HIV, Bisexuality and the Gender Conundrum

[æonpax]

While I was aware of my orientation in high school, I never came out with it. Being a single mom at the time, I had infinitely more pressing issues to contend with than to deal with the prejudices of the anti-gay contingent at school. However, due to my aunt who introduced me to the internet (1997), I was able to delve more into my own sexuality online, specifically Gay.com, which had a monitored chat room for female teens. It was there I first came face to face with a lesbian prejudice, if not enmity, for being bisexual.

As time went on, I joined an LGBT group and became very active in politically advancing the rights of all Gays (generic). I also confronted the same bias against being a bisexual female but this time, I also discovered the source of that bias; Lesbian Pride or hubris. But it didn’t end there. There was another creeping problem that surfaced and that was the slow spread of HIV into the Lesbian community.

Lesbians have always thought themselves as being immune to HIV as it was thought to be a male to male transmitted disease. When the first facts came out about Lesbians contracting HIV, many of them started targeting bisexual females as being the cause. I have to admit, even without direct proof, that would be a logical assumption as lesbians don’t have sex with men.

If the spread of HIV into the lesbian community did come from bisexual females, where did they pick it up from? Certainly not gay men, at least directly, which means heterosexual or bisexual males. Herein lays the conundrum. Bias and prejudice many times comes from certain beliefs that are apparently true and in this case, it’s the belief that bisexuals are wanton in their pursuit of sexual self gratification. Men who hide their bisexuality behind a heterosexual marriage, women whom are careless in regards to choosing a partner and both not being honest and using common sense precautions.

I have no problem with sex being done for the sake of pure enjoyment as I am a hedonist and far removed from the archaic and puritanical attitudes and while there is no such thing as absolutes in regards to personal protection, I do take extraordinary care in choosing the partner of my choice. Unfortunately, it does nothing to ally the fears of those whom see bisexuals as a high “at risk” group for being carriers, men especially.

While this statement may be controversial, I find myself justifiably shying away from any bisexual male when it comes to sex. The risks of getting STD/HIV is just too great. The key here is promoting “safe sex” and while even that is not fool proof, it is a start.

[Long Duck Dong]

careful, you will be called bi phobic... :tong:


when I was a bartender / doorman in NZ many moons ago, well ok, years ago, there was a issue that did arise concerning a lesbian female that did end up HIV positive, and she was rubbished for * sleeping with the enemy *.... lol well that lady was a friend of no man, and some people swore that there was a picture of her in the dictionary under man hater ( she had very good reason to hate some males in her life so I was not as harsh on her as others were ).....

I knew that she was a drug addict too, and I have very lil doubt in my mind that she contacted HIV from shooting up, as 3 of her drug friends were to later die from Aids..... but I will never forget the way she was rubbished by the lesbian community as a traitor for contracting a * f'in mans disease *

years later, there was a story in the local paper about a guy that had unprotected sex with a number of females, 9 were definately known about, but there were more..... the guy was bisexual.... but when the story broke, the females were quick to say they were the victims in this and the guy was a rotten piece of shit for having unprotected sex with them and indeed a few ladies contracted hiv.........

what amused the fuck outta me, was that it was supposedly all the guys fault that some ladies got into bed with a random total stranger and had unprotected sex with him of their own free will and choice, yet they were the victims and none of it was their fault........ I always thought it took two people to have sex, not one person and a person devoid of any ability to think or use their brain.....

anyways..... having lost my sister to aids cos of a stupid mistake, consensual unprotected sex with a stranger..... I really do not have much sympathy for people that find themselves up shit creek without a paddle and fast drawing near to the waterfall of OMGWTFBBQ....... and a lot of respect for people that make the simple effort to protect themselves and others, at the risk of being labelled as biphobic or something stupid like that.......

I am a jaded old man now,.... tired of all of the accusations, judgements and slander and shit slinging thrown at people cos they make a personal choice regarding their life and health..... and all I can really say, is * you go, gurl *

[darkeyes]

A thoughtful post and one I have much sympathy with.. in my teens and at the beginning of my 20s I waws one took so many risks with my and other's sexual health in pursuit of sexual experience... I could so easily have been one of those bisexual/lesbian women of whom u speak... time and experience changes our perceptions and at the age of 32 while I do not regret the unprotected experiences of those days, every so often I break out into the cold sweat of relief that the worst I ever caught was a dose of Thrush and a pot of live yoghurt cleared that up in no time... the fact that I was tested regularly makes it no better because who knows what we develop in between testing?

I understand your views on bisexual men, but there were bisexual women too, just as you say, who should be treated with caution.. I was one during the 90s. Reading many of the posts in these forums does not change my view on that for while many bisexual men (and women) post thoughtful and considered threads, many do quite the opposite and it is posts by them which stick in the minds of people who are anti bisexual and indeed homosexual, not the properly considered and well reasoned arguments of men and women who are battling to break down prejudice and not simply pursue irresponsible selfish sensual pleasure...

I am not the same girl as when I was in my teens and early 20s.. I see and have seen misery and and experienced loss of people I knew well and cared deeply for.. people who thought as I did and lived much the same life.. people who in some cases, too many cases, are or were not so lucky as me. I was well educated into matters of sexuality and into safer sex and the reasons for it.. my own selfishness in pursuit of my own sexual adventure allied to belief in my own immortality and "it couldn't happen to me" overruled my good sense.. I was lucky... but friends I know and loved are and were not.. and so in raising our children we place much emphasis on them, more in fact, than we ever would on our own personal experience... we tell them that sex is and should be fun and not to be afraid of it.. but we point to those who we know, and who they know and knew, as to the very good reasons why when they begin their own sexual adventure, they approach it responsibly and not as I did... my kismet was kind to my greed and selfishness... but it could so easily have been other...

[æonpax]

careful, you will be called bi phobic... :tong:
when I was a bartender / doorman in NZ many moons ago, well ok, years ago, there was a issue that did arise concerning a lesbian female that did end up HIV positive, and she was rubbished for * sleeping with the enemy *.... lol well that lady was a friend of no man, and some people swore that there was a picture of her in the dictionary under man hater ( she had very good reason to hate some males in her life so I was not as harsh on her as others were )..... I knew that she was a drug addict too, and I have very lil doubt in my mind that she contacted HIV from shooting up, as 3 of her drug friends were to later die from Aids..... but I will never forget the way she was rubbished by the lesbian community as a traitor for contracting a * f'in mans disease *years later, there was a story in the local paper about a guy that had unprotected sex with a number of females, 9 were definately known about, but there were more..... the guy was bisexual.... but when the story broke, the females were quick to say they were the victims in this and the guy was a rotten piece of shit for having unprotected sex with them and indeed a few ladies contracted hiv.........what amused the fuck outta me, was that it was supposedly all the guys fault that some ladies got into bed with a random total stranger and had unprotected sex with him of their own free will and choice, yet they were the victims and none of it was their fault........ I always thought it took two people to have sex, not one person and a person devoid of any ability to think or use their brain..... anyways..... having lost my sister to aids cos of a stupid mistake, consensual unprotected sex with a stranger..... I really do not have much sympathy for people that find themselves up shit creek without a paddle and fast drawing near to the waterfall of OMGWTFBBQ....... and a lot of respect for people that make the simple effort to protect themselves and others, at the risk of being labelled as biphobic or something stupid like that.......I am a jaded old man now,.... tired of all of the accusations, judgements and slander and shit slinging thrown at people cos they make a personal choice regarding their life and health..... and all I can really say, is * you go, gurl *

First off, I should say that the transmission of HIV has taken a sharp decline over the years (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/factsheets/transmission.htm ) due in large part to awareness programs being promoted within the LGBT community. Gay males have also taken the lead on this, from what I have seen and understand. At issue here is more the “perception” as opposed to the actual facts surrounding HIV/AIDS.

Unfortunately the CDC (Center for Disease Control) as well as other organizations do not make the delineation between Gay/Lesbian and Bisexuals. Even groups like AVERT, clump bisexual women with lesbians (http://www.avert.org/lesbians-safe-sex.htm ) So there is really no clear way of knowing or proving any bisexual complicity or lack thereof.

I also do not like mincing words. A lesbian who has sex with a guy is strictly NOT a lesbian anymore than a heterosexual woman having sex with a female, is strictly NOT heterosexual …Yeah, I know, “heteroflexiblity", but whatever, that word is not understood by an already dumbed down American public that still believes one can get HIV/AIDS by merely shaking hands.

Intravenous drug use, while a factor that cuts across all human barriers, is in the US (by the CDC’s own estimates) predominantly (not exclusively) among African Americans and Latinos.

The “phobia” retort has become so cliché as to become almost meaningless. It is far better to confront misunderstanding and fear with knowledge and facts. As we can expect no help from government and private sources, we Bisexuals, as a community, must do it ourselves and work past our own biases.

[tenni]

Aeronpax
You and all men may want to refrain from having sex with Black women from Baltimore as they are five times more likely to have HIV than other Black women in the USA.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-03-08/health/bs-hs-aids-women-20120308_1_black-women-cases-of-hiv-infection-aids-awareness-day

You and non black bisexual men may also want to avoid having sex with young black bisexual and gay men.
http://www.thegrio.com/health/hiv-rates-increase-by-half-among-young-black-gay-and-bisexual-men.php

In another study, it tells us to possibly avoid having sex with gay and bisexual men in major US cities. Interestingly, it lumps both gay and bisexual men together but reports that 19% of gay men were HIV. It makes no reference to bisexual men specifically.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/23/us-aids-usa-idUSTRE68M3H220100923

What evidence do you specifically have that non black bisexual men should be avoided?

All information that I can find does not distinguish bisexual men from gay men just as you point out that biwomen are not distinguished from lesbians. It refers to there being a 44% chance that MSM (men who have sex with men) being HIV. I can not specifically find out what percentage of bisexual men have HIV. This may be bi erasure/bi invisibility on researchers' part. Yes as the fairy drag queen states in her bitter bitchy way that you may be biphobic of bimen on your part as you are not being specific as to what type of bisexual men to be cautious with. You may have reason to be concerned just as all bisexual men may be wiser to be concerned/cautious about having anal sex with other gay and bisexual men than other m2m play.

[DuckiesDarling]

Aeronpax
You and all men should also refrain from having sex with Black women from Baltimore as they are five times more likely to have HIV than other Black women in the USA.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-03-08/health/bs-hs-aids-women-20120308_1_black-women-cases-of-hiv-infection-aids-awareness-day

You and non black bisexual men may also want to avoid having sex with young black bisexual and gay men.
http://www.thegrio.com/health/hiv-rates-increase-by-half-among-young-black-gay-and-bisexual-men.php

In another study, it tells us to possibly avoid having sex with gay and bisexual men in major US cities. Interestingly, it lumps both gay and bisexual men together but reports that 19% of gay men were HIV. It makes no reference to bisexual men specifically.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/23/us-aids-usa-idUSTRE68M3H220100923

What evidence do you specifically have that non black bisexual men should be avoided?

All information that I can find does not distinguish bisexual men from gay men just as you point out that biwomen are not distinguished from lesbians. It refers to there being a 44% chance that MSM (men who have sex with men) being HIV. I can not specifically find out what percentage of bisexual men have HIV. This may be bi erasure/bi invisibility on researchers' part. Yes as the fairy drag queen states in her bitter bitchy way that you may be biphobic of bimen on your part as you are not being specific as to what type of bisexual men to be cautious with. You may have reason to be concerned just as all bisexual men may be wiser to be concerned/cautious about having anal sex with other gay and bisexual men than other m2m play.

fairy drag queen in her bitter bitchy way??? Excuse the hell out of me? You know good and well that LDD is a man and to imply otherwise is just a huge violation of Rule 2 and will be reported as such.

[tenni]

DD
If LDD refers to him/herself as" Your fairy drag queen" in his label under his name, he must be ok with the moniker. If it offends you, maybe you should talk to him.

[DuckiesDarling]

That's right HE, Tenni, a male, not a female as you implied and he was being sarcastic, hence the smiley at the end of his comment to Aeon at the beginning of her post. He agrees with her and so do I, she has the right to protect herself no matter what the sexuality of her partners. You are just being rude with what you said and you know it, but it's quoted and you can't change it so now you backpedal. Too late. You don't like what he says then put him on ignore and do not make references to what he says. Do the same with me.



Gender Male
Location http://www.bisexual.com/forum/images/misc/flags/canada_tiny.gifOntario - South (incl. GTA, Golden Horseshoe, Tricities)
Join Date Feb 2009
Posts 2,238
2 Blog Posts (http://www.bisexual.com/forum/blog.php?95642)

Re: HIV, Bisexuality and the Gender Conundrum
DD
If LDD refers to him/herself as" Your fairy drag queen" in his label under his name, he must be ok with the moniker. If it offends you, maybe you should talk to him.





quoted you here too, you really are batting a 1000 today aren't you, Jim.

[The Bisexual Virgin]

Aeronpax
You and all men may want to refrain from having sex with Black women from Baltimore as they are five times more likely to have HIV than other Black women in the USA.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-03-08/health/bs-hs-aids-women-20120308_1_black-women-cases-of-hiv-infection-aids-awareness-day

You and non black bisexual men may also want to avoid having sex with young black bisexual and gay men.
http://www.thegrio.com/health/hiv-rates-increase-by-half-among-young-black-gay-and-bisexual-men.php

In another study, it tells us to possibly avoid having sex with gay and bisexual men in major US cities. Interestingly, it lumps both gay and bisexual men together but reports that 19% of gay men were HIV. It makes no reference to bisexual men specifically.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/23/us-aids-usa-idUSTRE68M3H220100923

What evidence do you specifically have that non black bisexual men should be avoided?

All information that I can find does not distinguish bisexual men from gay men just as you point out that biwomen are not distinguished from lesbians. It refers to there being a 44% chance that MSM (men who have sex with men) being HIV. I can not specifically find out what percentage of bisexual men have HIV. This may be bi erasure/bi invisibility on researchers' part. Yes as the fairy drag queen states in her bitter bitchy way that you may be biphobic of bimen on your part as you are not being specific as to what type of bisexual men to be cautious with. You may have reason to be concerned just as all bisexual men may be wiser to be concerned/cautious about having anal sex with other gay and bisexual men than other m2m play.

Well tenni, if your research link holds any truth, then I am glad I am black woman living in the south. And I am drug free.

[Gearbox]

If the spread of HIV into the lesbian community did come from bisexual females, where did they pick it up from?
Those bi women could have picked it up from lesbians, passed it on to a bi male, then passed it on to the gay community. So we should ALL just BB straight males&females just to be safe.:tongue:
That's just silly of course! Unprotected sex and infected needles etc and the notion that your 'safe' is to blame for the spread of HIV, not any particular sexuality.

Out of interest, how do you intend to sieve out bisexual men?
You might need (definitely need!lol) one of these gizmo's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVLJcBsD__E

[æonpax]

Tenni,

I was tempted to give you a sarcastically laced reply but that would serve no purpose. However, it does give me an opportunity to explain something.

On my ad/profile I have myself defined as a Mistress (in the old sense of the word) or a handmaiden, which better describes my duties. I’ve been of service to the same man for close to eight years now. He is a married black male…his wife approves and while he is straight, she is bisexual. He is also the owner of a very successful company on which I am an executive officer. I have had two children by him…a daughter, 6, whom I have custody of and a boy, 4, whom he and his wife have. I get compensated very well.

I’ve interacted sexually with a lot of black folk, mainly male but occasionally a female here and there. As Jim (his name, more or less) considers me an expensive investment, he screens all the people I see as part of my duties. I get bi-monthly check-ups for STD/HIV and am clean. While I cannot see another man without his strict approval, I can see other females so long as I use common sense.

Being with blacks all the time and raising a biracial daughter, has given me a unique perspective most are not privy too…like the myriad forms of racism I’ve experienced, even amongst blacks (especially females) who think white women have no business with a black man.

Considering your cavalier mention of black statistics, you are absolutely clueless when it comes to the extent of problems within the black community and equally as ignorant at the attempts that are being made to curb drug abuse and the spread of HIV/STD by blacks, for blacks. I would thank you ahead for not commenting on things you know nothing about.

Sincerely,

Joan

[tenni]

Aeonpax
I do apologize if my post has come across as racist. That is what shows up when you google bisexuals HIV. Again I ask do you have stats to indicate for bisexuals HIV compared to all bisexual men?

There are stats for Whites and Latino (no Asians, sub continent Indian btw) who are gay or bisexual but not for bisexual on their own. Racism in my society is not as overt as your society but it does exist. I would guess that Asians and sub continent Indians are the more visible minorities where I live. I never saw the stats as racist but they are listed in your CDC fact sheet racially broken down but not broken down gay or bisexual male. The CDC does breakdown IDU as well as by sexuality for Blacks but not other races and posted it September, 2011.

The numbers of Black HIV IDU users is a far smaller number than gay and bisexuals(MSM). Ten times more HIV for white gay/bisexual men and also ten times more for Black HIV MSM (gay/bisexual) compared to either Black men or Black women HIV IDU users. So there is concern for having sex with gay/bisexual men. We just don't know if it is bisexual men as the most at risk as there are no stats on bisxual men on their own. As you state gay men are no danger to you. Yet, you don't really know how much of a risk bimen are to you. Stat wise, he is less of a risk than white or black MSM.

Hispanic men (MSM) are also mentioned and the risks are about 40% fewer HIV. You won't know if it is a Hispanic bisexual or a gay Hispanic as the breakdown for gay or bisexual is not mentioned due to Bi Erasure/Bi Invisibility of your government agency. If you were available, you would have to decide whether to gamble with a cute Latino bisexual man or not.

Black HIV heterosexual women outnumber Black HIV heterosexual men. There are about twice as many HIV Black Heterosexual women than Black HIV Hetrosexual men.

Both Black HIV Heterosexual men and women out number HIV IDU Black men and women.

Nearly five times more for Black HIV Heterosexual women compared to Black HIV IDU men. (even a greater difference for Black HIV IDU women)

The other studies stated what I posted.

I'm pleased that although your tone suggests that you find my post racist that you have taken it somewhat seriously. Please do google or research and let us all know what you find.

[slipnslide]

While this statement may be controversial, I find myself justifiably shying away from any bisexual male when it comes to sex. The risks of getting STD/HIV is just too great. The key here is promoting “safe sex” and while even that is not fool proof, it is a start.


As a bisexual male I also shy away from sex with bisexual and gay men for the same reasons.

[pepperjack]

OK, while I differed & conflicted w/you briefly before, I have to admit that I still admire your intelligence & ability to express yourself through the written word. So, why don't you take up Drew's offer & become a writer for the site? You seem like a natural for the position to me.

[drugstore cowboy]

Aeon you're being biphobic and this isn't the mid or late 80s when people actually thought that being bisexual or by having safer sex with a bisexual man that you somehow were more at risk for getting HIV. There's such a thing as safer sex and yes you can have safer sex with someone who is HIV+ and you won't get infected with HIV or if they're having sex with someone who is HIV+ they're not going to get infected with another strain of HIV or infect someone else. You're also ignoring the fact that A LOT of straight men are infected with HIV, and that yes women can infect each other with HIV and that there are HIV+ lesbian women. Try to actually learn about HIV, safer sex, and about HIV transmission before you run your mouth and show how little you know about these things. HIV is NOT in sharp decline, granted it's nowhere near as bad as it was in the 80s which I survived and stayed HIV neg during the original pandemic but the HIV pandemic itself is not over. Your posts reek of bigotry, biphobia, and Poz phobia, and it's not surprising.

[slipnslide]

I believe her core argument is that the MSM in North America has higher infection rates of STIs and HIV than any other group. There may be regional discrepancies, but overall that's a pretty good rule of thumb. So by eliminating sexual activity with these men, it's not biphobic, it's saying she's good at math.

