Bi-sexuality.

[SirDoom]

-snip- (again)

I just like to be specific really, that's all. I don't want "the grey area in the middle", I want "Ok, on a RGB colour scale, it's 84:83:84". I guess that's why I oppose the term bisexual- Since it's so rare to find someone who likes ONLY masculine or ONLY feminine traits, that would put most people in the grey area somewhere, and a single unified term isn't much use when it includes such a wide range of people (some of which have basically polar opposite views).

I'm the same way with most things, really. If your classification system isn't a 3+ dimensional array of different values, it's not good enough =)

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I just like to be specific really, that's all. I don't want "the grey area in the middle", I want "Ok, on a RGB colour scale, it's 84:83:84". I guess that's why I oppose the term bisexual- Since it's so rare to find someone who likes ONLY masculine or ONLY feminine traits, that would put most people in the grey area somewhere, and a single unified term isn't much use when it includes such a wide range of people (some of which have basically polar opposite views).

I'm the same way with most things, really. If your classification system isn't a 3+ dimensional array of different values, it's not good enough =)

Well, the terms in this case are designed or ball-park generalizations. If you want something that specific, what you really want is a modern, revised, much more precise version of the Kinsey scale. 0-6 really isn't enough, and as pointed out, a vertical axis would be helpful for adding asexuals through nympho maniacs. Also, something for thoughts vs actions might be nice.

Human sexuality is complex. Being able to say "I'm here on the spectrum" is nice. But, when random person X on the street wants to know what your sexual preference is (if you don't just tell them to screw off) it's nice to be able to use a quick, easy to understand generalization.

 

[Pointer]

People that are bisexual are greedy. They want a hot dog and a taco and they want it now.

If you are bi this is not meant as an insult, imma just let you know that the above is true. For example one girl I know dates men for sex and women for cuddling. She gets the best of both worlds without the annoyances of the others. Think about your relationships and you will find the pattern to be true.

Um... no, I won't. Because I'm a bisexual, and I love sex with women. I also love sex with men. I don't get up after getting laid and run off to someone else - not only is that silly, it's impolite.

I also have been with the same partner (not telling you which gender) for the past 8 years. Sometime we arrange for a "guest" in the bedroom (my partner is also bi) to mix things up, but 90% of the time I am with my partner and I get everything I want or need.

See this is where I have to stop you and say that you are in a situation that would not happen for the overwhelming majority of the populace. Even being able to set up a threesome is probably beyond the average man or woman, regardless of their tastes. And the fact that you call that "spice" in your sex life really just undermines the whole "I'm not greedy" thing. I'm not saying you are a bad person or anything, I'm just saying you want and regularly get the best of both worlds. You even visit a third world and get things that few ever do.

First off, read your original post. I was stating that I didn't find sex with men superior or only turn to women for "cuddling" - which your post implied. I also dislike the deeper premis that I can't get everything I want out of a single partner. For the last 8 years, I have. Does that include a fairly interesting sex life? Yes. But I'm still getting that from a single romantic partner who enjoys and participates in the same. Thus, if I look "at my relationship pattern" I do not find your statment true.

Secondly, as mentioned in another post of mine above, being a slut has nothing to do with being bisexual. I was bisexual long before I was sexually active.

In the first kiss thread, I mentioned that I didn't have my first kiss until I was 17. This is because I used to be a shy, nerdy, A grade getting, socially inept wall-flower. I was still bisexual then (although I didn't know the term existed). I just couldn't get a date to save my life.

So how could I have been greedy? I spent years with nothing to "eat" at all. When I finally started "eating" (in college) I tried both "hot dogs" and "tacos" and both were good. I only ever had one at a time, though, often with long gaps between samplings.

After college, I met someone who had similar inclinations. Have I had an awesome sex life since then? Yes. But that is more because my partner and I have amazing sexual chemestry, and like lots of the same stuff.

So stop calling me (or other bisexuals) greedy. Most straight people I know have had MORE sexual partners than I have. Just because I pick from both genders doesn't mean I pick more people.

Its great that you said that. Its wonderful even. I'm glad you have a great relationship. Really I am. It just doesn't change my opinion. And that all that is. I won't make you see my way, though I think it is the correct interpretation of this situation.

Good day mam.

 

[Gunner_Guardian]

Heh, my first girlfriend was Bi-sexual. Very interesting girl, we're on good terms now too.

I like bi-sexuals, they're interesting people to meet. I don't know why people say they're greedy, most I know are monogamous. Maybe they don't like the idea of competing against both teams or perhaps their jealous of a freedom?

I don't know why we use these black and white terms, is not human sexuality not the same as liking any other 2 things like 2 types of ice cream? You can like both, hate both, like one, or perfer one or anything inbetween.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Okay friend of mine who's been following this over my shoulder asks: So where in the scheme of things does cuddling fit?...

Cuddling is, amongst not merely humankind but mammalkind the norm. It's our society that is odd out for wanting to keep each other at arm's reach. In most cultures, world-wide, though, humans are completely okay with direct contact with each other, without the necessity of sexual subtext.

Consider pet owners and the way they (commonly) interact with their critters. The energy that is exchanged between them is the way mammals generally interact for comfort and companionship. Some anthropologists hypothesis if we weren't so stuck up, we could be less hung up regarding sexual relationships and sexual matters.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

You contradict yourself. He said "nothing should stop you"

You said "totally incorrect" and then said that someone will try to stop you, adding "and maybe nothing should stop you"

Aylaine never said that nothing would, or that it would be easy. He said should, which you agreed with. Therefore the original statement (which only ever indicated should) was correct. Nothing should stop you. Many things will try anyway, but they shouldn't.

Don't ever correct me, especially if it's just to correct my grammar.

It appears that you are wrong again.

I didn't correct your grammar. I corrected your logic. You claimed that "A" was both true and untrue, which is an error in logic. You were also rather unkind about it.

Also "don't ever correct me" isn't particularly polite either. If it was an attempt at intimidation, it has failed.