of different sexuality philosophies passing through it at different times.

YOU ARE SEXUAL, PERIOD, and exercising normal masculine instinct
through the love and appreciation of women and the occasional
(somewhat tribal) sexual contact with your own gender.
Freud called this behavior among "straight" young males GENDER
CONSOLIDATION and men who, to state it plainly, fuck around
with other dudes, masculine as they can be, become better lovers
to women.

I can definitely see this being relevant throughout a man's life, as one meets different men with different perspectives on masculinity. Sex is a solid method of exploring and expanding on these different and new perspectives.

I have also heard a theory stating family lines with homosexuality coded in them are more fertile than others without. It does not seem entirely testable, especially being this concept depends on homosexuality depends on being genetic (I believe in nature AND nurture in this argument; a combination if you will).

Freud has also stated that human beings tend to constrain their sexuality to fit social norms; straight versus gay are literally philosophical models used to simplify a concept vastly more complicated than people give it credit for.

Are you saying same gender sex improving sexual conduct with the opposite gender is your way of legitimizing homosexuality? Improving what exactly; fertility rates, orgasm rates, "getting laid" rates? How would gay sex improve ones sense of straight sex and how does that relate to the survival of ones species precisely? What is Gender Consolidation exactly? How does any of this relate to the concept of masculinity?

Anyone who tells you differently is not only full of crap but stands
in philosophical defiance to everything that has ever been written
about the psychosexual development of males and the sexual
habits of our warrior ancestors of whom the Romans and Greeks are
most notable.

The Ancient Greeks most definitely explored a number of stereotypes based on homosexuality in their culture. Most of them followed specific rules, but the labels they produced for themselves served very important roles. In other words, same sex relations majorly contributed to their idea of the masculine; it was [in my opinion] much more sophisticated than our modern of view. Modern society is fairly ignorant to the philosophical advancement made in the realm of sexuality.

In short,
they were all fucking around with each other and HAD NO LABELS
BESIDES THAT OF... WARRIOR.

While they did have their stereotypes, they were still just that; stereotypes. Not every makes it their life goal to fulfill these stereotypes. While loving women just as much as men was fairly unacceptable overall, breaking the "gay" stereotypes was not so uncommon. Funny thing about the Ancient Greeks, their warriors were so important in their culture, they had their own set of gay stereotypes (it may only be one stereotype really, but I have no idea; I am not well-read enough to draw this conclusion without actual research).

Thanks for reading, and thanks for your post.

Please understand I am not attempting to tear you down. I simply want to have an intellectual conversation on your choice of topic. In fact, I am considering a Master's program in Sexology if I could find something practical to do with it...

 

[CorsicanU]

I've had to clarify my sexual preferences several times and some people argue with me on what I am or feel. Which is silly, only I know what I like and don't like.

So, should we re-label what guys like me ...like? IE: I don't want to date guys - zero interest. I date, hold hands, kiss, fuck and fall in love with females. Period. With guys, I want to get naked, do some oral, massage, body contact, jack and basically just 'get off' to each other's 'maleness' (oh, and no anal). That's it.

In the past, I've said I'm 'bi', but that doesn't seem to actually fit who I am apparently. Any others out there like me? Or ideas on what the category would be?

Please understand I am not attempting to tear you down. I simply want to have an intellectual conversation on your choice of topic. In fact, I am considering a Master's program in Sexology if I could find something practical to do with it...

I've followed one and one half of your posts on this particular thread
before I abandoned further reading.
No offense intended, but I have no desire to engage you in further discussion on this or any other matter.
My post was, and remains, for DevonTexas who started this thread, in
the hope that he reads it, and for any other who might relate
to both topic and situation.

Good luck on your training for sexology. I'm sure you will succeed
and then go on to do well in whatever it is that sexologists do. If
your prowess as a sexologist will match your philosophical as well
as historical acumen, then I will be all for contributing to to the
meritorious award that should be designed just for you, a trophy in
the shape of BIG DICK.

Have a good one.

 

[Smaccoms]

Situational sexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - That pretty much sums it up for me, and many others posting to this thread including the OP.

Have fun, stop labeling, be happy with who you are and what you do.