Any other argument is suggesting she should risk her health for the sake of some ideology of equality. Accidents do happen. Accidental unsafe contact with the people she chooses to have sex with entails less risk than accidental unsafe contact with the group she chooses to not have sex with. Seems like a pretty sound argument. How can anyone call her names for that?

[æonpax]

Tenni,

You are absolutely missing the point here. It doesn’t matter what I think, you think or others here think. The problem with Bisexuals is that we are, as many have put it; Invisible. For Christ’s sake, read what I posted without your defensive blinders.

When confronted by people who are ignorant of or otherwise misinformed about bisexuals, they base their arguments about Bi’s based on myths and secondhand information, especially about males. With females, they think it’s hot and sexy based on bullshit they see on TV. My own opinions are based on inadequate facts and a sliver of experience.

As I pointed out, there are very little, if any, statistical facts based purely on bisexual activities as we are grouped with either lesbians or gay males.

I once posted about “down low” males, married and heterosexual by day, but at night, are on the prowl for MSM. This phenomenon has even made it on TV, NBC I think. By definition, they are bisexual but are apart from the bisexual community. Still, those with an already prejudiced notion against bisexuals, use their activities to judge all bisexuals and that just is not right.

If you want to start dick-waving about men, have at it but don’t wave your insecurities at me. I’m looking for a consensus of commonality among us bisexuals that can open mindedly discuss a very complex issue. I’m looking for an edge that can logically explain to those whom are uninitiated, that while sex is a part of bisexuality, it is NOT careless as many perceive, but an inclusive and distinctly different orientation than being gay or lesbian that can stand alone, on it’s own merits.

[Long Duck Dong]

when the stats are complied in studies, its done on the nature of the sexual activities, more than the sexuality of the person, as people interpret their sexuality in various way, but sexual activities do not lie and yes it leads to the issue of gay v's bisexual in studies..... unfortunately, using self defining sexuality is creating the issue, more than helping resolve a issue.......

while I support the bisexual community and their wish to be out and visible, in NZ they need to stop hiding in with the gay and lesbian communities / parades and events, and create their own if they want to be seen better by the public, but no the bi community will not do it, and by god they will bitch about being invisible while arguing that they have every right not to have to be in the public eye as their sexuality is their own business...... and I will be dead honest, I am more focused on helping the LGBT communities that are interested and open to help and support, than the separate groups under the LGBT umbrella that want to bitch and argue and fight about how things are not good enuf, but do not want to do anything about it.....

lol the NZ stats are collected by 3 different agencies, GAYNZ, health.govt and the AIDS foundation and honestly I can not remember a year that they have all presented the same facts and findings... so I generally ignore the NZ stats, as I could present stats that say that there is now a 1 in 15 person infection rate, and how that is a drop in the infection rate from the 1-20 that it used to be and while we have the highest rate of infected people in NZ with more people infected now than there has been over the last 20 years, there is a drop in the number of infected people, and we need to be concerned at the increase in infection rates........
yes I know, that makes no fucking sense at all..... but lol thats why I generally avoid using the official stats

how do we fix the issues with the stats, well, to my way of thinking, it would help if the govt depts and other agencies STOPPED limiting sexuality to gay / lesbian / other... and opened it up to cover gay / lesbian / bi / MSM / WSW / other...and stopped presenting the stats in a way that blurred the bloody truth, and it would help if people stopped lying in surveys and census reports cos they do not want to be known as people that have alternative sexual practices even when the surveys and census are anonymous ..... but I am realistic in that we are more likely to have a openly gay prime minister in NZ than we are to have honesty in stat collecting and reporting...... and my money is on the openly gay prime minister to be honest......

[Hephaestion]

Tenni,

I was tempted to give you a sarcastically laced reply but that would serve no purpose. However, it does give me an opportunity to explain something.

On my ad/profile I have myself defined as a Mistress (in the old sense of the word) or a handmaiden, which better describes my duties. I’ve been of service to the same man for close to eight years now. He is a married black male…his wife approves and while he is straight, she is bisexual. He is also the owner of a very successful company on which I am an executive officer. I have had two children by him…a daughter, 6, whom I have custody of and a boy, 4, whom he and his wife have. I get compensated very well.

I’ve interacted sexually with a lot of black folk, mainly male but occasionally a female here and there. As Jim (his name, more or less) considers me an expensive investment, he screens all the people I see as part of my duties. I get bi-monthly check-ups for STD/HIV and am clean. While I cannot see another man without his strict approval, I can see other females so long as I use common sense.

Being with blacks all the time and raising a biracial daughter, has given me a unique perspective most are not privy too…like the myriad forms of racism I’ve experienced, even amongst blacks (especially females) who think white women have no business with a black man.

Considering your cavalier mention of black statistics, you are absolutely clueless when it comes to the extent of problems within the black community and equally as ignorant at the attempts that are being made to curb drug abuse and the spread of HIV/STD by blacks, for blacks. I would thank you ahead for not commenting on things you know nothing about.

Sincerely,

Joan

Aeon - your description of life and your circumstances does not come across as a comfortable one. I found the words 'compensated'. 'he screens all the people I see as part of my duties', 'expensive investment'. I kept looking for the words 'pimp', 'slave', 'commodity', 'prostitute', 'trapped'.......?


I see LDD's point of view that IV drug usage is a very good method of spreading HIV.


.

[The Bisexual Virgin]

Aeonpax
I do apologize if my post has come across as racist. That is what shows up when you google bisexuals HIV. Again I ask do you have stats to indicate for bisexuals HIV compared to all bisexual men?

There are stats for Whites and Latino (no Asians, sub continent Indian btw) who are gay or bisexual but not for bisexual on their own. Racism in my society is not as overt as your society but it does exist. I would guess that Asians and sub continent Indians are the more visible minorities where I live. I never saw the stats as racist but they are listed in your CDC fact sheet racially broken down but not broken down gay or bisexual male. The CDC does breakdown IDU as well as by sexuality for Blacks but not other races and posted it September, 2011.

The numbers of Black HIV IDU users is a far smaller number than gay and bisexuals(MSM). Ten times more HIV for white gay/bisexual men and also ten times more for Black HIV MSM (gay/bisexual) compared to either Black men or Black women HIV IDU users. So there is concern for having sex with gay/bisexual men. We just don't know if it is bisexual men as the most at risk as there are no stats on bisxual men on their own. As you state gay men are no danger to you. Yet, you don't really know how much of a risk bimen are to you. Stat wise, he is less of a risk than white or black MSM.

Hispanic men (MSM) are also mentioned and the risks are about 40% fewer HIV. You won't know if it is a Hispanic bisexual or a gay Hispanic as the breakdown for gay or bisexual is not mentioned due to Bi Erasure/Bi Invisibility of your government agency. If you were available, you would have to decide whether to gamble with a cute Latino bisexual man or not.

Black HIV heterosexual women outnumber Black HIV heterosexual men. There are about twice as many HIV Black Heterosexual women than Black HIV Hetrosexual men.

Both Black HIV Heterosexual men and women out number HIV IDU Black men and women.

Nearly five times more for Black HIV Heterosexual women compared to Black HIV IDU men. (even a greater difference for Black HIV IDU women)

The other studies stated what I posted.

I'm pleased that although your tone suggests that you find my post racist that you have taken it somewhat seriously. Please do google or research and let us all know what you find.

Where did you get this information, tenni?

[tenni]

Bi Virgin


DF] (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm) CDC Fact Sheet - HIV and AIDS among Gay and Bisexual Men (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=percentage of hiv that are bisexual men&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CC4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fnchhstp%2Fnewsroom% 2Fdocs%2Ffastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf&ei=rsxcT9bAI-He0QG91vmYDw&usg=AFQjCNFQxD7hhcEyBdUXSh5z6l_zY6KNcw)

www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/.../fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf

Ok..the above comes up if you google "percentage of HIV that are bisexual men"
It shows as the second google site when I google this.

You click it and a PDF comes up and downloads. You need an adobe reader which also may be downloaded from the adobe website if you don't have it.

I can not get it to work from this site as it says not listed but it works if you google. Sorry for the complication. I interpreted the charts. I tried to copy them to this page and it was too large a file.

[elian]

So in other words, the bottom line is there is no 100% straight line between a certain demographic group and your ability to contract an STD. Even if someone is not sexually promiscuous they could sleep with another partner that is, or who is monogamous but received the illness through IV use.

I have really been struggling with my sexuality lately, I've watched movies like this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrJ5qvTPwDQ

..and been completely drawn to the romance and the fantasy, but the reality seems so different. I feel that if people knew what I really felt inside I would risk being looked down upon and rejected..for something that I don't think is horrible at all. But then I read the conversation that goes on here, that shows another aspect of risk.. I really would rather not spend three hours in a bar, with smoke so heavy it stings your eyes, that's not me..but it seems to be where most of the boys hang out. Honest to God I wish I could be straight or "normal" or at least "understood" - instead all I am is "hidden" and frustrated.. Thank God that I have enough of a mind to remember that there is more to life than dating.

[slipnslide]

I feel that if people knew what I really felt inside I would risk being looked down upon and rejected..for something that I don't think is horrible at all.

I understand that. I just had a conversation at work about the rampant anti-gay remarks I hear all the time. It lets you know what the average person out there is really thinking when they don't have to censor themselves. One report filed by me and people would be fired. But who wants that on their conscience?

[æonpax]

The Bisexual Virgin,

1 - Here is the link Tenni was referring to. (I shortened it but it's still .pdf)) - http://alturl.com/a2ion

2 - Here is the chart on that page;



http://i.imgur.com/eMmrW.jpg



You might want to compare what the CDC says on that site with Tenni's interpretation and draw your own conclusions.

[slipnslide]

One of the biggest problems that the gay and bi community faces about MSM health issues is admitting that there is a problem.

[The Bisexual Virgin]

The Bisexual Virgin,

1 - Here is the link Tenni was referring to. (I shortened it but it's still .pdf)) - http://alturl.com/a2ion

2 - Here is the chart on that page;



http://i.imgur.com/eMmrW.jpg



You might want to compare what the CDC says on that site with Tenni's interpretation and draw your own conclusions.

Maybe I am reading the chart wrong, isn't the bar with the dark blue suppose to be the one with higher risk of HIV. But in the title, and what said that black heterosexual account for the most infections, and I am seeing something else. I might need to look this through again.

But thanks, Aeon.

[elian]

Regarding this graph, if you tell me that they equally surveyed 500 people of each race, gender and sexual preference then the graph tells me something, if they surveyed a different number of people in each demographic category then I have to question the validity. Guess I need to click the link and find out.

I don't deny that there are certain high risk populations but the fact of the matter is that NOBODY is immune and when people make assumptions they are taking a risk. If I know my partner IS monogamous then I know my risk factor is lower..better still to get people tested - regardless of sexual preference. We need to fight against the stereotype that testing is not necessary.

I acknowledge the risk but I still wonder about how some of these studies are conducted, like they pay someone to stand out on the street corner of a dance club at 2AM and interview gay men? "How many partners do YOU sleep with?"

[slipnslide]

Regarding this graph, if you tell me that they equally surveyed 500 people of each race, gender and sexual preference then the graph tells me something, if they surveyed a different number of people in each demographic category then I have to question the validity. Guess I need to click the link and find out.

That's not how statistics work. You don't need equal numbers to draw conclusions. You need a sample that is sufficiently large to be statistically significant. You would be surprised how small that number can actually be.



I don't deny that there are certain high risk populations but the fact of the matter is that NOBODY is immune and when people make assumptions they are taking a risk. If I know my partner IS monogamous then I know my risk factor is lower..better still to get people tested - regardless of sexual preference. We need to fight against the stereotype that testing is not necessary.

That's not the problematic assertion. The problematic assertion, and you see it all over threads here, is something like "there is such thing as safe sex you know. . duh". No one is questioning that so I don't know why it gets repeated over and over. The OP clearly acknowledges that safe sex is a start, but if it was as simple as that, there would be far less HIV right? Condoms break, so a good question would be, why are all these guys having sex with guys of questionable health status? Your insistence on testing is about after the fact when it might be too late. No one ever avoided HIV by getting themselves tested.



I acknowledge the risk but I still wonder about how some of these studies are conducted, like they pay someone to stand out on the street corner of a dance club at 2AM and interview gay men? "How many partners do YOU sleep with?"

I believe a lot of it is aggregated data from public health offices.

[Long Duck Dong]

lol its actually the estimated cases based on medical stats and info provided, not a survey on a street corner lol......

trouble there is its based on the reported cases, NOT the unreported cases and I dread to think how many people are there are infected and have no idea, or no interest in knowing if they are infected or not.....

its a bit like the testing done at a LGBT event in NZ, and they found 20 new cases of infection.... yet apparently ( according to media reports ) most of the people infected, would have not gone to a doc or a med lab to be tested as it would be a form of outing themselves, as you have to provide identifying details, the testing at the LGBT event was anonymous testing with no revealing identity details given.... or in simple terms, you are assigned a ID number and that number is used for the test samples and the results and you can collect the results over the phone anonymously when you give them your ID number......

do I think thats a good idea.... yes and no... people get tested which is good, but they can also hide themselves and their HIV status and that can become a risk to themselves and others.... and some people just do not care who they place at risk

it still comes down to one thing, safe sex equals minimal risk... but some people just do not want to do that cos as far as they are concerned, its their right to have unprotected sex and not be at risk, plus any and all responsibility lays with the other person if it goes wrong,... they bear none of the responsibility themselves for not keeping themselves safe as its their right not to have to be safe......

yes I do believe that people have a responsibility to reveal their hiv status to partners, so a choice can be made, but I do not believe that all responsibility with any issues, lay solely with one person when it takes 2 ( or more ) people to have sex.....

[tenni]

Maybe I am reading the chart wrong, isn't the bar with the dark blue suppose to be the one with higher risk of HIV. But in the title, and what said that black heterosexual account for the most infections, and I am seeing something else. I might need to look this through again.

But thanks, Aeon.

I may be wrong Bi Virgin but I think that you are correct to some extent. The highest numbers (not risk but fairly accurate to assume so) of new cases in 2009 (last figures available) show the most new cases were in the MSM for White, Black and lower are Hispanic MSM and they are around ten times higher that Black Male Intravenous Drug Users. I thought that Aeonpax was bringing in a point about drug use earlier on and that is why I compared them.

There is no separation for bisexuals separate from gay men and that is my point. It is all unknown speculation about the numbers of bisexuals but they are lumped in with gay men. Are bisexual the largest part of this stat(MSM) or a smaller number compared to gay men? We just don't know about bisexual men. It may be true that you are high risk with bisexual men (regardless of race) or it may be a falacy and an assumption that bisexual men do not practice safe sex.

Bisexual single and married men that I have had sex with have been cautious and practiced safe(r) sex as I do and most bimen that I've met. Bimen can screen their partners just as Aeonpax is stating for herself. You don't have to have anal sex as a bisexual man to have a sexual activity with another man. It may be a falacy to believe that all bisexual men participate in high risk MSM sexual acts. It may be true. We don't know and no one has presented any evidence to prove that bisexual men are as high(er) risk than gay men. All we know is that bimen as a group have been placed in the high risk category. There might have been 500 bisexual men(of all races) new cases or 26 000 bisexual men with new cases of HIV and only a few gay men or vice versa.

[Long Duck Dong]

ok lets try this, we eliminate bi invisibility, we have stats based around gay males and bi males ( including MSM ) and if the bi males have the largest majority of infections, then we prove people right that target bi males as the high risk group, and give them more fuel to target ( and rubbish ) bisexual males......

if the stats show that the majority is gay males, then we create more of a target in the gay community for *gay bashing *......

currently we have a situation where we know the higher risk groups, MSM ( regardless of sexuality ) and people that most likely are having unsafe sex.... so for all intents and purposes, it would make more sense to push a safer sex message at MSM ( regardless of sexuality ) rather than try to get * clearer * facts about who is doing what wrong and give our detractors more fuel for opposing the LGBT, by targeting aspects of the LGBT such as gay / bi males.....

bi invisibility is not really a issue here, unless the intention is to draw more attention to the fact that we exist, in a way that could present us in a very bad light.... IE the highest risk group for hiv / aids transmission.... and that would mean that being out and visible as bisexuals, could become just that bit more difficult......

there is a time and place for bi visibility but not at the expense of the bi community.....

[æonpax]

Maybe I am reading the chart wrong, isn't the bar with the dark blue suppose to be the one with higher risk of HIV. But in the title, and what said that black heterosexual account for the most infections, and I am seeing something else. I might need to look this through again.
But thanks, Aeon.

My post concerns ALL bisexuals highlighting discriminatory practices involving HIV and gender. Post #5 started parsing information out by race, which is not only in keeping with the spirit of this thread but in itself, smacks of discrimination. I used gender as a means to highlight bias even within the LGBT community.

However, let's talk about the graph. It mentions only two groups of people; Gays and Heterosexuals. Absent from it is any mention of Bisexuals. This is part of the problem I'm talking about. The CDC throws bisexuals in with either gays, heterosexuals or both. If I want to make a logical case about bisexual behavior, this data is useless.

Much bisexual misinformation, in-fighting and bias is caused by the lack of overall facts.

[æonpax]

I may be wrong Bi Virgin but I think that you are correct to some extent. The highest numbers (not risk but fairly accurate to assume so) of new cases in 2009 (last figures available) show the most new cases were in the MSM for White, Black and lower are Hispanic MSM and they are around ten times higher that Black Male Intravenous Drug Users. I thought that Aeonpax was bringing in a point about drug use earlier on and that is why I compared them.

There is no separation for bisexuals separate from gay men and that is my point. It is all unknown speculation about the numbers of bisexuals but they are lumped in with gay men. Are bisexual the largest part of this stat(MSM) or a smaller number compared to gay men? We just don't know about bisexual men. It may be true that you are high risk with bisexual men (regardless of race) or it may be a falacy and an assumption that bisexual men do not practice safe sex.

Bisexual single and married men that I have had sex with have been cautious and practiced safe(r) sex as I do and most bimen that I've met. Bimen can screen their partners just as Aeonpax is stating for herself. You don't have to have anal sex as a bisexual man to have a sexual activity with another man. It may be a falacy to believe that all bisexual men participate in high risk MSM sexual acts. It may be true. We don't know and no one has presented any evidence to prove that bisexual men are as high(er) risk than gay men. All we know is that bimen as a group have been placed in the high risk category. There might have been 500 bisexual men(of all races) new cases or 26 000 bisexual men with new cases of HIV and only a few gay men or vice versa.
`

I do believe you have it...Lack Of Facts. You, me and everyone else here can can speak from experience. However, individually, we cannot logically apply our experiences to all Bisexuals. But as an organized group, we can at least start the ball rolling by demanding groups like the CDC, et al, treat bisexuality as it's own entity. This I believe gets to the core problem...Self Identity.

[elian]

a good question would be, why are all these guys having sex with guys of questionable health status? Your insistence on testing is about after the fact when it might be too late. No one ever avoided HIV by getting themselves tested.


Gee, maybe if men who liked men were allowed to openly show their affection they wouldn't HAVE to settle for sex out of public bathrooms, adult bookstores and where ever they happened to find a guy horny enough to take the risk of a chance encounter?

Quite right, testing AFTER the fact is too late, but routine testing across the entire population should still be pursued as public health policy. If the entire population is tested there is less stigma associated with the test. "I don't do THAT so I don't need tested" apparently isn't working well for us because there are straight people contracting HIV as well. You may not be able to prevent one individual from getting infected, but you may be able to help prevent the spread of the the disease - assuming that the infected person, once they know, does not want to pass it on to others.

[Long Duck Dong]

lol elian, while I agree with what you are saying, there will still be people that will do the discreet * grope and run * thing cos its what they perfer, as opposed to a hook up or friends with benefits / perm partner option....... its a aspect of human nature a bit like some people will perfer the missionary position only, while others are hard core BDSM and vanillia sex does nothing for them at all...lol

aeon has a point with the gay / lesbian / bi / hetero labels and how bisexual is missing.... so I rang a friend that works with the Aids Foundation of NZ, and talked to them about it..... apparently the issue they are having in NZ, is that on the surface, gays / les and heteros appear to be telling the truth about their sexuality...and bi's are more inclined to use terms like gay / MSM / heteroflexible... but its appearing more and more that hetero and gay people are also lying about their sexuality when it comes to defining their sexuality... and that there is a increase in the number of * gay * males that are having sex with females and males but calling themselves gay......

that led me to ring a friend that is a sex and sexuality counsellor within the LGBT ranks..... and he told me, that the issue is not within the LGBT community turning on each other, but a growing trend within society, a type of * sleep with who ever you want but lie about your sexuality and deny what you do so you avoid issues, like coming out * .... and its not so much to do with acceptance within the community, but why bother with the hassle and problems of coming out, when its just easy to have casual sex on the quiet......and there is more and more of a growing trend amongst people, NOT to take any sides or labels, just enjoy sex with others without having any sexuality ID / label

the issue there is that its something that the LGBT pushed for..... to be equal with everybody and a society where labels do not matter anymore.... and now its happening in NZ..... and its creating the issue of * bi invisibility * but the bi invisibility is the result of not wanting labels any more, just wanting to be one of the crowd and its causing issues with the stats......

we created it, we need to take responsibility for it

[slipnslide]

Gee, maybe if men who liked men were allowed to openly show their affection they wouldn't HAVE to settle for sex out of public bathrooms, adult bookstores and where ever they happened to find a guy horny enough to take the risk of a chance encounter?


I don't understand this idea. They don't need to have sex at all. You speak of sex as though it's like food or water.

[slipnslide]

Gee, maybe if men who liked men were allowed to openly show their affection they wouldn't HAVE to settle for sex out of public bathrooms, adult bookstores and where ever they happened to find a guy horny enough to take the risk of a chance encounter?


I guess I don't understand the connection between showing affection and blowing a guy in a bookstore. In PA you can't cuddle with someone at home?

About a year ago I made a decision similar to æonpax. I decided that sex with guys isn't worth the risk, and being bisexual, I have other options. Since then two gay friends have told me they stopped having sex for health risk mitigation reasons also. They don't have the option to have sex with women since that doesn't work for them at all.

Now, we leave in an area where being bi or gay isn't a big deal, so having public health campaigns to disseminate the current risks is acceptable. And apparently, given that this bi guy and two gay friends who don't know each other have stopped having sex, it clearly is possible to tackle this problem. Really, is giving up sex until infection rates of STIs settle down to the same rates as heterosexuals such a huge sacrifice?

[darkeyes]

Really, is giving up sex until infection rates of STIs settle down to the same rates as heterosexuals such a huge sacrifice?
I suspect u would never have sex ever again if u decide to do that...different sexualities have different practices with or without adopting safer sex techniques.. what we never seem to discuss is the extent that these practices will create higher rates of infection.. we know for instance that vaginal sex is less likely to than anal sex to spread HIV, and that oral is even less likely to.. do we give up unprotected sex altogether until we cure and/or eliminate all std's? I think that millions will baulk at that idea for very good reasons.. unless of course we decide that propogation of the species will be by other than the method nature intended..

We are told that gay and bisexual men in particular are principal carriers and spreaders of HIV, but other groups have equally high and even higher infections of some infections... even absolute fidelity does not entirely eliminate the spread of some std's, not even HIV. In any case, no matter how much trust and belief we have in our partner, we can never be quite sure with absolute conviction that they have been faithful.. and many indeed will not have been.. invisibility, not just of bisexual men, gay men or any other group and the need many feel to be closeted, as even many heterosexual people are who sleep around whether or not they have a partner to whom they have in theory at least committed themselves is no help to the prevention of std's.. it is not that disease is spread around any one community but it is hardly unknown for a std to be infect a perfectly monogamous person because of his or her partner's closeted and secret sex life. For that I do not hold any sexuality or gender grouping primarily responsible, but individuals within each sexuality and of each gender.

What we do about that is open to debate, but returning our societies to the ways of the past is not an option in a free and liberal society.. infection rates in days gone by were far higher of most std's when Victorian morality was at its zenith. As best I can see in any free(ish) society the best we can do is strive for the development and treatment of cures and vaccines for those diseases we know of and any that may occur in future, educate people about sex and sexuality properly from a young age and throughout their lives without throwing blame upon any group as being more or less irresponsibly promiscuous than the other and dealing with the problem properly..

Sex, like any other human activity can be amazing and wonderful but we also know it has risk.. but so does being at work, driving a car, flying to faraway destinations on holiday, actually being on holiday, hillwalking, climbing, cycling, giving birth, cooking, eating, gardening, and a million and one other things.. whatever we do we try to eliminate risk and we take precautions to make sure we are as safe as healthy as we can be. To do other is irresponsible and stupid, often selfish and creates harm for other than ourselves.. but we do not stop those other activities because they have risk and neither should we.. life without enjoyment would be a very miserable thing, and life without sex would be yet another nail in the coffin of human pleasure and love of life...

.. in the end we do what we feel we must and that is as it should be.. but it must be for each of us to decide what that will be, not for any other to take that decision for us or for us to make that decision for anyone else...

[Gearbox]

It doesn't matter one iota what ANY chart says! No chart will give you an 'educated guess' at how cautious you should be while screwing Jane or John. The same level of caution should be for ALL, or take responsibility for the risks YOU take.
We could discriminate by sexuality or race (same thing!), but it wouldn't make one jot of difference to whomever we take those risks with. They either have HIV or they don't. IMO it's wiser to assume that they do, no matter what group they may belong to.

Yesterday I was SHOCKED to find a m-m site solely for BB'ing. No I wasn't looking for it so I could BB. BUT I would love to BB and so would everybody else. All we need to go ahead with it is the false sense of security that the risks are low. Or that we can lower that risk by discriminating.
According to that chart, I'd be pretty safe to BB a white hetero male, if I could convince him to join me up an alley. Of course he wouldn't lie to me! It would be his FIRST time!:rolleyes:

[elian]

I guess I don't understand the connection between showing affection and blowing a guy in a bookstore. In PA you can't cuddle with someone at home?

Have to meet them first, and no - I guess I don't need sex, I can CHOOSE not to act on those naughty same sex urges that I have..for the most part this is exactly how I've lived my life to date. I can't help but think that I'm missing out on a meaningful part of life. "Love the sinner, hate the sin", as the catholics say? I'd just love to be able to do what straight couples do in public, except with another male, that's all.. I guess I shouldn't subject society to my public displays of affection..

..and LDD, if you really are working toward making sexual attraction a "non-issue" in NZ that is great..that is what I would HOPE to see one day.

[slipnslide]

I'd just love to be able to do what straight couples do in public, except with another male, that's all.. I guess I shouldn't subject society to my public displays of affection..


If this is such a serious concern and desire for your life, maybe you need to move somewhere that you can live like that. The Canadians can tell you that for the most part, it's no big deal to see two guys walking down the street holding hands. So it's a reality for many same sex couples in the world. Perhaps you've outgrown home.

[elian]

Good point :)

[Long Duck Dong]

Have to meet them first, and no - I guess I don't need sex, I can CHOOSE not to act on those naughty same sex urges that I have..for the most part this is exactly how I've lived my life to date. I can't help but think that I'm missing out on a meaningful part of life. "Love the sinner, hate the sin", as the catholics say? I'd just love to be able to do what straight couples do in public, except with another male, that's all.. I guess I shouldn't subject society to my public displays of affection..

..and LDD, if you really are working toward making sexual attraction a "non-issue" in NZ that is great..that is what I would HOPE to see one day.

I am letting people work on it, I am staying neutral on the issue.........

the anti discrimination laws and civil union laws, went a long way towards making sexuality a non issue in NZ, and things like the gay pride parades are generally accepted as a normal aspect of life rather than a focal point for people to protest.....so yeah sexuality is generally a non issue for the most part already..... tho you will still not see a lot of male / male PDA, in the same way there is not a lot of female / female PDA and some female / male public displays of affection happens but for the most part, there is not a lot of affection showing going on.......

there is a trend emerging in NZ that has been noticed by the counselors / therapists collective....and it goes hand in hand with the sharp decline in marriages / civil unions and long term relationships in NZ.....and its being referred to behind the scenes as the Friends With Benefits generation..... you no longer have a partner, you have a friend that you fuck, share a house with and share the bills with but you both have separate lives.... you have all the good stuff without the hassles and issues of a relationship....

on a lot of official forms now, instead of single, married / civil union, widowed, divorced/separated, you see single, living with a partner / not living with a partner, married, civil union, widowed, divorced / separated, other...... the living with a partner / not living with a partner is a reflection of the change from living at home until you married and left home of yesturyear, to the living with a partner that can be a short term / long term thing but you are not engaged / married..... but the other is there to cover people that are in mutually agreed situations that are not partnerships but situations that are between single and partnerships........

part of the reason for it, was the law change with the civil union law, and that was the properties act, which states that if you are living together in the nature of a relationship, then after 3 years, the property is regarded as a shared asset just like marital property......so its kinda created the FWB generation which is a way of side stepping the issue......

how that works in with PDA, is simple,..... most people are not affectionate with their FWB in public....... and PDA can make it harder for people to hide their relationship status if they are the type of person that likes to enjoy casual sex and not have to deal with people that will not get involved with people in relationships / marriages

[drugstore cowboy]

Gee, maybe if men who liked men were allowed to openly show their affection they wouldn't HAVE to settle for sex out of public bathrooms, adult bookstores and where ever they happened to find a guy horny enough to take the risk of a chance encounter? Have to meet them first, and no - I guess I don't need sex, I can CHOOSE not to act on those naughty same sex urges that I have..for the most part this is exactly how I've lived my life to date. I can't help but think that I'm missing out on a meaningful part of life. "Love the sinner, hate the sin", as the catholics say? I'd just love to be able to do what straight couples do in public, except with another male, that's all.. I guess I shouldn't subject society to my public displays of affection.. My husband and I have visited Pennsylvania and went to various places from large cities to small towns and we've shown affection in public and nobody cares. I have bisexual and gay male friends who live in Pennsylvania and who live in rural areas as well as large cities and they've never been ashamed, afraid, or embarrassed to show affection to their male partners in public and they did this all through the 70s and 80s. The problem isn't society or where you live it's the fact that you yourself Elian are refusing not to show affection to men in public and it's your choice to do this. People who are into having sex in adult bookstores or other public places like sex clubs, or who hook up with strangers do so because they want to, it can be fun, and it's their personal choice to do this. It's not because they somehow have no other way to meet bisexual or gay men or because they can't go into a GLBT bar or go on any number of sites where bisexaul and gay men meet. It is entirely possible to have safe, fun, and satisfying sex even with someone who is HIV+ and you're not going to get infected. This isn't the 1980s and there's such a thing as having safer sex and it does work. By the way Aeon and slipnslide, the 80’s called; they want their AIDS panic and paranoia back!

[slipnslide]

By the way Aeon and slipnslide, the 80’s called; they want their AIDS panic and paranoia back!

Oh, I forgot, Science called but it didn't leave a message because it said you wouldn't understand anyhow.

[drugstore cowboy]

Oh, I forgot, Science called but it didn't leave a message because it said you wouldn't understand anyhow. I know all about science, HIV/STDs, how to have safer sex, and about the human body. You and Aeon however seem to foolishly think that heterosexuals in North America who are not having safer sex or heteros who are not with gay or bisexual male partners aren't at risk for HIV and that it's only bisexual and gay men who are getting infected with HIV. Not only is this completely wrong as Tenni and others who have posted have shown but it's just wishful thinking and you've got your head in the sand about HIV. Yes heterosexuals can and do infect each other. Do either of you actually know anyone that's died from AIDS or who is living with HIV?

[tenni]

If this is such a serious concern and desire for your life, maybe you need to move somewhere that you can live like that. The Canadians can tell you that for the most part, it's no big deal to see two guys walking down the street holding hands. So it's a reality for many same sex couples in the world. Perhaps you've outgrown home.

Slippy
I don't see that where I live. I don't even see that outside of the Gay Village in Toronto. Women same sex a bit ..guys not much at all.

[slipnslide]

Slippy
I don't see that where I live. I don't even see that outside of the Gay Village in Toronto. Women same sex a bit ..guys not much at all.

Really? I see it quite often in Ottawa. I would have thought it would be more commonplace in TO.

Often it appears to be tourists, but as I say, we don't really give it a second thought.

[slipnslide]

You and Aeon however seem to foolishly think that heterosexuals in North America who are not having safer sex or heteros who are not with gay or bisexual male partners aren't at risk for HIV and that it's only bisexual and gay men who are getting infected with HIV.


No one even came close to implying that idea. I don't know how you're missing the point. We're saying from a risk mitigation perspective that sex with heterosexual partners has less risk than with gay/bi men.

(1) If you look at the chart that was posted, and let's assume I'm only have sex with white people. For every one white heterosexual woman who gets HIV, 6.7 white MSM will get HIV.
(2) There are many more heterosexual white women than there are MSM white men.
(3) The chance of a randomly selected white MSM having HIV is significantly higher than a heterosexual woman.
(4) If there is intercourse involved, anal intercourse is a much more efficient means of transmission than vaginal intercourse.

Therefore, (the chance of a random MSM having HIV) x (the chance of accidental HIV infection) > (the chance of a heterosexual woman having HIV) x (the chance of accidental transmission)

If I had time, I could put actual values in the parentheses and we could get a rough estimate of the increased risk for MSM sex over heterosexual sex.

That's why I choose to not have sex with guys.

Risk mitigation.

[pepperjack]

I guess I don't understand the connection between showing affection and blowing a guy in a bookstore. In PA you can't cuddle with someone at home?

About a year ago I made a decision similar to æonpax. I decided that sex with guys isn't worth the risk, and being bisexual, I have other options. Since then two gay friends have told me they stopped having sex for health risk mitigation reasons also. They don't have the option to have sex with women since that doesn't work for them at all.

Now, we leave in an area where being bi or gay isn't a big deal, so having public health campaigns to disseminate the current risks is acceptable. And apparently, given that this bi guy and two gay friends who don't know each other have stopped having sex, it clearly is possible to tackle this problem. Really, is giving up sex until infection rates of STIs settle down to the same rates as heterosexuals such a huge sacrifice?


I agree with you completely when you say it " isn't worth the risk." I've also turned my back on it. My last bi encounter is still scaring me; I hope I survived it.

[elian]

I am glad that your experience was so positive, I could totally believe that if you visited the Pittsburgh or Philly area, the middle majority of the state has a large number of fundamentalist Christians who would not condone such behavior in public, but then again I'm sure you didn't ask for their permission. It really pisses them off on election night when everyone in the middle of the state votes and it's red on the map when they go to bed, then Pittsburgh and Philly vote overnight and it turns blue..as a matter of fact conservatives are trying very hard to "redistrict" the state election map so that won't happen anymore.

In the rural county where *I* grew up people often spoke in a derogatory tone about, well - I'll just be polite and say "minority groups" .. it was easy to overhear people talking in restaurants, etc about it. They may not say it to your face in public, but they sure talk about it at home. I would love to think that in 20 years maybe something HAS changed and that the last hurdle I face is really an internal, emotional one..then again I like my job in a conservative agency, and jobs are very hard to come by these days.

..and we have this to be proud of too.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Still, thanks for sharing your experience, I'll keep thinking about it and maybe someday have the courage to act.


My husband and I have visited Pennsylvania and went to various places from large cities to small towns and we've shown affection in public and nobody cares. I have bisexual and gay male friends who live in Pennsylvania and who live in rural areas as well as large cities and they've never been ashamed, afraid, or embarrassed to show affection to their male partners in public and they did this all through the 70s and 80s. The problem isn't society or where you live it's the fact that you yourself Elian are refusing not to show affection to men in public and it's your choice to do this. People who are into having sex in adult bookstores or other public places like sex clubs, or who hook up with strangers do so because they want to, it can be fun, and it's their personal choice to do this. It's not because they somehow have no other way to meet bisexual or gay men or because they can't go into a GLBT bar or go on any number of sites where bisexaul and gay men meet. It is entirely possible to have safe, fun, and satisfying sex even with someone who is HIV+ and you're not going to get infected. This isn't the 1980s and there's such a thing as having safer sex and it does work. By the way Aeon and slipnslide, the 80’s called; they want their AIDS panic and paranoia back!

[Gearbox]

No one even came close to implying that idea. I don't know how you're missing the point. We're saying from a risk mitigation perspective that sex with heterosexual partners has less risk than with gay/bi men.

(1) If you look at the chart that was posted, and let's assume I'm only have sex with white people. For every one white heterosexual woman who gets HIV, 6.7 white MSM will get HIV.
(2) There are many more heterosexual white women than there are MSM white men.
(3) The chance of a randomly selected white MSM having HIV is significantly higher than a heterosexual woman.
(4) If there is intercourse involved, anal intercourse is a much more efficient means of transmission than vaginal intercourse.

Therefore, (the chance of a random MSM having HIV) x (the chance of accidental HIV infection) > (the chance of a heterosexual woman having HIV) x (the chance of accidental transmission)

If I had time, I could put actual values in the parentheses and we could get a rough estimate of the increased risk for MSM sex over heterosexual sex.

That's why I choose to not have sex with guys.

Risk mitigation.
You haven't accounted for white heterosexual women who have sex with bi men, such as yourself. Obviously THEY have sex with men and possibly 'high risk groups' even if YOU don't.
Your risk mitigation is dependant on your sex partners risk mitigation, and every sex partners they've had etc etc.
Cutting bisexual men out, and even ALL men from your bed, doesn't mean you have lessened any risk to yourself, nor that you've excluded men from a STD point of view. It just might make you FEEL a little 'safer'.
Ironically, if this scaremongering towards bi men catches on, we'll all be screwing a lot more hetero women and possibly bump them up the chart.:bigrin:

The only risk mitigation worth a jot is the the one where you consider having sex or not, or what you do when you do have sex.

[slipnslide]

Cutting bisexual men out, and even ALL men from your bed, doesn't mean you have lessened any risk to yourself, nor that you've excluded men from a STD point of view.

Sigh. Yes it does.

I shouldn't be surprised. It's this inability to understand that finds us in this situation.

[Gearbox]

Sigh. Yes it does.

I shouldn't be surprised. It's this inability to understand that finds us in this situation.
Lovely man, those white heterosexual women who have no sexual contact with men are called 'Virgins'. Good luck with that.:)

[tenni]

Lovely man, those white heterosexual women who have no sexual contact with men are called 'Virgins'. Good luck with that.:)

LOL Very good points Gear.

All things are possible in life. Getting out of bed is a risk. Staying in bed may be a risk(bed sores..;) )


All that we may do is weigh our risks and make decisions. If a person decides to refrain from sex with a certain person, that is their business. To exclude an entire group for whatever reason is a position of bigotry. To make a decision about individuals is much wiser. Ask questions. Get to know the person etc.

[slipnslide]

Looks like Æon's point is well reinforced through the responses.

[slipnslide]

Slippy
I don't see that where I live. I don't even see that outside of the Gay Village in Toronto. Women same sex a bit ..guys not much at all.

I'm happy to report that I've noticed two couples in the last week, both men, holding hands while walking down the street in Ottawa.

[Jason0012]

Two years ago my wife took a few LGBT history classes as humanity electives at our local university. We were both shocked at the veiws that the 19-20something gay students had twords HIV/AIDS. Most viewed contracting the virus as inevitable, like chicken pox, and had about as much concern about it. We grew up in the shadow of the AIDS epidemic. I remember when it was called GRIDS! It was a scarry time, the disease is still scarry but there are a lot of people now who don't care. I gave up on men for many years after learning about gay culture. Reading the posts on sites such as this supports the veiw that bi men are irresponsible , and indescrimanent in their sexual encounters. Now I hate to be judgemental but all the married closeted men who seek anonymous encounters are really putting themselves and thier spouse in great danger. It has always irked me terribly to see as much of that as there is. As much as I hate to see someone write off bi men as a group, I can not, as a bi man myself, really blame them! I wrote off gay men more than 20 yrs ago myself ! The falacy in this thinking of course is that heterosexuals still spread the disaease so safe sex should be the rule for everybody.