I think situational sexual behavior is a unique expression of sexual behavior connected to the social venues of self-identity. Human beings are primarily social, and most concepts need to be put into perspective by taking the social into account. For example, there are three avenues in which one's self-identity can be expressed. The reason one can see three categories is because each one can alter and morph any one thing a human identifies with:

Identity when alone
Identity when in small, tight-knit groups (family, youth group, sport's team)
Identity in large groups (American citizens, a gay pride parade, or racial groups)

Sexuality, which has several categories itself can also be expressed different in each of these venues. This, I think is what "Situational Sexual Behavior" is pin-pointing. This, and the acceptance that most people constrain their sexuality to fit social norms; this includes specifying a specific gender as a main focus.

Personally I haven't completely made up my mind of this concept yet. I am toying with a few others in my head really.

 

[Smaccoms]

I've followed one and one half of your posts on this particular thread and,
no offense intented, have no intention of engaging you in further discussion.
My post was, and remains, for Devon who started this thread.

:bigeyes2: This makes me very sad. I can't help but wonder why. Oh well...

 

[hot97]

wow. i thought i was the only one who was like this.

 

[AlphaMale]

My signature explains it all... :wink:

 

[CobraLover]

When I chat with European guys on here that say they are bisexual, they seem to use the word less as a label than as being attracted to both sexes. I thought I was bisexual throughout my college and early 20's years, until I met my first boyfriend. But I've always said that being gay doesn't define me.

 

[smudgey]

I've had to clarify my sexual preferences several times and some people argue with me on what I am or feel. Which is silly, only I know what I like and don't like.

I know exactly how you feel. People seem to think the very limited descriptions of sexual preference encompass all, but that is the failing of language. We certainly need to develop the language to reflect the changing openness and understanding we have of our sexuality.

Saying you're bi also seems to bring about the old "he's probably just in the closet and ashamed" comments, which truly do not reflect my feelings at all. As you said, I fall in love with women, but want to play around with guys. "bi curious" is a pretty limited term too, as I'm certainly not "curious" in any sense of the word, I know how I feel and that term serves to devalue my sexual self-awareness...

 

[62911]

In my experience a persons choice of gender labels says as about their sex as it does about how you feel about labels.

Saying you're bi can mean that you "buy into" the concept of dualistic sexuality and that you live somewhere between the poles of gay and straight. It can also mean that you don't think the person you're talking to is smart enough to understand a truly nuanced sexual identity, saying bi is easier then "getting into it"

Calling yourself pansexual or open or heteroflexible or homoflexible implies that you don't agree with having sex with one gender or using the word bi.

We're all unique sex snowflakes, dick fractals as it were, don't box me in unless you need the box to get off, in which case box away big daddy.

 

[BIGBULL29]

Let's remember to be respectful, sensitive and loving towards our fellow brothers on here with regard to their sexualities. Let's show the world that although LPSG is a porn site, it is one of the safest places for men to discuss how they truly see themselves sexually without fear of being judged as they would be by the mainstream culture. And finally, let's celebrate being men and having a penis, while always remembering that each has a unique sexuality in this whirlpool of spinning labels.

 

[B_deltaboy767]

I've had to clarify my sexual preferences several times and some people argue with me on what I am or feel. Which is silly, only I know what I like and don't like.

So, should we re-label what guys like me ...like? IE: I don't want to date guys - zero interest. I date, hold hands, kiss, fuck and fall in love with females. Period. With guys, I want to get naked, do some oral, massage, body contact, jack and basically just 'get off' to each other's 'maleness' (oh, and no anal). That's it.

In the past, I've said I'm 'bi', but that doesn't seem to actually fit who I am apparently. Any others out there like me? Or ideas on what the category would be?

Your not BI your just a Whore. Real bisexual men can date and be in a relationship with both guys and girls. Im sick of all these guys claiming to be "BI" and then say, oh i dot mess with dudes, i only JO with them or let them Jack me off. Really Really? That is not Bisexuality, that is just being a whore. Plain and simple. Not trying to be rude, but i believe Bi's are selfish, and conceeded. They want their cank and eat it too, Its repulsive..