[Jason0012]

Reading over that I feel it sounds preechy. I know full well that the posts I speak of are only a small part of what goes on here. There are of course many of us bisexuals who are responsible. Some are even monogmous! The issue I have is that all those irresponsible folks become really visible when they come cruising these sites. Has anyone been in the chat and NOT been IM'd for cyber sex?

[tenni]

"Reading the posts on sites such as this supports the veiw that bi men are irresponsible , and indescrimanent in their sexual encounters. Now I hate to be judgemental but all the married closeted men who seek anonymous encounters are really putting themselves and thier spouse in great danger."

Yes, you and a few others are being bigoted and preachy without experience as to what is really going on seuxally for active non monogamous bisexual men(of which I'm one).

You are a monogamous married person being preachy to those bisexual men who are not what you are. Just as the OP. It is rather sad and negatively assumptive to state that bimen are irresponsible and indiscriminate in their sexual encounters when you are not sexually involved with them. We have a woman who gets her male sex from one man and female sex from many women condemning bisexual men. We have a celibate bisexual man condemning those who are not celibate. We have an intersexed person of questionable sexuality denying bi Invisibility with an arrogant air of delusional expertisms. So on and so on. So many negative condemning bisexual men. It is as if we are worse than hetero men or gay men.

Would you like another cup of biphobia sir?

[Long Duck Dong]

"Reading the posts on sites such as this supports the veiw that bi men are irresponsible , and indescrimanent in their sexual encounters. Now I hate to be judgemental but all the married closeted men who seek anonymous encounters are really putting themselves and thier spouse in great danger."

Yes, you and a few others are being bigoted and preachy without experience as to what is really going on seuxally for active non monogamous bisexual men(of which I'm one).

You are a monogamous married person being preachy to those bisexual men who are not what you are. Just as the OP. It is rather sad and negatively assumptive to state that bimen are irresponsible and indiscriminate in their sexual encounters when you are not sexually involved with them. We have a woman who gets her male sex from one man and female sex from many women condemning bisexual men. We have a celibate bisexual man condemning those who are not celibate. We have an intersexed person of questionable sexuality denying bi Invisibility with an arrogant air of delusional expertisms. So on and so on. So many negative condemning bisexual men. It is as if we are worse than hetero men or gay men.

Would you like another cup of biphobia sir?

and we have people like you that tell bi people that they are not welcome in the site unless they are here to hook up, telling bi sexuals that they are not bisexual enuf to call themselves bisexual, and even telling bisexuals that they do not fit the criteria of bisexuality as defined by you...... so I would say that its a draw....

there is no denying that some bi men are irresponsible, but its not a bisexual aspect, its something that any person is capable of..... ignorance however is a aspect of people when it comes to a lot of sexual encounters as the need to use the brain, is superseded by the need to stick the dick in something

btw are you going to top up peoples cups of biphobia from your coffee urn of hypocrisy ?

[darkeyes]

So many negative condemning bisexual men. It is as if we are worse than hetero men or gay men.

Would you like another cup of biphobia sir?I may argue with much of what u say, tenni, and no doubt shall again.. I hope.. but what u say above is fundamentally a truism... there are those who tell us that bisexual men are more promiscuous and dishonest than gay or straight men.. there are even "studies" which tell us so.. as does popular myth and misconception which exist because we do not know and tbh many in all sexualities do not want to know... they believe what they wish to believe because it suits their purpose... but the negativity of which u speak isn't something I have ever accepted any more than I accept all women of any sexuality to be entirely honest and lacking in promiscuity.. the fact is that there are no certain facts in this regard we know of.. there are millions of faithful and monogamous men and women of all sexualities and many who are not.. whether one sexuality is more promiscuous than another and more dishonest depends very much on our own prejudices and gut feelings..

Whether we can call Jason biphobic is questionable.. many of us have downers on our own kind and are conned by propaganda... it isnt so much biphobia as some shame either of what we are or what we believe our kind get up to.. by buying into what the world at large tells us of our own kind... things that we should be arguing with, getting to the bottom of and correcting...

[Jason0012]

I am married and you presume that I am monogamous? I am objecting to irresponsible behavior being one of the more visible aspects of our community. I know , if you don't advertise nobody wil know your dick is available! That is stupid and childish! Go take it to craigs list! Lots of us have real sex lives offline. I come here in hopes of finding some sort of community, were inteligent discussions can take place. It is terribly damning to our perception even within our community when it begins to look like all any of us do is have indescriminant sex with whoever. While appreciate the joys of sexual freedom we live in a world where random sex is still dangerous. Advertising , even promoting dangerous behavior is not necessarily what I want to see out of the LGBT community as a whole, much less the highly maligned bisexual community. Who can really blame those who see us as dangerous when we ourselves promote such behavior?

I should add that unlike the originator of this thread I am involved with a bisexual man, quite happily I might add. Just because I understand the misgivings dosen't mean I share them.

[tenni]

Jason
From my perspective you are in a closed loop relationship according to your profile. You are condemning those of us who are not "just like you". You are assuming that casual sex is dangerous. Yes, there may be more danger than your situation but that doesn't mean that caution is not used. It also doesn't mean that one of your foursome may not wander without telling. If a person is involved in casual sex or fwb or fuck buddies there is a need for more caution and listening to what is being said (or not said). That doesn't mean that listening and deciding what sexual activity you will engage in are not used. Not everyone participates in dangerous sexual activities who is engaged in casual sex. This is assumed more of men than women and particularly on this site. Research has indicated that women are nearly as likely to go outside of their relationship as men. They just don't disclose or get caught as much as men. Then we have women on this site admitting to being poly swingers without much condemnation. wtf?

[slipnslide]

and we have people like you that tell bi people that they are not welcome in the site unless they are here to hook up, telling bi sexuals that they are not bisexual enuf to call themselves bisexual, and even telling bisexuals that they do not fit the criteria of bisexuality as defined by you...... so I would say that its a draw....


haha!

[darkrainbow]

I have to say that this thread saddens me. I have read a lot of negative things on this thread about male on male sex and bisexual bashing (including the posts from my husband Jason) and it breaks my heart. Truth be told ALL sex in the day of HIV/AIDS comes with risks and it is only up to the individuals involved to make the assessment and decide how much of a risk they are willing to take. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with this discussion. You and You alone are responsible for your own sexual safety. If someone wants to have unprotected sex with you and you feel that the risk is too high you have the right to say no even if you are in a committed supposedly monogamous relationship with that person/persons.

I enjoy having sex with bisexual men. I think that male on male sex is something that bisexuals (especially bisexual men) on this site should not be bashing; be it casual or monogamous. What I do have a problem with is people (men and women) who are in assumed committed monogamous relationships with someone that practices risky sexual behavior behind the back of their significant other/others. Lying and cheating on someone who thinks that they are in a monogamous relationship with them is lying and cheating plain and simple. While I do not condone the "down low" lifestyle I also do not live in a bubble and know that it exists. If people regardless of gender and sexual orientation feel the need to have sex this way the least they can do is to be as safe as they can and practice safe sex 100% of the time if not for their own safety, but for the safety of their partner/partners.

One point that Jason brought up that I think was overlooked by the discussion on whether he is biphobic or not was his concern about the youth of today not really being concerned with practicing safe sex. I was in this class and saw it myself and it was very disturbing to hear these teenagers/young adults talk about how contracting HIV/AIDS was just an aspect of being LGBTQ. If you get HIV/AIDS you just have to take a pill for the rest of your life, no big deal. While I am glad that HIV/AIDS is not the death sentence that it was in the 80's and 90's it still concerns me that they were being so cavalier about it.

[slipnslide]

As much as I hate to see someone write off bi men as a group, I can not, as a bi man myself, really blame them! I wrote off gay men more than 20 yrs ago myself !

Something is happening, but it's too soon to see what it is, but I now have gay friends who have stopped having sex because of the risks. Just last night a buddy told me that he doesn't have sex with men anymore because in his view the ones that have many partners seem to be using sex in response to emotional issues. Turns out we both gave up MSM sex about a year ago. That's the second gay friend to tell me a similar reason they've stopped having sex.

We may see jumps in STI / HIV infections over the next while, maybe it's happening now, because that circle of MSM grows smaller and the "promiscuous" ones become a higher percentage of that population.

[Jason0012]

But bi men aren't anymore dangerous than gay or straight men. There is just a perception of them being more dangerous. If anything an out, open, and honest bi man is realitively safe. I was trying to sugest that perhaps we should be aware of how we project ourselves. My wife was very forceful in pointing out to me(offline) that this is not a public space and I should leave the folks looking for hookups alone. Fair enough. As for giving up sex with men.......I gave up on gay men due to a specific incident with a particularly dificult individual. It was really meant in jest, though I never want to deal with that again it is way off topic.

[slipnslide]

I have to say that this thread saddens me. I have read a lot of negative things on this thread about male on male sex and bisexual bashing (including the posts from my husband Jason) and it breaks my heart. Truth be told ALL sex in the day of HIV/AIDS comes with risks and it is only up to the individuals involved to make the assessment and decide how much of a risk they are willing to take. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with this discussion. You and You alone are responsible for your own sexual safety.

You can't remove sexual orientation from this as it tells the story. As the numbers stated earlier in this thread show, the MSM community is experiencing an epidemic of STI and HIV infections. When confronted with reality, a portion of this community throw their hands up and call you biphobic / homophobic. The numbers have a bias in reality though. The arguments against that aren't about reality, but about individuals trying to address the cognitive dissonance brought on by this knowledge. You get ridiculous responses like "well heterosexuals get STIs too don't you know . . .you are idiot" - completely obfuscating the basis of the argument.

There is no such thing as safe sex, only safer sex. Maybe instead we need to turn the argument around and instead ask: why do heterosexuals have such relatively low infection rates?

[slipnslide]

My wife was very forceful in pointing out to me(offline) that this is not a public space and I should leave the folks looking for hookups alone. Fair enough.

Your wife is dead wrong. You do have a responsibility as a member of a society to point out when people are behaving badly. The whole "I'm okay, you're okay" nonsense is what got us here. People seeking hook-ups are public health menaces that are costing us all money to clean up their messes.

[slipnslide]

But bi men aren't anymore dangerous than gay or straight men.

whoa whoa! The numbers above make it clear that:

(MSM) > (heterosexual men) in terms of risk.

[darkrainbow]

You can't remove sexual orientation from this as it tells the story. As the numbers stated earlier in this thread show, the MSM community is experiencing an epidemic of STI and HIV infections.

I disagree, male on male sex is not a sexual orientation; it is a sexual behavior.

[Jason0012]

But of course , how do you know someone is heterosexual? The gay man I referenced above claims to be heterosexual, is married and regularly hooks up with anonymous men. He represents a far greater risk than a man who is open and honest and careful. There are many dangerous things in this world. In my profession I regularly work with high voltage electric lines, many ton machinery, explosive, and corrosive chemicals, and a long list of other dangerous things. I still posses all my parts because I am carefull. A known and understood risk is far less dangerous than one that is ignored.

[slipnslide]

A known and understood risk is far less dangerous than one that is ignored.

Exactly, and the MSM community puts on blinders and ignores the risks. If that weren't true, their infection rates should match the heterosexual community.

[drugstore cowboy]

Two years ago my wife took a few LGBT history classes as humanity electives at our local university. We were both shocked at the veiws that the 19-20something gay students had twords HIV/AIDS. Most viewed contracting the virus as inevitable, like chicken pox, and had about as much concern about it. We grew up in the shadow of the AIDS epidemic. I remember when it was called GRIDS! It was a scarry time, the disease is still scarry but there are a lot of people now who don't care. I gave up on men for many years after learning about gay culture. Reading the posts on sites such as this supports the veiw that bi men are irresponsible , and indescrimanent in their sexual encounters. Now I hate to be judgemental but all the married closeted men who seek anonymous encounters are really putting themselves and thier spouse in great danger. It has always irked me terribly to see as much of that as there is. As much as I hate to see someone write off bi men as a group, I can not, as a bi man myself, really blame them! I wrote off gay men more than 20 yrs ago myself ! The falacy in this thinking of course is that heterosexuals still spread the disaease so safe sex should be the rule for everybody. What's your point? I have been sexually active with men both before AIDS, during the pandemic, and my entire adult life. My bisexual male partner is the same way and we are still HIV neg, and there are a lot of bisexual and gay men who are just like us who have been sexually active before AIDS and are still sexually active with men yet we are HIV neg and don't have any STDs since we practice safer sex and have ever since it was known about in the 80s. I also agree that you're being very biphobic but there are people here who live in fear who will agree with you.
Reading over that I feel it sounds preechy. I know full well that the posts I speak of are only a small part of what goes on here. There are of course many of us bisexuals who are responsible. Some are even monogmous! The issue I have is that all those irresponsible folks become really visible when they come cruising these sites. Has anyone been in the chat and NOT been IM'd for cyber sex? This is a sex/dating/hook up site, and there's a chat room on here. Of course you're going to get people who want to cyber or who are interested in dating/hooking up. You're also forgetting that it's entirely possible to have safe sex with a stranger or multiple strangers, even strangers who are HIV+ or who have an STD and you won't get infected from them.

[drugstore cowboy]

Your wife is dead wrong. You do have a responsibility as a member of a society to point out when people are behaving badly. The whole "I'm okay, you're okay" nonsense is what got us here. People seeking hook-ups are public health menaces that are costing us all money to clean up their messes. Stop living in fear. Acting as though it's still the 80s and flipping out with AIDS paranoia and your own Poz phobia does not do you or anyone else any good. It's 2012, everyone knows how to have safer sex, use condoms, and knows how HIV and other STDs infect someone. It's someone's personal responsibility or their choice to have safer sex, and it's their choice to not have it if that is what they want to do. People who are into casual sex or hooking up with strangers are not as you put it "public health menaces". I know you're totally against hooking up or casual sex even though you've had it in the past; but it is possible to have safer sex with a stranger/strangers, even people who are HIV+ and you won't get infected with HIV.

[tenni]

I have to say that this thread saddens me. I have read a lot of negative things on this thread about male on male sex and bisexual bashing (including the posts from my husband Jason) and it breaks my heart. Truth be told ALL sex in the day of HIV/AIDS comes with risks and it is only up to the individuals involved to make the assessment and decide how much of a risk they are willing to take. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with this discussion. You and You alone are responsible for your own sexual safety. If someone wants to have unprotected sex with you and you feel that the risk is too high you have the right to say no even if you are in a committed supposedly monogamous relationship with that person/persons.

I enjoy having sex with bisexual men. I think that male on male sex is something that bisexuals (especially bisexual men) on this site should not be bashing; be it casual or monogamous. What I do have a problem with is people (men and women) who are in assumed committed monogamous relationships with someone that practices risky sexual behavior behind the back of their significant other/others. Lying and cheating on someone who thinks that they are in a monogamous relationship with them is lying and cheating plain and simple. While I do not condone the "down low" lifestyle I also do not live in a bubble and know that it exists. If people regardless of gender and sexual orientation feel the need to have sex this way the least they can do is to be as safe as they can and practice safe sex 100% of the time if not for their own safety, but for the safety of their partner/partners.

One point that Jason brought up that I think was overlooked by the discussion on whether he is biphobic or not was his concern about the youth of today not really being concerned with practicing safe sex. I was in this class and saw it myself and it was very disturbing to hear these teenagers/young adults talk about how contracting HIV/AIDS was just an aspect of being LGBTQ. If you get HIV/AIDS you just have to take a pill for the rest of your life, no big deal. While I am glad that HIV/AIDS is not the death sentence that it was in the 80's and 90's it still concerns me that they were being so cavalier about it.

Thank you darkrainbow.

You know Jason better than me. Jason You have a lovely wise wife. Lucky bugger. :)

MSM statsbdo not clarify whether it is gay men, bi men or both that have high incidents of HIV. There are no stats for bimen HIV alone and so why would bisexual men bash other bimen on a bisexual site assuming that "other" bi men are the bad one? Sounds rather biphobic and "better than thou" approach to me.

[Long Duck Dong]

But bi men aren't anymore dangerous than gay or straight men. There is just a perception of them being more dangerous. If anything an out, open, and honest bi man is realitively safe. I was trying to sugest that perhaps we should be aware of how we project ourselves. My wife was very forceful in pointing out to me(offline) that this is not a public space and I should leave the folks looking for hookups alone. Fair enough. As for giving up sex with men.......I gave up on gay men due to a specific incident with a particularly dificult individual. It was really meant in jest, though I never want to deal with that again it is way off topic.

agreed, its not the sexuality that is the issue, its the attitude of the person in regards to their sexual practices, that cause a lot of the issues....

unfortunately, no matter what you say... if its not portraying bisexuals as angels with halos and harps, you will be called biphobic.... never mind the fact that the behievour of some bisexuals is not exactly angelic lol..... and while some of the posts by drugstore cowboy, may be correct in that you can have sex with hiv + people and still be safe.... people on the outside can read stuff like that and be thinking " jesus, bisexuals are so hard up for sex, they will risk their health in order to get laid " so yeah the image of bisexuals as people without morals, ethics or a sense of self preservation, is something that we can reinforce, intentionally or otherwise.....

the person most responsible for how you are seen, is yourself... as that is the key difference between being misunderstood as a bisexual and showing people what you as a bisexual, is really like..... and how different you are from other bisexuals or peoples understandings of bisexuals and bisexuality.....
part of the trouble there, for a lot of bisexuals is how they try to argue that they are not promiscuous people, they just like casual hook ups and discreet encounters... and while it makes sense to the bisexual.... it sounds like a contradiction in terms to other people......

a part of what gives the illusion of bisexual men being more dangerous, is how we protray ourselves as people that need males and females...so people will see a person that is sleeping with males and females and that in most peoples eyes, comes across as a very active sex life with both sexes... yet so many bisexuals are quick to say that is not the case for them at all.... they may be lucky to have sex 3 times a week with their partner and once every 1-2 months with another partner .......

but the most visible aspect of bisexuality, is not this forum... its the clubs, bars etc where the more risque bisexual is active..... and the more subdued bisexual as well lol.... and that is where a lot of the fake image of bisexuality is coming from..... cos people that are quiet / discreet bisexuals, are barely seen and noticed by other people..... and that comes back to the issue of where the visibility of bisexuality is being portrayed by those most vocal and visible with their sexuality and not the people that sit in sites like this, or are closeted, so do not really do much to change the image of bisexuality, other than to label people like you, biphobic and people like me that are out and visible in my own community, as people that are supporting bi invisibility....

[Gearbox]

unfortunately, no matter what you say... if its not portraying bisexuals as angels with halos and harps, you will be called biphobic.
That's not biphobic! That's realistic! What IS biphobic is making out that bi's are the only ones with wonky halos.
As you should know from being in a gaybar, being bisexual and liking both genders doesn't mean that bi's get double the dose of sex partners. Promiscuous Gays, lesbians and hetero's are just as promiscuous, if not more so.

but the most visible aspect of bisexuality, is not this forum... its the clubs, bars etc where the more risque bisexual is active..... and the more subdued bisexual as well lol.... and that is where a lot of the fake image of bisexuality is coming from..... cos people that are quiet / discreet bisexuals, are barely seen and noticed by other people..... and that comes back to the issue of where the visibility of bisexuality is being portrayed by those most vocal and visible with their sexuality and not the people that sit in sites like this, or are closeted, so do not really do much to change the image of bisexuality, other than to label people like you, biphobic and people like me that are out and visible in my own community, as people that are supporting bi invisibility....
So sitting in a gaybar is doing something to change the image of bisexuality? To gays?
The 'real' image of bi's is the loud flamboyant kind that hangs around gaybars, and the closeted bi's on this site are fakes?

Really LDD, you get your perspective of bi visibility from gaybars? You do realise that not ALL bi's or gays are on the 'gay scene' or want to be either?
And being visible hasn't done out gays&lesbians any favours on the viewed as promiscuous front either. You don't need both genders to be dangerous, as you should know from your interaction with the non bi clientèle. You don't seem to remember that when you post on here though. Are you worried that your gay 'non-bitchy' friends will read what you say?

Go on! Be honest! Who's the sluttiest? Bi's or gays?:bigrin:

[12voltman59]

This post is just a bit off topic, at least in regards to the group in question that has or had some odd attitudes regarding HIV/AIDS:

It is something the attitudes that people have about HIV/AIDs and who can or "cannot" get it---it was when I worked as a reporter that I had become come to know a lady in one of the towns I worked who set up a shelter for abused women and their children to flee their situations----and my editor assigned to do a number of articles about the shelter, the programs and such they offered-- the lady who founded the organization herself ran it as a non-profit---since that county was more rural and less urban with a county government that didn't offer all of the sorts of social services that are found being offered by the larger metro counties---so both that town and the county contracted with her to provide her services to the courts and other agencies for what they offered.

As such---I sat in on a series, from beginning to end, of group sessions they held for the men who had been doing such abuse---ordered to do so by either the municipal or Common Pleas courts as part of something like probation or such they were ordered to do.

In the first session----she would have an opening segment where the guys were allowed to freely express their reasons why they did what they did, their attitudes towards women or whatever--and when at one point---the session facilitator lead the group into a discussion of responsibility regarding sex like using contraceptives and such to potentially preventing pregnancies and wow---nearly to a man---if one said it--others would agree----they would not use rubbers because "I ain't no damn faggot, so I ain't gonna use no damn rubbers---a real man doesn't use something like rubbers!"

I later asked the director about that point and others--she said that this is a pretty commonly held view that these men have on that and the other things they raise---she said that they more or less let the guys spout off on whatever they want and in any way they want because the counselors want to more or less let them vent some anger off about their situation--and to get a measure of the attitudes, views, etc held by the guys about women, children, "what it means to be a man" and what not.

Then at the next session then go lay down some firm ground rules such as no more use of profanity and terms for women like: bitch, cunt, slut, whore, etc and surely without the nasty sorts of descriptive adjectives they used before those terms and for the rest of the sessions--- they would be used to try to instill some "retraining" regarding the attitudes these men have about women and other related issues to something more in line with what the rest of us tend to hold.

I did think it really was such an ignorant view these guys tended to hold when it came to HIV/AIDS ONLY being something "Fags" got and that "real (hetero) men" couldn't get and didn't have to worry about!! Of course--kind of enlightening that they also held many other pretty ignorant views--like when even though they might be the ones to push, putting it mildly, a woman to have sex--that if "the bitch got pregnant--then that is her damn fault since she was a slut!" Sorta funny too---they blamed the woman for getting preggers, but along with not using a rubber because "real men" don't use them since it's is the role of a "Real Man" to get women pregnant--just in many cases, if they aren't married or long term partnered with a woman--they sure as hell don't want to take any financial or other sorts of responsibility for the kids they sire, and man---can these "dudes" and their "old ladies" can sure make tons of kids!!!!! Of course, even if they are married to the women or in a "common law marriage" as they used to say--many of these men didn't often want to take care of those children either.

There sure is some incredibly stupid and ignorant thinking still remaining by many people out there!!

When you see things like this for real, with your own eyes and take it in your mind---it sort of makes ya think---"What universe do I live in or they do??"

I always sorta had that feeling as well when I worked in Probation/Parole or in recent years when I have served on juries and see all the sorts of things the courts deal with everyday as a matter of course.

[BiDaveDtown]

There sure is some incredibly stupid and ignorant thinking still remaining by many people out there!! You're in Ohio. What do you expect? The idea that bisexual and gay men are somehow majorly at risk for HIV or are mostly all HIV+, and that heterosexual people are less at risk and have lower numbers of HIV+ people borders on 80s HIV/AIDS paranoia and it's based on homophobia and biphobia, and it's not true. If you look at the number of people worldwide who have died of AIDS or who are living with HIV/AIDS most of them are heterosexual and were infected by heterosexual sex.

[tenni]

Gear
How does a person identify a bisexual man in a gay bar without asking? Most men in a gay bar are probably gay or bisexual cismales. Do bisexuals have red B on their forehead? Of course not. If the poster is "out" in his geographic community does he present himself for the niche category that he is? Intersexed, asexual non cismale who see himself as bisexual.

Gear
In order for a interesexed asexual self identifying bisexual non cismale to know whether gay cismen or bi cismen are sluttier, wouldn't he have to actually have sex with a lot of cismales? Doesn't that counter the asexual aspects? A barman doesn't know who is having sex outside of the bar and in particular why would an asexual be even interested?

[DuckiesDarling]

Tenni, editing your posts to try and lessen your outright personal attacks on a person does not mean that others didn't already see them. What I see is a very bitter closeted, by his own admission, mostly gay, by his own admission, male artist from Burlington, Ontario Canada trying to say that a male member of this site who has had full on sex with both genders for more than 20 years is not a real bisexual male. You would do better to just have both of us on ignore and not try to be snippy with your posts by directing comments to others as it only proves you have a problem with with LDD and me. You lose everytime you come after us and prove your ignorance to the rest of the site. Is it any wonder most of the posters simply ignore you and your comments now? It's getting old, Tenni. Very old. You continue coming after me and my beloved cismale partner and I will report you every single time to Drew. We support this site with our donations, we support the site with our presence. He is openly out and VISIBLE in his community as a pansexual/bisexual male who has the time to listen to friends and help with issues that arise. He supports many LGBT businesses and he was heavily involved in getting the civil union bill passed in New Zealand by uniting people that would normally fight tooth and nail against LGBT rights by helping them see it wasn't just LGBT it was for all sexualities. What have you done besides post on a a forum that others should be out and visible when you yourself are not? Now if you want to continue your pissing contest, do so. But you only make yourself look spiteful and downright idiotic in the extreme by doing so. Now as my favorite pussy would say, Bless your little heart.

[Long Duck Dong]

That's not biphobic! That's realistic! What IS biphobic is making out that bi's are the only ones with wonky halos.
As you should know from being in a gaybar, being bisexual and liking both genders doesn't mean that bi's get double the dose of sex partners. Promiscuous Gays, lesbians and hetero's are just as promiscuous, if not more so.

So sitting in a gaybar is doing something to change the image of bisexuality? To gays?
The 'real' image of bi's is the loud flamboyant kind that hangs around gaybars, and the closeted bi's on this site are fakes?

Really LDD, you get your perspective of bi visibility from gaybars? You do realise that not ALL bi's or gays are on the 'gay scene' or want to be either?
And being visible hasn't done out gays&lesbians any favours on the viewed as promiscuous front either. You don't need both genders to be dangerous, as you should know from your interaction with the non bi clientèle. You don't seem to remember that when you post on here though. Are you worried that your gay 'non-bitchy' friends will read what you say?

Go on! Be honest! Who's the sluttiest? Bi's or gays?:bigrin:

who is the most sluttiest ???? honestly.... its the person that wants sex the most and does anything for it, with anybody..... as for the sexuality of that person.... mmmm not sure on that one....

most people that do not visit LBGT bars and this site, are not going to see what is going on in LGBT bars and this site, so their visible perspective will be more limited than yours or mine..... so they may only have the LGBT parades, and the bits in the news like the gay males at rabbit island that insist that having sex in public in front of young child is fine ( its actually illegal, its indecent exposure )..... or they may be blessed to have a person in their family that is LGBT and gives them a personal perspective of a LGBT person, or they have have LGBT friends..... etc etc

the real image of bis are the bisexuals themselves, its why bisexuality, like any other sexuality, is so diverse......but its the *false * image of bisexuality that is the one that portrays bisexuals as people that are promiscuous people that can not be faithful or monogamous, which is not true of a lot of bisexuals and even the ones that are not monogamous, are still doing it with the permission, understanding and often the participation of their partners..... and the false image, is often the more visible image....

a example is this... take a straight acting gay, a straight acting bi, a hetero drag queen, a gay / bi drag queen and get them to walk down the road together..... most people will see the drag queens as their behievour stands out as so different to the * normal * behievour...... so the straight acting people are going to be near invisible, and closeted / discreet people are the same, they are not as visible as those whom stand out........

plus my perspective of bi visibility comes from being out in the community and one of the people that helps run and own LGBT businesses and is constantly finding that gay, les, trans and straight people are fine to work with, they are more realistic in what they want and how to get it... but most of the bi people are a pain in the ass to work with....IE the nz bi community web site, still 3 years out of dates.... the NZ gay NZ is updated every day ( nearly ).... and the bisexual community can not keep making excuses, cos they are the ones with the power to make a difference.... IE DJones in this site, created the NY BI group and social meeting group.... he saw a need, he put it out there and made it work.........and that makes bis just that lil more visible to people........


I am well aware of what I said and posted, very well aware, and as I have said before, if BISEXUALS stopped making excuses and stated making what they want in their communities, a reality, then it would be the bi community making a difference... instead of complaining......

hell me and my friends are working towards buying a bar in my town in order to get the LGBT a social bar to meet at.... if the bisexuals do not want to use it, fine, but the support from the les, gay, hetero and trans people has been excellent and so we are catering towards them as they are the ones that will keep the bar open.... and yes its a LGBT bar... bisexuals inclusive... not a gay bar where bisexuals go..... but it will be if the bi community continue to remain silent and complain like they have been doing.....

once again, the biggest spearhead of the whole thing, is a asexual natured, intersexed bisexual.... the person that granted civil union rights to the LGBT was a closeted lesbian asexual female....... its starting to get to the point that the asexual community is doing more for bisexuals in my country than the bisexuals themselves.....

[Gearbox]

@LDD- Hanging around in LGBT/gay bars/clubs isn't the be all and end all of sexual visibility for many. Lots of gays, lesbians, transgendered and bi's wouldn't be found dead in those places. Why? Because it's not their thing. They don't want to.
I very rarely hang around in 'straight' clubs etc and neither do many straight m&f's. It doesn't interest everybody.
Doesn't mean that it's their fault when they here here BS about them, and they lose the right to complain about it though. That's ridiculous.
Those that are 'Non Scene' are not slacking off from 'doing stuff' for their particular sexuality. They are living as THEY see fit to as themselves, and not how some 'scene' Gestapo might dictate.

Most bi's have lifestyles of the 'heterosexual' variety with husbands/wives and children. Some partnered gays and lesbians and trans do to. It is their lifestyle no matter what sexuality they are. And many would ADD to that community instead of separating into another. Which I think does more for sexualities, integrating and not separating. After all, it's not a heterosexual world.
What needs to be visible is the existence of bisexuality and not necessarily the bisexual individual. We are what we are.:)

Oh there are PLENTY of promiscuous bi's around having sex with promiscuous gays and straights. Plenty of cheating going on with everybody too. It would be a VERY hard competition to find out who's the sluttiest.lol

[slipnslide]

You're in Ohio. What do you expect? The idea that bisexual and gay men are somehow majorly at risk for HIV or are mostly all HIV+, and that heterosexual people are less at risk and have lower numbers of HIV+ people borders on 80s HIV/AIDS paranoia and it's based on homophobia and biphobia, and it's not true. If you look at the number of people worldwide who have died of AIDS or who are living with HIV/AIDS most of them are heterosexual and were infected by heterosexual sex.

You must factor culture and availability of condoms if you want to look at global numbers. Comparing the US to Africa is not a fair comparison for multiple reasons. In the US, the points you state as untrue, are in fact completely true - and likely for all of Western culture.

http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm

More guys contracted HIV in the US through MSM contact than all women COMBINED. I suspect similar numbers for Canada.

At look at Europe shows more of the same:


One study concluded that HIV diagnoses among MSM in Western and Central Europe have almost doubled since 2000.42 (http://www.avert.org/aids-europe.htm#ref41) The UK witnessed the largest rise, with an increase of 91 percent between 2000 and 2006.43 (http://www.avert.org/aids-europe.htm#ref42)xIt has been said that the increase in HIV diagnoses among MSM is linked to an increase in high-risk behaviour. In the 1980s HIV prevention campaigns successfully alerted people to the dangers of HIV, which accounted for a decline in the frequency of high-risk behaviours. In the 1990s the introduction of combination antiretroviral treatment turned HIV from a death sentence into a chronic disease, and it is thought that this may have created a sense of complacency and an increase in high-risk sexual activity.44 (http://www.avert.org/aids-europe.htm#ref43) Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, the virologist who co-discovered HIV as the cause of AIDS, claims
“...some people in my country, France, and other Western countries have become complacent – they see HIV/AIDS as a chronic disease – not as one that can kill.”45 (http://www.avert.org/aids-europe.htm#ref44)http://www.avert.org/aids-europe.htm



You seem to not be aware that vaginal intercourse between two heterosexuals is less likely to spread an HIV infection because of physiology. A vagina is less likely to suffer lesions allowing direct access to the blood stream than anal sex. Vaginal to penile transmission is even more difficult.

So don't be rambling on about homophobia and biphobia and then show yourself to be ignorant of the facts. You've got the Internet at your disposal. Use it!

I'm genuinely curious, is the denial of these basic facts a defense mechanism for justification of past behaviour, or is it denial for the justification of future behaviour? It is endlessly fascinating though to see people lying to themselves.

[drugstore cowboy]

vaginal intercourse between two heterosexuals is less likely to spread an HIV infection because of physiology. A vagina is less likely to suffer lesions allowing direct access to the blood stream than anal sex. Vaginal to penile transmission is even more difficult. Not true. Just because you want to pretend and claim that it's "difficult" for heteros to become HIV+ from each other does not make the false and dangerous info that you're spreading true. My partner and I know both men and women who are heterosexual and who are HIV+ and they became HIV+ from having unprotected sex with a hetero partner. We have noticed that A LOT of heteros like to pretend that they don't have to practice safer sex, that HIV isn't something that they need to worry about at all, and that they don't need to get tested and they are still living in the 80s and have their heads in the sand pretending that HIV is something that bisexual and gay men and IV drug users only need to worry about.

[slipnslide]

The risk of HIV transmission during anal intercourse may be around 18 times greater than during vaginal intercourse, according to the results of a meta-analysis published online ahead of print in the
International Journal of Epidemiology.

http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-transmission-risk-during-anal-sex-18-times-higher-than-during-vaginal-sex/page/1446187/

Note that I provide evidence. You provide opinion.

Plus you clearly misunderstood. No one said it was impossible for heterosexuals to contract HIV. The point was heterosexual sex is a less efficient transmission method.

[Long Duck Dong]

@LDD- Hanging around in LGBT/gay bars/clubs isn't the be all and end all of sexual visibility for many. Lots of gays, lesbians, transgendered and bi's wouldn't be found dead in those places. Why? Because it's not their thing. They don't want to.
I very rarely hang around in 'straight' clubs etc and neither do many straight m&f's. It doesn't interest everybody.
Doesn't mean that it's their fault when they here here BS about them, and they lose the right to complain about it though. That's ridiculous.
Those that are 'Non Scene' are not slacking off from 'doing stuff' for their particular sexuality. They are living as THEY see fit to as themselves, and not how some 'scene' Gestapo might dictate.

Most bi's have lifestyles of the 'heterosexual' variety with husbands/wives and children. Some partnered gays and lesbians and trans do to. It is their lifestyle no matter what sexuality they are. And many would ADD to that community instead of separating into another. Which I think does more for sexualities, integrating and not separating. After all, it's not a heterosexual world.
What needs to be visible is the existence of bisexuality and not necessarily the bisexual individual. We are what we are.:)

Oh there are PLENTY of promiscuous bi's around having sex with promiscuous gays and straights. Plenty of cheating going on with everybody too. It would be a VERY hard competition to find out who's the sluttiest.lol


yeah I agree..... but who is more visible, gear, the gearbox that is home with a beer and feet up.... or the gearbox that is out at a LGBT bar..... they are both visible.... the gearbox at home with a beer, is the one that may be out and more visible to friends and family than gearbox at the lgbt bar.... and could by rights, make a more powerful statement about being bi than gearbox at the bar....... but gearbox at the bar can be seen as more promiscuous than gearbox at home, cos he is going out to the bar a lot..... and that is where assumption comes into it.... gearbox may like a beer at the bar and will hook up if he is interested, rather than going to the bar to hook up and having a beer while he is hooking up.....

coming back to gearbox at the bar and gearbox at home...... you are both visible in different ways to different people, but it was both gearboxes that told me something that had happened to them, more about your sex activities than any thing else........ bloody hot food lol..... and it was that one simple statement that told me more about your activities or lack of them than anything else.......

if I had assumed that gearbox was out regularly at the bar hooking up, that one statement would have proved me totally wrong...... lol and that made you more visible to me as a person that was not doing the funky chicken every night..... and that is the same with the forum.... the image of bisexuals and what bisexuals do will be made more visible in the forums by the posters, not by the lurkers and profile surfers..... and it can be correct or incorrect for any number of bisexuals..... and yes people have the right to complain about them being seen the wrong way, but the power to correct how they are seen, lays in their hands.....

what needs to be visible is the existence of bisexuality, but the existence of bisexuality rests in the hands of the bisexuals and that is why we have the image we do... as the more visible ones are the ones being seen by the public.....and the most powerful tool we have, is ourselves......

if the LGBT communities never stood up and became visible, then we would still be pretty much invisible, but so many are very visible to friends and family and that is where we can do the greatest good or damage to the image of bisexuality.......and correct the misunderstandings they have about bisexuals or confirm them.... as we become the most visible bisexual aspect they have..... and the site is a reflection of that, the more vocal and visible posters will present the more visible image of bisexuality in the site for better or worse, but a single statement by one poster.... can change the view that people have of that bisexual...... and how hot food is hazardous to your sex life lol

btw, tell gearbox at home to get to the bar, its my round and hes late lol

[tenni]

I may be wrong but I think that a lot of bisexual men do not spend much time in Gay bars at all. If you were to do a survey in gay bars you would find men who identify as gay. Increasingly, both bisexual and gay men use a variety of approaches to meet other men for short or longer term hook ups or even relationships. The internet tends to be quite popular and acts as a social media just as this site acts that way.

Gay bars do exist for those who wish to cloister themselves in segregation to meet their needs (social or sexual). Many gay bars in larger cities are age specific and tend to market themselves for young men. Bisexual men would be wise to avoid or be cautious about a lot of sexual contact with guys who hang out in gay bars. Bisexual men should be cautious about men who frequent the baths and have multi partners under those circumstances.

People who are GLBT politically active are rarely seen as bisexual. I've found that bisexual men who do seems to have a "gay think" approach and some preaches being "out" etc. A large if not majority of bisexual men who are practising multi partner sex know what they are doing and have nothing to do with gay think spouted by the few bisexual men associating with GLBT organizations.

All of this bar chatter has nothing to do with the bigotry and high rates of HIV with MSM. It doesn't clarify whether the high rates are due to gay or bisexual men's sexual activity. It has more to do with the preaching of these "gay think" people. In all the posts no one, has presented any evidence that bisexual men are the ones and not gay men who are creating this high rate of HIV.

[drugstore cowboy]

I may be wrong but I think that a lot of bisexual men do not spend much time in Gay bars at all. If you were to do a survey in gay bars you would find men who identify as gay. Increasingly, both bisexual and gay men use a variety of approaches to meet other men for short or longer term hook ups or even relationships. The internet tends to be quite popular and acts as a social media just as this site acts that way. Gay bars do exist for those who wish to cloister themselves in segregation to meet their needs (social or sexual). Many gay bars in larger cities are age specific and tend to market themselves for young men. Bisexual men would be wise to avoid or be cautious about a lot of sexual contact with guys who hang out in gay bars. Bisexual men should be cautious about men who frequent the baths and have multi partners under those circumstances. People who are GLBT politically active are rarely seen as bisexual. I've found that bisexual men who do seems to have a "gay think" approach and some preaches being "out" etc. A large if not majority of bisexual men who are practising multi partner sex know what they are doing and have nothing to do with gay think spouted by the few bisexual men associating with GLBT organizations. All of this bar chatter has nothing to do with the bigotry and high rates of HIV with MSM. It doesn't clarify whether the high rates are due to gay or bisexual men's sexual activity. It has more to do with the preaching of these "gay think" people. In all the posts no one, has presented any evidence that bisexual men are the ones and not gay men who are creating this high rate of HIV. A lot of gay men don't even like gay/LGBT bars at all. I live in SF and a lot of the bars here that were open for decades are closing down because less people go out to bars and instead they just hook up online. Or they're like my partner and I, and older and are tired of going to bars which got very old long ago. Yes you can meet bisexual men in bars but you can meet all sorts of people in bars, and LGBT bars are actually very boring and like Gearbox wrote a lot of LGBT people can't stand the whole bar scene. When I was younger pretty much the only way you could meet other bisexual men were in bars but there's no longer a need for that.

[drugstore cowboy]

I may be wrong but I think that a lot of bisexual men do not spend much time in Gay bars at all. If you were to do a survey in gay bars you would find men who identify as gay. Increasingly, both bisexual and gay men use a variety of approaches to meet other men for short or longer term hook ups or even relationships. The internet tends to be quite popular and acts as a social media just as this site acts that way. Gay bars do exist for those who wish to cloister themselves in segregation to meet their needs (social or sexual). Many gay bars in larger cities are age specific and tend to market themselves for young men. Bisexual men would be wise to avoid or be cautious about a lot of sexual contact with guys who hang out in gay bars. Bisexual men should be cautious about men who frequent the baths and have multi partners under those circumstances. People who are GLBT politically active are rarely seen as bisexual. I've found that bisexual men who do seems to have a "gay think" approach and some preaches being "out" etc. A large if not majority of bisexual men who are practising multi partner sex know what they are doing and have nothing to do with gay think spouted by the few bisexual men associating with GLBT organizations. All of this bar chatter has nothing to do with the bigotry and high rates of HIV with MSM. It doesn't clarify whether the high rates are due to gay or bisexual men's sexual activity. It has more to do with the preaching of these "gay think" people. In all the posts no one, has presented any evidence that bisexual men are the ones and not gay men who are creating this high rate of HIV. A lot of gay men don't even like gay/LGBT bars at all. I live in SF and a lot of the bars here that were open for decades are closing down because less people go out to bars and instead they just hook up online or they're like my partner and I, and older and are tired of going to bars which got very old long ago. Yes you can meet bisexual men in bars but you can meet all sorts of people in bars and LGBT bars are actually very boring. When I was younger pretty much the only way you could meet other bisexual men were in bars but there's no longer a need for that. HIV infection and higher rates of HIV come from people having unprotected sex, not from someone being a bisexual man, or a gay man. There are also a lot of heteros who are HIV+ and most people worldwide who are HIV+ are heterosexual and were infected by unprotected heterosexual sex.

[Gearbox]

@LDD- Well that's it. I'm visible as just a bloke doing everyday stuff, then having sex. Just like hetero's, only I have sex with men too. I don't notify friends & family that I'll be having sex at 7pm sharp, or inform them of the details.
I do my shopping on-line.lol
Wednesday I'm meeting a gay bloke outside a cafe for a cup of tea, before heading to his place for sexy fun. He's openly gay to his cafe buddies, and no doubt they'll assume I'm gay too unless I tell them I'm bi.
As a bi I'll be invisible, same as at a bar. So I might tell them what I am,just for the sake of that. Otherwise I'd just go about as a bloke meeting for sex, same I would with a woman. No drama! Just me out for sex.lol

[tenni]

hmm Well, now that I think of it, I was on a "date" with a gay man on Saturday afternoon. (potential lover?) We hugged as we parted on a main street in the art community. Does that mean that I'm out?..as gay? or bi?..or just hugging a friend goodbye in the middle of the afternoon?

No sex Saturday but I sure as hell know that I've had a hell of a lot more sex that the site psuedo counsellor and his alternate over the past three years. :) Still clean without diseases because I know how to behave and don't have to proclaim myself celebate or asexual to keep myself healthy.

[PeterNZ]

I agree that the original poster aeonpax is being Poz-phobic, biphobic, and a total hypocrite. Her bigotry towards bisexual men and people living HIV or who have died from AIDS makes her no better than the Bachmanns, Rick Santorum, and Rev. Phelps.

[æonpax]

I agree that the original poster aeonpax is being Poz-phobic, biphobic, and a total hypocrite. Her bigotry towards bisexual men and people living HIV or who have died from AIDS makes her no better than the Bachmanns, Rick Santorum, and Rev. Phelps.

Wow....somehow though, I just can't bring myself to do nothing other than pity, those who choose to live in their own sublime ignorance.

[slipnslide]

Wow....somehow though, I just can't bring myself to do nothing other than pity, those who choose to live in their own sublime ignorance.

Isn't it amazing?

The idea that being poz-phobic in sexual partners is a bad thing is my favourite. It's like saying that cutting out fatty foods is just for coronary-disease-phobic people and they're bad.

[darkeyes]

Wow....somehow though, I just can't bring myself to do nothing other than pity, those who choose to live in their own sublime ignorance.
..or make statements to tailored to suit their own personal agenda..

[æonpax]

..or make statements to tailored to suit their own personal agenda..
`

Most likely. It's called; Necro posting...someone or something that goes around resurrecting old threads. Almost always done with an agenda.
`
`

http://i.imgur.com/6uZQq.jpg

[PeterNZ]

This is the internet and it's a message board people reply to threads all the time. I would not consider this to be an old thread since it's not like it's years old or completely no longer being discussed. I do not have any issues or personal agendas at all however it seems that some people do especially when it comes to bisexual and gay men, their own internalised biphobia, and their own poz-phobia or issues that they have with having safe sex with someone who has HIV.

[IanBorthwick]

Isn't it amazing?

The idea that being poz-phobic in sexual partners is a bad thing is my favourite. It's like saying that cutting out fatty foods is just for coronary-disease-phobic people and they're bad.

Actually, the whole idea of avoiding fat because fat leads to heart disease and coronary issues has ALWAYS been known to be cut from whole cloth..it's BS. And known so sinc Ansel Keyes foisted his rancid ideas on the world. Aim for a better analogy that DOESN'T make you look so...well, I'll let you find the adjective.

[DuckiesDarling]

Okay seriously... people so lightly throw around the phobia label but for goodness' sake look at what you are saying POZphobic??? Who in their right mind would actually want to be burdened with HIV? Yes, I said RIGHT Mind. I will not deny there are some "bug chasers" out there, but to call someone who simply says they do not want to pick up ANY STDS including HIV/AIDS a phobic is just asinine. Most people who have HIV/Aids didn't want it, they got it accidentally, but I guess if one of them wanted to not be infected with another strain or to pass it on to anyone else they'd also be considered "phobic" I am getting phobophobic at this point, not everything is a phobia, it's simply a life choice. Don't be like Chicken Little or soon no one will believe anyone claiming anyone is "phobic"

[tenni]

"Okay seriously... people so lightly throw around the phobia label but for goodness' sake look at what you are saying POZphobic???... I am getting phobophobic at this point, not everything is a phobia, it's simply a life choice. Don't be like Chicken Little or soon no one will believe anyone claiming anyone is "phobic"

I'm not so sure about poz-phobia but I think that I can acknowledge that it exists. Just as the OP has exhibited biphobia towards all male bisexuals by refusing to consider to have sex with any bi man, someone who has fear about catching HIV from a Pos man (gay or bi) may have poz-phobia. I can recall my own fears way back when a friend of mine became HIV. My fears of catching it were irrational according to the present thought of the day but they were inside me(twenty years ago). (ie Would I get HIV if I touched his toilet seat to raise it to urinate etc. His plates were safe to eat off? I thought that I knew they were but inside feared) Today, I don't know but suspect that Poz people who wish to be sexually active are dealing with poz-phobia in any potential partners.

When we tend to place an entire group under a fear area, isn't that a phobia?..whether it is biphobia or poz-phobia, should we on this site try to keep an open mind and on guard about which of us may be writing phobic comments? Are all fears irrational? No, I don't think so but generalizations and placing all people with the same sexuality or in the case of poz-phobia, condition need to be examined not poo poo 'd off as nonsense and Chicken Little statements.

Would you have sex with a Poz person? Would you date them? I'd have concerns. I'd rather not. If someone approached you for sex and told you that they were HIV+, would you? I'd have some phobic issues to resolve. Would I still have the same phobic reaction about eating off an HIV persons dinnerware? I know rationally that I shouldn't just as I did think(unproven at the point in time) but I had some fears. I didn't reject my friend but I didn't want to have sex with him either. It was too unknown then.

[DuckiesDarling]

Hey Tenni, might want to actually google the definition of a phobia, an IRRATIONAL FEAR. I'd say not wanting to come down with a condition that can and does KILL people to be completely RATIONAL.

[slipnslide]

Okay seriously... people so lightly throw around the phobia label but for goodness' sake look at what you are saying POZphobic??? Who in their right mind would actually want to be burdened with HIV? Yes, I said RIGHT Mind. I will not deny there are some "bug chasers" out there, but to call someone who simply says they do not want to pick up ANY STDS including HIV/AIDS a phobic is just asinine. Most people who have HIV/Aids didn't want it, they got it accidentally, but I guess if one of them wanted to not be infected with another strain or to pass it on to anyone else they'd also be considered "phobic" I am getting phobophobic at this point, not everything is a phobia, it's simply a life choice. Don't be like Chicken Little or soon no one will believe anyone claiming anyone is "phobic"

You're just a phobic-phobic! :)

[slipnslide]

Actually, the whole idea of avoiding fat because fat leads to heart disease and coronary issues has ALWAYS been known to be cut from whole cloth..it's BS. And known so sinc Ansel Keyes foisted his rancid ideas on the world. Aim for a better analogy that DOESN'T make you look so...well, I'll let you find the adjective.

Yeah, I'm going to take medical advice from some guy in a pirate shirt.

Why don't you sing a song for everyone? lol.

[tenni]

Phobia is also an aversion as well as a fear. Is it rational to still have an aversion towards people with HIV? Is it rationale to fear sex with them? I don't know but I think that some HIV activitists are stating that it is an irrational fear to think that you will get HIV if you have sex with an HIV person. I may be wrong but I am reading statements about HIV people having to deal with Pos-phobia. I admit that I had pos-phobia with my friend over twenty years ago even though I resisted my fears, they were there. Times have changed and I just don't know if it is now irrationale to fear having sex with an HIV+ person?

Perhaps, we may all want to re examine our own fear and decide if it is a rational or irrational fear?

But more importantly and specific to this thread, it is our own biphobia and other posters' biphobia that we need to be on guard on this site to prevent or discuss.

[DuckiesDarling]

oh look Merriam Webster says:

Definition of PHOBIA: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation





so.. no where in there is also an aversion. Tenni, you can twist all you want but it still makes no sense whatsoever to label someone making the life choice to not expose themselves to HIV/AIDS Pozphobic. It doesn't exist. It's not an irrational or illogical or inexplicable fear, it's just common sense. Which I'm beginning to think is not so common.

[Long Duck Dong]

I always thought that it was a choice who a person had sex with.... not a phobia if they choose not to have sex with some people........

homophobic, bi phobic, les phobic, poz phobic etc..... are fast losing their meaning as a irrational fear or dislike of people based around misconception, misunderstanding, disillusion and fast becoming a insult to be used against people that says anything that somebody doesn't like......

my mother is not homophobic, bi phobic etc.... shes just a opinionated, hypocritical bitch with many of her remarks about how gay males are sex offenders, not heteros.... and she uses the bible and her faith and belief as a support for her opinion.... but she would be labelled as homophobic, bi phobic etc, which is incorrect as she will talk with my flatmate openly about things without any mention of her true feelings

my stepfather is none the wiser that my flatmate is gay, but my stepfather is homophobic, he thinks that all gay males are shirt lifters, poofers, fags etc and would distance himself from the flatmate if my stepfather knew that he was gay..... and my mother tried to hide the fact that my stepfather is homophobic from me, and the fact that my flatmate is gay from my stepfather.......

there is a difference between a phobia and a obnoxious nasty opinion.....

[æonpax]

Isn't it amazing? The idea that being poz-phobic in sexual partners is a bad thing is my favourite. It's like saying that cutting out fatty foods is just for coronary-disease-phobic people and they're bad.
`

To me, being HIV-phobic is like treating a person with HIV as a pariah. I have had and still do have HIV positive friends that I love. One should treat all people with courtesy and respect.

However, to be quite honest, I would not be inclined to just jump into bed with anyone who is HIV positive. Does that make me phobic? Naw, just careful and if that is in error, it is error on the side of caution. Prudence.

[tenni]

re: post 109 & 111
from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/phobia

pho·bi·a (fb-) n.
1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.

Pissing contest #05.04.2012fu ;)

a·ver·sion (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-vûrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifzhhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifn, -shhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifn) n.
1. A fixed, intense dislike; repugnance: formed an aversion to crowds.
2. The cause or object of such a feeling.
3. The avoidance of a thing, situation, or behavior because it has been associated with an unpleasant or painful stimulus.
4. Obsolete The act of turning away or averting.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aversion

So, the question remains whether it is irrational to fear all bisexual men and reject them all as potential partners without exploring it on a case by case basis? Is avoiding a situation where you may have sex with a bisexual man an aversionary tactic or realistic, non discriminatory and practical?

The same might hold true for pos-phobia.

[void()]

Bias and prejudice many times comes from certain beliefs that are apparently true and in this case, it’s the belief that bisexuals are wanton in their pursuit of sexual self gratification.

You say many times, which leaves room for exception. Appreciate the attempted consideration being suggested. Still find fault with a broad and sweeping generalization.

Simply due to being a bisexual male, according to this belief, I am seen as some highly promiscuous fool lacking common sense. At least that is how the expression appears to me. I am no where near the 'truth' the belief posits.

Yes, I can admit to perhaps two or three incidents in being rather hasty and not thinking with the brain. I had a few great f***s for the sake of f***ing and enjoyed them without regard of consequences. If honest I think a larger part of the general population has done that. There, enjoy that generalization. :)

The point however, not all bisexual men are foolish promiscuous nitwits. I too have learned it is better to be highly selective and be cautious in having lovers. Fortune spared me diseases but I don't push the luck. It's no longer worth a good f***, unless it is good one with someone known and trusted.

Your idea of a belief here evokes umbrage. I do not like it one bit, although I can understand your arrival to such. And no this is not an issue that in any way reflects upon you as a woman, nor does that reflect upon my dislike of the idea. Hell, a man may have presented the same idea. I would still not like it.

Please do not leave the site because I disagree with an idea you have. I can agree to maturely disagree with someone. And simply because I do disagree does not end the world. I disagreed with a war in Iraq, it still happened, still disagree that it was a 'good idea'. The world has not ended yet.

[DuckiesDarling]

re: post 139
from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/phobia
pho·bi·a (fb-)
n.
1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.

Pissing contest #05.04.2012 fu ;)

a·ver·sion (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-vûrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifzhhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifn, -shhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifn)n.1. A fixed, intense dislike; repugnance: formed an aversion to crowds.

2. The cause or object of such a feeling.
3. The avoidance of a thing, situation, or behavior because it has been associated with an unpleasant or painful stimulus.

4. Obsolete The act of turning away or averting.

So, the question remains whether it is irrational to fear all bisexual men and reject them all as potential partners without exploring it on a case by case basis. Is avoiding a situation where you may have sex with a bisexual man an aversionary tactic or realistic, non discriminatory and practical?

The same might hold true for pos-phobia. Is it a rational or irrational fear?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aversion

No, Tenni, FU. The bottom line is even an aversion to getting AIDS is not something that makes someone POZphobic, it's not IRRATIONAL. The key is it must be as in your first definition. PERSISTENT, ABNORMAL(which self preservation is not abnormal) and IRRATIONAL, which as I have stated not wanting to die is not irrational. So go piss somewhere else.

[tenni]

"The point however, not all bisexual men are foolish promiscuous nitwits." post #113

There is nothing wrong with being promiscuous or having non monogamous casual sex partners.

Not all promiscuous bisexual men are "foolish" or "nitwits" about our sexual activity. I'm inclined to think that the monogamist who "has an accident" and a one night stand may be more inclined to be "foolish" and act like a "nitwick" with errors in cautionary decisions. The skilled promiscuous bisexual man may be much more in tune with who to play with and whom to avoid.

This is a major moral thinking flaw in some monogamous bisexual's beliefs and thinking. The same bigotry exists in the mainstream as well.

[darkeyes]

"The point however, not all bisexual men are foolish promiscuous nitwits." post #113

There is nothing wrong with being promiscuous or having non monogamous casual sex partners.

Not all promiscuous bisexual men are "foolish" or "nitwits" about our sexual activity. I'm inclined to think that the monogamist who "has an accident" and a one night stand may be more inclined to be "foolish" and act like a "nitwick" with errors in cautionary decisions. The skilled promiscuous bisexual man may be much more in tune with who to play with and whom to avoid.

This is a major moral thinking flaw in some monogamous bisexual's beliefs and thinking. The same bigotry exists in the mainstream as well.
There is nothing wrong with being promiscuous at all, tenni, I am with u on that... I hate the term "promiscuous" because it infers an immorality that really we should have allowed to pass by and die long ago.. that those who are 'promiscuous" should be careful and cautious with the expression of that life goes without saying and if I was less careful when younger than I should have been, I was lucky enough to get away with it for the most part.. a dose of thrush being the worst in the way of contagion and a couple of incidents which brought home to me my own mortality and vulnerability which I would rather not repeat tyvm, and if I ever again pursue a life of "promiscuity" I shall indeed proceed with greater caution. and no sexual lifestyle.. no lifetswyle for that matter.. is entirely without risk.. even monogamy as we know.. whether it be a gay, les, bi or str8 relationship.. we just tootle through life trying to enjoy it s best we can and exercise in all our relationships the degree of freedom and caution we believe works best and is necessary for us...

There are flaws in all our beliefs, tenni.. we are human and flaws are something we cannot entirely eliminate from our thinking.. but what is a flaw to you is not to another.. sex and the expression and enjoyment of it is one of the greatest gifts we have.. how we enjoy and express it is up to us individuals, and we will ll do it in our own way... those who wish to enjoy the whole spectrum of human sexual experience by being "promiscuous" isn't something we should half heartedly support by using the word a word like "promiscuous", because whether we like it or not it infers less than wholehearted approval of the rights of human beings to enjoy their sexual experience in their own way.. I realise that this isn't quite what the thread is about although this is a part of it.. whether it is about bisexuals or str8 peeps gays isn't relevant.. in my own way, tenni babes, I support u in what u said with maybe a little slant of me own... if u don't like the way I've done it.. shoot me...;)

[æonpax]

You say many times, which leaves room for exception. Appreciate the attempted consideration being suggested. Still find fault with a broad and sweeping generalization.
1) Simply due to being a bisexual male, according to this belief, I am seen as some highly promiscuous fool lacking common sense. At least that is how the expression appears to me. I am no where near the 'truth' the belief posits.
2) Yes, I can admit to perhaps two or three incidents in being rather hasty and not thinking with the brain. I had a few great f***s for the sake of f***ing and enjoyed them without regard of consequences. If honest I think a larger part of the general population has done that. There, enjoy that generalization. :)
3) The point however, not all bisexual men are foolish promiscuous nitwits. I too have learned it is better to be highly selective and be cautious in having lovers. Fortune spared me diseases but I don't push the luck. It's no longer worth a good f***, unless it is good one with someone known and trusted.
4) Your idea of a belief here evokes umbrage. I do not like it one bit, although I can understand your arrival to such. And no this is not an issue that in any way reflects upon you as a woman, nor does that reflect upon my dislike of the idea. Hell, a man may have presented the same idea. I would still not like it.
5) Please do not leave the site because I disagree with an idea you have. I can agree to maturely disagree with someone. And simply because I do disagree does not end the world. I disagreed with a war in Iraq, it still happened, still disagree that it was a 'good idea'. The world has not ended yet.


1) While not put as you phrased it, that is a commonly held belief. Is it your wish to prove it isn’t or that it is a myth? You will note I never used the word “All” simply because it does not apply. Not “all” bisexuals live up to the expectations urban myths expound. Me simply stating the myth exists and what it is does not mean I agree with it, which you apparently and erroneously believe.

2) You are correct. All myths, gossip and urban legends tend to overtly generalize but that’s what they exist for…until someone corrects it. There are millions of bisexual males in the US, each with their own unique experiences and beliefs that cannot be generalized.

3) No one said they were…good use of hyperbole though.

4) “Your idea of a belief here evokes umbrage”. – I had to read that phrase a few times to try to understand what you are trying to say and I have to admit, you lost me. However, I will say if something offends you, attempt to change it.

5) You severely overestimate yourself.

[darkeyes]

5) You severely overestimate yourself.He does, æon, ur right.. but I can't help but like the silly sausage.. he makes me think a great deal.. even if it is only "Wtf r u prattlin' on 'bout now, Voidie?" *laffs*

[PeterNZ]

plus my perspective of bi visibility comes from being out in the community and one of the people that helps run and own LGBT businesses and is constantly finding that gay, les, trans and straight people are fine to work with, they are more realistic in what they want and how to get it... but most of the bi people are a pain in the ass to work with....IE the nz bi community web site, still 3 years out of dates.... the NZ gay NZ is updated every day ( nearly ).... and the bisexual community can not keep making excuses, cos they are the ones with the power to make a difference.... IE DJones in this site, created the NY BI group and social meeting group.... he saw a need, he put it out there and made it work.........and that makes bis just that lil more visible to people........ I am well aware of what I said and posted, very well aware, and as I have said before, if BISEXUALS stopped making excuses and stated making what they want in their communities, a reality, then it would be the bi community making a difference... instead of complaining...... hell me and my friends are working towards buying a bar in my town in order to get the LGBT a social bar to meet at.... if the bisexuals do not want to use it, fine, but the support from the les, gay, hetero and trans people has been excellent and so we are catering towards them as they are the ones that will keep the bar open.... and yes its a LGBT bar... bisexuals inclusive... not a gay bar where bisexuals go..... but it will be if the bi community continue to remain silent and complain like they have been doing..... once again, the biggest spearhead of the whole thing, is a asexual natured, intersexed bisexual.... the person that granted civil union rights to the LGBT was a closeted lesbian asexual female....... its starting to get to the point that the asexual community is doing more for bisexuals in my country than the bisexuals themselves..... I'm from NZ and despite the lies you're posting about bisexuals and the LGBT community here in NZ there are actually a lot of out bisexuals like myself, and bisexual political, social, and discussion groups and we are very visible. Asexuals have not done anything for LGBT rights or bisexual rights here in NZ, especially you. I'm from NZ and have been out as bisexual for decades and I have no idea who you are and you do come across as a wanker, liar, loser, and one who loves to talk out of his arse about bisexuals, biphobia from the larger gay male population/LGBT community, and LGBT people in NZ. Actually our Parliament passed the LGBT Civil unions act. Labour party cabinet minister David Benson-Pope was a big help in getting it passed here.

[void()]

While this statement may be controversial, I find myself justifiably shying away from any bisexual male when it comes to sex. The risks of getting STD/HIV is just too great. The key here is promoting “safe sex” and while even that is not fool proof, it is a start.

This is not saying you believe it?

I also understood you did not say all. The sweeping generalization behind the bias is offensive of those whom do not fit the typecasting. It offended me, I said something. No I don't think I overestimate myself. It seems in another thread someone else is bothered enough to leave due to me pointing out some obvious facts. Then again, I am probably following the stereotypical crazy person's reaction and misunderstanding them. I get so fucking tired of stereotypes,biases,labels ... people are people..

As to doing something about the belief, I'll keep not fitting the typecast and living as best able. People learn by example.

[Long Duck Dong]

I'm from NZ and despite the lies you're posting about bisexuals and the LGBT community here in NZ there are actually a lot of out bisexuals like myself, and bisexual political, social, and discussion groups and we are very visible. Asexuals have not done anything for LGBT rights or bisexual rights here in NZ, especially you. I'm from NZ and have been out as bisexual for decades and I have no idea who you are and you do come across as a wanker, liar, loser, and one who loves to talk out of his arse about bisexuals, biphobia from the larger gay male population/LGBT community, and LGBT people in NZ. Actually our Parliament passed the LGBT Civil unions act. Labour party cabinet minister David Benson-Pope was a big help in getting it passed here.

all I see is a lot of hot air......

I do not live in auckland.... I do not even live in the north island... so I am not surprised that you have never heard of me.... but then again, I have not said my name either in the site..... so saying you are from NZ, means nothing.... as there is more to NZ than auckland

yes I know that the auckland LGBT community is visible, they make up the majority of the NZ LGBT community and auckland is where most of the LGBT parades happen.....

it was not the LGBT civil union bill... the bill applies equally and to all nz'ers. regardless of sexuality... and it was mainly the opponents to it that called it the gay marriage bill,. the LGBT civil union bill etc etc

it was helen clark herself that stated in a interview that she was asexual

helen was closely associated to a group of pro feminist, lesbian, womans rights advocates when she was young... and helen clark was the prime minister of NZ when the bill was passed.....some of her friends from the old days were the ones that really started the push for LGBT rights..... david benson pope was part of the labour government that passed the law, as he did the reading in parliament of the bill..... however, it was a conscience vote for the MPs, not a party vote......

you are a prime example of JAFFA cos you are showing the same BS attitude of JAFFA's, * there is nothing south of the bombay hills and the rest of NZ doesn't exist *

btw, auckland is spelt auCkland, not aukland.....you may want to post in the site feedback forum and point it out to drew cos its listed incorrectly on your profile.... something I would have thought a person from auckland NZ would have noticed and mentioned already

[æonpax]

This is not saying you believe it?

I also understood you did not say all. The sweeping generalization behind the bias is offensive of those whom do not fit the typecasting. It offended me, I said something. No I don't think I overestimate myself. It seems in another thread someone else is bothered enough to leave due to me pointing out some obvious facts. Then again, I am probably following the stereotypical crazy person's reaction and misunderstanding them. I get so fucking tired of stereotypes,biases,labels ... people are people..

As to doing something about the belief, I'll keep not fitting the typecast and living as best able. People learn by example.
`

Perhaps if you'd actually look into the topic you'd find that much of this really isn't typecast and myth. There are studies and research you know, easily and freely available to anyone, who can read, that spell out in no uncertain terms the increased probability of contracting HIV via a bisexual. Take my hand, let me show you something.....

Let's start with this link, http://bit.ly/ICiSgZ I Googled up a list of studies, research and articles. most key on the bisexual factor in regards to the transmission of HIV. At the top are scholarly articles and below, research articles. While you read through this vast library, you will come across the phrase, "The Bisexual Bridge." ( http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/fulltext/2004/07230/the_bisexual_bridge_revisited___sexual_risk.19.asp x )That directly refers to the spread of HIV, by bisexuals, to other facets of our society. You seem to be laboring under the misconception I'm making things up as I go along and I hate to say this, but you are very wrong.

I'm bisexual. If you'll look back at my posts here, I also mentioned that I noted an increase in negativity towards me by lesbians becuase they look at me as higher risk for HIV, because I'm bisexual. Regardless of your umbrage or the umbrage of this entire site for what I said, the fact still remains, there is a common perception (right or wrong) about bisexuals being HIV carriers...especially males.

What is not known, with any certitude, is the amount of bisexuals whom are actually HIV carriers. All these studies, etc, refer to possibilities and probabilities with no numbers. It could be 5% or 75%, no one knows or is even guessing. Considering contracting HIV means death, who in their right mind want's to gamble with that? It's human nature to recoil at even the slightest hint of possible harm.

If it hasn't occurred to you, this is a "Call To Action" by bisexuals, not a time for fearing to bring up the subject becuase some uninformed people will call you names. It's real and burying one's head in the sand accomplishes nothing. I for one can think of no better place to bring this up than a site dedicated for bisexuals. I happen to love my sexual brothers and hiding this issue is not my way of showing it.

[BiDaveDtown]

snipped for brevity... You're the only person burying their head in the sand aeonpax. Your posts full of fear mongering and internalized biphobia towards bisexual men are not doing anyone any good. People know all about HIV and how to have safer sex. Your completely flawed logic that if you avoid sex with bisexual men that you won't get HIV or you'll be less likely to get HIV just proves how little you actually know. Then again apparently you got pregnant when you were a teenager so safer sex wasn't on your mind then and you didn't practice it then. You would not remember this but in the mid 1980s people actually thought that if you were a bisexual man that you would infect straight women with HIV and that if you were a bisexual woman that you'd infect lesbians with HIV. This was later proven to be false and people who had the mentality that HIV was or still is something that only gay and bisexual men need to worry about are in denial and are not living in reality. There are a lot of hetero people who are HIV+ and hetero men and women infect each other, and yes lesbian women can also infect each other with HIV. You're doing nothing but showing how you're biphobic and are bigoted towards both men and women of your own sexuality by having a mid 1980s mentality about HIV/AIDS and by claiming that bisexual men are somehow vectors of infection for HIV to everyone they have sex with. You're also showing how you know little or nothing at all about how to have safer sex as it's possible to have safer sex with someone who is HIV+ and you will not get infected by them or if you are HIV+ you will not infect them.

[æonpax]

<snip>

Gimme a break. I come armed with facts, what do you have? Your opinion and that's it. Deny reality all you want...stomp your feet and call me names but that changes nothing. Self-righteous ignorance will be the death of us all.

Take a look-see at this study, that's if you care to gain some knowledge - Differences in HIV-risk behavior of bisexual men in their relationships with men and women - http://www.scielosp.org/pdf/rsp/v41s2/en_5956.pdf

[void()]

Perhaps if you'd actually look into the topic you'd find that much of
this really isn't typecast and myth. There are studies and research
you know, easily and freely available to anyone, who can read, that
spell out in no uncertain terms the increased probability of
contracting HIV via a bisexual. Take my hand, let me show you
something.

You do not know that I have not read the same research. Often, like to
haunt the CDC site as well as a few others regarding health. It is
nice to be kept abreast of things which are vital.

I am not arguing that you have not researched. I am arguing that the
bias espoused is wrong. Yell fire in a crowded theater and watch the
panic ensue! Rattle the saber of fear loud, then deny all any plan on
how to make it to an exit safely.

I disagree with causing alarm for the sake of alarm. If you are
sounding an alarm, have a valid plan of action to offer. More on that
below.


What is not known, with any certitude, is the amount of bisexuals whom
are actually HIV carriers. All these studies, etc, refer to
possibilities and probabilities with no numbers. It could be 5% or
75%, no one knows or is even guessing. Considering contracting HIV
means death, who in their right mind want's to gamble with that? It's
human nature to recoil at even the slightest hint of possible harm.

This still does not cause me to think, "oh gee, the easy way is to
think everyone is guilty and shut everyone out of my life out of
fear." And that is what I see this bias as doing.


If it hasn't occurred to you, this is a "Call To Action" by bisexuals,
not a time for fearing to bring up the subject becuase some uninformed
people will call you names. It's real and burying one's head in the
sand accomplishes nothing. I for one can think of no better place to
bring this up than a site dedicated for bisexuals. I happen to love my
sexual brothers and hiding this issue is not my way of showing it.

Fine. Exactly what are we supposed to do? Support eugenics or
castration? Stop living?

Every day research proves out living causes dying. So do we stop
living? I'm not burying my head in the sand, but not able to grasp
what exactly one is to do in this case. A call to action, sure, what
are we doing again?

Are we supposed to educate ourselves, maybe? Be aware? Not following
your train of thought, only seing your bias as leading to fear
mongering. Are we to be afraid of living?

Death is a natural part of living, always been, always will be. Sorry,
refuse to be afraid of death, guess that means not being afraid of life
either. Your bias says "many bi men carry HIV, which kills, that is
scary." Then, you use that to justify throwing the baby out with the
bath water, at least as far as I read from your posts.

I consider you far more intelligent than that. So, if you do have a
call to action, you would also have an action to present. If it is not
throwing out the baby, what is it?

[slipnslide]

You're the only person burying their head in the sand aeonpax. Your posts full of fear mongering and internalized biphobia towards bisexual men are not doing anyone any good. People know all about HIV and how to have safer sex. Your completely flawed logic that if you avoid sex with bisexual men that you won't get HIV or you'll be less likely to get HIV just proves how little you actually know.

Wow! Even when she lays out the studies and the data you're still in denial. Then you have the nerve to claim *she* has her head in the sand?

[slipnslide]

Death is a natural part of living, always been, always will be. Sorry,
refuse to be afraid of death, guess that means not being afraid of life
either. Your bias says "many bi men carry HIV, which kills, that is
scary."

Wait, now you're defeatist and taking the "well I'm gonna die anyway so who cares?" retort?

[æonpax]

{snipped for brvity}

You sound like a nihilist.

[PeterNZ]

Just because you have sex with a bisexual man it does not mean that he's A-going to be HIV+ or that most bisexual men are HIV+ while people of other sexual orientations and genders are not HIV+. B-That even if he happens to be HIV+ and you're having safer sex that you'll actually get infected. C-Only someone who like the original poster aeonpax is biphobic, poz-phobic, and does not practise safer sex in their own private life or actually know how to have safer sex would claim such BS with an outdated AIDS paranoia 80s mentality about HIV/STDs and bisexual men while pretending that she's not bigoted, biphobic, or pozphobic at all as she is. Her attitudes of 'One of my friends is HIV+ so I can't be poz-phobic...' or 'I really care about bisexual men...' is your typical reaction and argument that a bigot always takes and falls back on when people call them out on their bigotry and completely flawed and failed logic. Fortunately most of us here are not fooled by her BS and see it for what it is and that's bigotry, paranoia, and hate masked as compassion.

[slipnslide]

Fortunately most of us here are not fooled by her BS and see it for what it is and that's bigotry, paranoia, and hate masked as compassion.

Read through the thread, "most" people understand what she is saying, and agree.

The only people who don't agree then show evidence of living high-risk lifestyles.

Plus, she's clearly WAY smarter than you so may you could learn something from her instead of arguing with her.

[æonpax]

Read through the thread, "most" people understand what she is saying, and agree.
The only people who don't agree then show evidence of living high-risk lifestyles. Plus, she's clearly WAY smarter than you so may you could learn something from her instead of arguing with her.

I don't pay trolls any attention.

[tenni]

Thanks for the interesting study presented as post 124 rather than the OP. In this study there is validity to the results that a significant number of self identifying bisexual men do behave in more high risk behaviour when it comes to penetrative sex in Brazil.

Point one Behaviour in defining sexuality
The study only examines penetrative sex and not oral sex in defining the sexualities categories. Do all bisexual men practice anal sex with same sex partners with every sexual encounter? Anal sex is strongly connected to the transmission of HIV but is it a determining factor in defining a sexuality?

It makes some sense to me that if you are studying HIV transmission to factor in anal sex but not as a study of sexual behaviour over all. I find that the majority of bisexual men do not practice anal sex with casual partners(male or female) but many bisexual men talk about it. They either want to try it (bottoming more than topping) or fantasize about it but many do not do it as their main expression of same sex action. In my society, I find oral sex to be a prime interest with fewer men wanting anal sex with male partners. I find that a larger number of bisexual men that I communicate with discuss oral sex more than anal sex as a desired goal for their sexual practice. It can not be denied that some bisexual men do practice anal sex with other men. This study indicates that those who self identify as bisexual and practice anal sex have less frequency of using condoms in BRAZIL.

Point two bias of Cultural Factor on defining sexuality
p7
"Besides using sexual behavior as a defining criterion, the present study also considered self-reported sexual identity to characterize the study population."

The issue of this type of research raises interesting questions for me that are sometimes touched upon on this site. Which is more valid in defining a sexuality? Self reporting or behaviour?

The question is whether the self reported bisexual exhibits behaviour of that sexuality or homosexuality. The CULTURAL FACTOR is another item that may make the results cloudy. The role of machismo in the Bazilian and other cultures (ie Saudi Arabia) as to who is a bisexual and who is a homosexual in denial are not to be dismissed too quickly.

The report states that those who self identified as bisexual primarily had sex with men rather than women (57.%). Of those who self indentified as homosexual, 97% reported having sex primarily with men and occasionally with women.

In a society where maschismo plays a significant role of acceptance the study ignored this factor in analysing the results. It is debatable but do bisexual men primarily have sex with men rather than women? Do those who are self indentified homosexual have sex with women as well on going after self identifying as homosexual? Is this a cultural factor that the study ignored? The study should be repeated in several other cultures where maschismo is less dominant in the society.

The report makes some reference to cultural factors in the study.
page 7
"Results of some studies11,* have indicated that higher vulnerability of bisexual men to HIV infection compared to homosexual men can be related to the social construction of masculinity"

"It is probable that at least part of the population designated as bisexual still use concealment strategies in order to avoid discrimination and isolation in their microsocial environment, as well as verbal and physical violence, thereby maintaining their reference to the social construct of hegemonic masculinity."

[darkeyes]

Just because you have sex with a bisexual man it does not mean that he's A-going to be HIV+ or that most bisexual men are HIV+ while people of other sexual orientations and genders are not HIV+. B-That even if he happens to be HIV+ and you're having safer sex that you'll actually get infected. C-Only someone who like the original poster aeonpax is biphobic, poz-phobic, and does not practise safer sex in their own private life or actually know how to have safer sex would claim such BS with an outdated AIDS paranoia 80s mentality about HIV/STDs and bisexual men while pretending that she's not bigoted, biphobic, or pozphobic at all as she is. Her attitudes of 'One of my friends is HIV+ so I can't be poz-phobic...' or 'I really care about bisexual men...' is your typical reaction and argument that a bigot always takes and falls back on when people call them out on their bigotry and completely flawed and failed logic. Fortunately most of us here are not fooled by her BS and see it for what it is and that's bigotry, paranoia, and hate masked as compassion.
I don't have sex with lots of people for lots of reasons.. I like them, want to keep them as friends, a couple are even HIV, but because I choose not to sleep with them doesn't mean I am phobic 'bout them and their virus.. I have a good friend who, once in drink gets violent.. I like him, want to remain friends with him but I am not phobic 'bout him or his propensity to violence in drink.. it has already been pointed out that a phobia is an irrational fear and hatred of something... I have no irrational fear but take a cautious attitude about the circumstances and activities in which I am prepared to participate with my friend or indeed anyone else on this earth.. it is called caution.. and choice... and how much caution we exercise depends on what we know or believe we know from learning and our perception of people and the world around us. I am a lesbian and don't sleep with men.. I do not hate them and am certainly not phobic of them.. because a person decides how to live their life and do what they are prepared to do to enjoy that life and feel safe does not necessarily infer a phobia...

...and because we disagree on issues does not of itself infer phobia, it infers disagreement.. and very often those most vociferous in their accusations of phobia against others are among the most bigoted and phobic of all...

[PeterNZ]

The only people who don't agree then show evidence of living high-risk lifestyles. What high risk lifestyles? Only aeonpax herself has written about taking loads inside her vagina or her anus if she engages in anal sex. While the bisexual men who have posted do not engage in barebacking like this like she does. I have written about oral sex however I do not swallow and as far as HIV goes the risk of contracting HIV from any type of oral sex is extremely low. Despite what you believe and want to think, HIV is actually very difficult to get infected with if you're having safer sex correctly. Of course you probably think that all or most bisexual and gay men are HIV+ or you wish that we'd all seroconvert. I have no idea if aeonpax IVs drugs and shares rigs or if other people here do this. I personally have never IV'd anything but it would not be surprising if there were people here who have or once did IV drugs as this is way more common than people want to admit. Aeon we should not pay biphobic, pozphobic trolls with HIV paranoia such as yourself and others in the anti-sex crowd here any attention since they are showing how little they actually know about HIV, risk factors for HIV, and how to actually prevent HIV infection by having safer sex.

[Gearbox]

It beggars belief that in such 'scholarly articles' such as this: http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/fulltext/2004/07230/the_bisexual_bridge_revisited___sexual_risk.19.asp x , how the bisexual male is to blame for bb sex with women, and not BOTH the m&f involved. Where are the 'scholarly articles' about those women's behaviour problems?:rolleyes:

[slipnslide]

Of course you probably think that all or most bisexual and gay men are HIV+ or you wish that we'd all seroconvert.

Again, you're making shit up. No one came close to suggesting that.

It's just math:

(% chance of a MSM guy being HIV+)(risk of transmission) > (% chance of heterosexual guy being HIV+)(risk of transmission), for Western culture.

So since the left side is higher risk activity she's chosen to not have sex with them.

The retort here is usually "ya but anyone can have HIV". No one is denying that. The point is that a randomly selected member of the MSM community is more likely to be HIV+ than one from the heterosexual community.

More people get hit by cars walking on the street than walking on the sidewalk. Do people on the sidewalk ever get hit? Yes! But way less often than people walking on the street - so she's chosen to walk on the sidewalk.

[æonpax]

Thanks for the interesting study presented as post 124 rather than the OP. {snipped for brevity}

Statistically, not only does the government toss bisexuals with gays and lesbians but bisexual research seems to be hampered by the fact that few admit they are bisexual...especially males. This society is still ambivalent, if not hostile, about open bisexuality among males. This is the real problem.

[void()]

You sound like a nihilist.

Working toward stoic, thanks.

[æonpax]

Actually in Brazil and many other South American and Latin American countries this is NOT true. I have been to Brazil and many other countries in both South America and Central America and they are very LGBT friendly and know about bisexual men especially in Brazil. Do you actually believe that Brasilian people-as well as the Brasilian government or their scientists and doctors have never heard of bisexual men? LOL In Brazilian society and culture as well as other South American and Latin American cultures it's widely accepted that men can be bisexual. Way to try to divert attention from your own prejudices against bisexual men and HIV+ people, and try to distract everyone from your own misandry, biphobia, and pozpbobia. I agree with Gearbox that bisexual men are not to blame for HIV infections but both partners are since they're not having safer sex and are intentionally barebacking which will infect them with HIV or if the woman is HIV+ she'll infect the man or if he's already HIV+ give him another strain of HIV or reinfect him with the strain he has and mess up his medication regiment if he's on them.
`

Excellent response. Just to clear something up; no one...not me, not researchers, not anyone has blamed "bisexual men" for anything. This issue is complex but perhaps leads to the very crux of bisexuality, which is most people are, but getting past the obstacles of culture and religion may take some doing.

[tenni]

Post # 133
".and because we disagree on issues does not of itself infer phobia, it infers disagreement.."
I would agree with this first part of your statement. It depends upon the issue doesn't it now? Radical obvious biphobic issue statements are more likely to have a person perceived as (bi) phobic imo. Socializing with the group does not necessarily give you a "all go " card either. In this particular situation where some may be biphobic for refusing to consider having sex with all bisexual men is an indication of biphobia imo. The evidence is there that there is a risk for certain groups of bisexual men in certain cultures (Latino in the Brazilan study and Afro Americans in the study that Gear posted. What ever happened to asking for a potential partner to provide a medical report? Sure they might have unprotected sex after the report but as Gear mentions "taking personal responsibility" for who you have sex with rather than painting all bisexual men with the same brush as HIV and STI carriers. There is a strong indication that to do otherwise indicates a biphobic attitude imo.

"and very often those most vociferous in their accusations of phobia against others are among the most bigoted and phobic of all... "
This is a statement that I can not relate to at all. Are you accusing the minority (sexual bisexual men) of being phobic (type etc. Please?) or specific posters? Evidence?

[BiDaveDtown]

It's just math... Your attitude is actually very dangerous, sex-phobic and it's just showing how ignorant you are and how little you actually know about HIV, and how heterosexuals are getting infected with HIV. There are actually a lot of people in Western countries who are HIV+ and they are heterosexual and they were infected by other hets. Worldwide, the majority of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections result from heterosexual transmission. I am friends with heterosexuals who are HIV+ and they were infected by having unprotected sex with other heterosexual men or women. When they were HIV neg they all had the mentality that you are showing that "Oh if you have sex with only other heterosexual men or women you won't get HIV!" or "HIV is only something that bisexual and gay men, and IV drug users have to worry about. Statistically it's very rare that if you're heterosexual you'll ever have sex with someone who is HIV+!"

[tenni]

POst #135

Thanks Gear
It is an interesting article on a couple of levels:

1/ It is dated 2003 as the end of the study and indicated a reduction in the "bisexual bridge" affect. It would be beneficial to find out if nine years later whether this bisexual bridge affect to the "general population (heterosexual) increased further or continued to reduce.

2/ Sampling was done in a variety of gay-identified venues and in gay neighbourhoods of San Francisco. The subjects would more than not be those who identify closer with homosexuality. Many of the "invisible" bisexuals would not be found in this sampling location. There is a bias in the sampling pool to extend the conclusions to discuss a "bisexual bridge" to the "general population". (meaning heterosexuals?)

2b/ The sampling is a very large sample and that increases the validity for the subjects connected to the gay community sufficiently to visit gay venues and locations but not to extrapolate it to the bisexuals outside of this geographic area.

3/ It identified African Americans as more likely to identify as bisexual than gay. The factors as to why are not examined but it may be cultural (down low) factors within the black male population.

I agree with aeonpax that this is a complex issue. I would like to raise the point that bisexual men experience double discrimination both from the hetero and gay communities. Bisexual men experience a greater disdain than bisexual women.

[slipnslide]

Your attitude is actually very dangerous, sex-phobic and it's just showing how ignorant you are and how little you actually know about HIV, and how heterosexuals are getting infected with HIV. There are actually a lot of people in Western countries who are HIV+ and they are heterosexual and they were infected by other hets. Worldwide, the majority of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections result from heterosexual transmission. I am friends with heterosexuals who are HIV+ and they were infected by having unprotected sex with other heterosexual men or women. When they were HIV neg they all had the mentality that you are showing that "Oh if you have sex with only other heterosexual men or women you won't get HIV!" or "HIV is only something that bisexual and gay men, and IV drug users have to worry about. Statistically it's very rare that if you're heterosexual you'll ever have sex with someone who is HIV+!"

Is it that you don't understand what I posted? You're arguing against a point I never made.

Answer this one point, just this one, don't get all caught up in other ideas:

Where did I imply that (% chance of heterosexual guy being HIV+)(risk of transmission) = 0?

That's it. Just address that. That's what you're arguing against, you seem to think that someone made that point - now where was it that you read that?

[dafydd]

As a bisexual male I also shy away from sex with bisexual and gay men for the same reasons.

Thats gotta hurt. No man on man hard pumping sex. maybe think about condoms, then you could have a few bites out of those forbidden fruits.

D

[PeterNZ]

The point is that a randomly selected member of the MSM community is more likely to be HIV+ than one from the heterosexual community. This is not true. I have lived in places and traveled to places even in the Western world and even North America where there were a lot more heterosexual men and women who were HIV+ than there were bisexual and gay men who are HIV+. You've got your head in the sand or up your arse about HIV and how heterosexuals in your opinion are somehow less likely to have it than bisexual and gay men are. I'm sure you'll claim that using condoms and having safer sex doesn't work at preventing HIV, and that it's easy to get HIV even if you do use condoms and have safer sex.

[slipnslide]

Thats gotta hurt. No man on man hard pumping sex. maybe think about condoms, then you could have a few bites out of those forbidden fruits.

D

Haha! So far I'm okay.

[slipnslide]

This is not true. I have lived in places and traveled to places even in the Western world and even North America where there were a lot more heterosexual men and women who were HIV+ than there were bisexual and gay men who are HIV+.

As you can see from the other posts, you should provide EVIDENCE when making statements like this.


Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)1 (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm#ref1) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections. At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. Since the beginning of the US epidemic, MSM have consistently represented the largest percentage of persons diagnosed with AIDS and persons with an AIDS diagnosis who have died.. - http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

2% of the US population represents 50%+ of the HIV infections.


As of June 30, 2003, the Centre for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control (CIDPC) reported a cumulative total of 18,934 AIDS cases. Of the 17,136 adult male AIDS cases, 77.1% were attributed to MSM and an additional 5.0% were attributed to the MSM who also reported injecting drugs (MSM/IDU).1 -
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/epi_update_may_04/10-eng.php

Unless things have dramatically changed since 2003, over 75% of HIV infections in Canada were in the MSM community. There have been reports in the last year that this rate is actually increasing.


Where's your evidence again?

[slipnslide]

I'm sure you'll claim that using condoms and having safer sex doesn't work at preventing HIV, and that it's easy to get HIV even if you do use condoms and have safer sex.

Again, it's been covered many times - stop making up shit and attributing it to other people. You're speculating with zero evidence.

[darkeyes]

Post # 133
".and because we disagree on issues does not of itself infer phobia, it infers disagreement.."
I would agree with this first part of your statement. It depends upon the issue doesn't it now? Radical obvious biphobic issue statements are more likely to have a person perceived as (bi) phobic imo. Socializing with the group does not necessarily give you a "all go " card either. In this particular situation where some may be biphobic for refusing to consider having sex with all bisexual men is an indication of biphobia imo. The evidence is there that there is a risk for certain groups of bisexual men in certain cultures (Latino in the Brazilan study and Afro Americans in the study that Gear posted. What ever happened to asking for a potential partner to provide a medical report? Sure they might have unprotected sex after the report but as Gear mentions "taking personal responsibility" for who you have sex with rather than painting all bisexual men with the same brush as HIV and STI carriers. There is a strong indication that to do otherwise indicates a biphobic attitude imo.

"and very often those most vociferous in their accusations of phobia against others are among the most bigoted and phobic of all... "
This is a statement that I can not relate to at all. Are you accusing the minority (sexual bisexual men) of being phobic (type etc. Please?) or specific posters? Evidence?
Refusing to have sex with a bisexual man can mean biphobia but not necessarily.. I don't and won't have sex with any kind of man... it isn't phobia.. just lack of sexual attraction because of what I am.. I refuse to have sex with bisexual women too apart from one... but I do agree that by being a part of a group, people can still have certain difficulties about that group and its proclivities.. some of those difficulties may be phobic, although not necessarily so..

Regarding the second part of my statement, the current western national phobia's about Islam are an example of a huge number of people, often very powerful and influential people and political leaders accusing another group of people around the world of hating and fearing quite irrationally, and phobically twisting blindly their own phobia very publicly about those other people and in so doing bringing the world to a very dangerous state indeed.. many within Islam do just the same thing about the west.. but not all for at least just as many of us in the west and within Islam do not suffer the phobia which has brought us to such a clash of religions and cultures..so I have not said everyone who accuses others of phobia are phobic... much is perception and belief, some is even ignorance of what phobia really is.. but much is an irrational fear and hatred.. but it is a sad fact that many who accuse others of phobia do indeed have their own...

[tenni]

post #150

darkeyes
I sense a resistance to make a firm statement about biphobia coming from you. To constantly raise "exceptions" seems to water down certain realities imo.

Refusing to have sex with a specific bisexual man because he is bisexual but willing to have sex with men who say that they are heterosexual is biphobic.

You raise an interesting point (wild I admit) about lesbians who refuse to have sex with bisexual men as being possibly phobic. From a bisexual perspective, yes they are biphobic. Now bisexuals are not a mainstream reality but if they were, I can see such a belief as seen by bisexuals as phobic. The issue is whether refusing to have sex with bisexual men is rational or not. From a bisexual position of loving everyone regardless of their gender, it is phobic. (never to be accepted by the other sexualities though..te he) We bisexual are so marginalized that we wouldn't permit ourselves to examine it from a bisexual perspective. I can almost hear the words from those bisexuals who want to have no definitions or boundaries saying no that's ok. Lesbians have a right to refuse to have sex with bimen. It is not discrimination. They do not like it. ya da yada..lol

*disclaimer I'm being creatively fanciful (some may say silly and irrational) on examining the issue of lesbians refusing to have sex with bisexual men...but why not in jest ...no offense to lesbians who refuse to have sex with bisexual men just as long as they promise not to have sex with hetero men...lol Then again, maybe lesbians are malephobic...gays are femalephobic?....te he he ;)

** I can almost read darkeyes' rebutal..you crazy bugger...awkward sod...;)

5596

[darkeyes]

post #150

darkeyes
I sense a resistance to make a firm statement about biphobia coming from you. To constantly raise "exceptions" seems to water down certain realities imo.

Refusing to have sex with a specific bisexual man because he is bisexual but willing to have sex with men who say that they are heterosexual is biphobic.

You raise an interesting point (wild I admit) about lesbians who refuse to have sex with bisexual men as being possibly phobic. From a bisexual perspective, yes they are biphobic. Now bisexuals are not a mainstream reality but if they were, I can see such a belief as seen by bisexuals as phobic. The issue is whether refusing to have sex with bisexual men is rational or not. From a bisexual position of loving everyone regardless of their gender, it is phobic. (never to be accepted by the other sexualities though..te he) We bisexual are so marginalized that we wouldn't permit ourselves to examine it from a bisexual perspective. I can almost hear the words from those bisexuals who want to have no definitions or boundaries saying no that's ok. Lesbians have a right to refuse to have sex with bimen. It is not discrimination. They do not like it. ya da yada..lol

*disclaimer I'm being creatively fanciful (some may say silly and irrational) on examining the issue of lesbians refusing to have sex with bisexual men...but why not in jest ...no offense to lesbians who refuse to have sex with bisexual men just as long as they promise not to have sex with hetero men...lol Then again, maybe lesbians are malephobic...gays are femalephobic?....te he he ;)

** I can almost read darkeyes' rebutal..you crazy bugger...awkward sod...;)

5596
The fact that I do not desire sex with a bisexual or any man is nothing to do with phobia but what I sexually desire.. i sexually desire tall, attractive statuesque women, but do not desire very much women with boob jobs... I have no phobia about women with boob jobs it is just that I prefer women without... I sexually desire women who are gorgeous, less so those the have squee eyes.. I have no phobia about squee eyes, it is but what I prefer.. and my favourite colour of eyes on a woman (or a man for that matter) is that of my own or shades of it.. I have no phobia about blue or green eyes, grey or any other... it is what I find most attractive and is most like to stir the juices... I am particularly attracted to women who are Eurasian in origin, but less so to women of any race who have very tight curly hair.. I have no phobia about tight curly hair, it is to my eye and what attracts me less attractive.. preference does not of itself mean phobia.. whether that prefernce be aesthetic or sexual.. there is so much talk of biphobia on site these days half the time what people consider as biphobia is no such thing.. the phobias of some who are most mouthy about those of us who think more deeply bout phobia and what it is and is not is often apparent... because we think and feel differently about what constitutes a phobia does not mean we are phobic.. we just think differently... as to whether lesbians are biphobic from a bisexual point of view.. is a bisexual who is not attracted to a dog for his or her nookie phobic about dogs? Or does not wish to have incest phobic of his parents siblings or children? Is the disapproval and dislike of incest phobic? It can be, but it is not necessarily so... it is not necessarily irrational, and neither is it always a fear...

So as to bisexuals loving everyone regardless of gender... this is of course a patent nonsense.. u do not..bisexuals have their own discernments when it comes to those they will fuck.. they may be attracted to both genders and even the transgendered.. but they do not love and fuck them all because they have their own attractions within their sexuality range... not fancying and not wanting to shag ur next door neighbour because he or she isn't attractive to you is not a phobia as such is it? Not usually at least.. those of us u refer to as monosexuals have our own discernments and our own attractions.. they may be less wide ranging but those we don't wish to have sex with are not rejected out of phobia, any more than a bisexual's neighbour is because he or she doesn't turn u on...

There is far too much stupid talk of bi phobia.. it exists and it is very much to the fore in our society.. it exists among straight people and gay and lesbian people far too often.. it is about time people on this site began to analyse just what phobia is not what they think it is an before they open their cyber gobs and let their cyber bellies rumble and think more deeply about it before calling those of us who are not bisexual biphobic.. in fact bisexuals can even be biphobic and many are... an irrational fear and hatred of something, ie.. one's self and what one is, something many bisexuals feel, as do many homosexuals for that matter, is far too prevalent. There are often good reasons (well not good.. but reasons we all know well) why gays and bisexuals feel about themselves as they do,, eradicating that within the gay and bisexual community is as great a task as eradicating homophobia and biphobia from outside that community... and bisexuals, like gays and lesbians pay far too little attention to that while bandying about far too much attention to biphobia from external sources and lashing out with accusations of biphobia when they are often nothing of the kind..

...and u are an awkward sod.. but then hun... so am I!!!

[saturnmoon]

Wow, you have executed with excellence, you are more than right and very assertive in this matter. Better yet...... you meet some one even before you thinking of getting involved intimately you test your potential partner for " ALL STDs then you can hang yourself from the ceiling fun { mission impossible here ).

[æonpax]

The fact that I do not desire sex with a bisexual or any man is nothing to do with phobia but what I sexually desire.. i sexually desire tall, attractive statuesque women, but do not desire very much women with boob jobs... I have no phobia about women with boob jobs it is just that I prefer women without... I sexually desire women who are gorgeous, less so those the have squee eyes.. I have no phobia about squee eyes, it is but what I prefer.. and my favourite colour of eyes on a woman (or a man for that matter) is that of my own or shades of it.. I have no phobia about blue or green eyes, grey or any other... it is what I find most attractive and is most like to stir the juices... I am particularly attracted to women who are Eurasian in origin, but less so to women of any race who have very tight curly hair.. I have no phobia about tight curly hair, it is to my eye and what attracts me less attractive.. preference does not of itself mean phobia.. whether that prefernce be aesthetic or sexual.. there is so much talk of biphobia on site these days half the time what people consider as biphobia is no such thing.. the phobias of some who are most mouthy about those of us who think more deeply bout phobia and what it is and is not is often apparent... because we think and feel differently about what constitutes a phobia does not mean we are phobic.. we just think differently... as to whether lesbians are biphobic from a bisexual point of view.. is a bisexual who is not attracted to a dog for his or her nookie phobic about dogs? Or does not wish to have incest phobic of his parents siblings or children? Is the disapproval and dislike of incest phobic? It can be, but it is not necessarily so... it is not necessarily irrational, and neither is it always a fear...So as to bisexuals loving everyone regardless of gender... this is of course a patent nonsense.. u do not..bisexuals have their own discernments when it comes to those they will fuck.. they may be attracted to both genders and even the transgendered.. but they do not love and fuck them all because they have their own attractions within their sexuality range... not fancying and not wanting to shag ur next door neighbour because he or she isn't attractive to you is not a phobia as such is it? Not usually at least.. those of us u refer to as monosexuals have our own discernments and our own attractions.. they may be less wide ranging but those we don't wish to have sex with are not rejected out of phobia, any more than a bisexual's neighbour is because he or she doesn't turn u on...There is far too much stupid talk of bi phobia.. it exists and it is very much to the fore in our society.. it exists among straight people and gay and lesbian people far too often.. it is about time people on this site began to analyse just what phobia is not what they think it is an before they open their cyber gobs and let their cyber bellies rumble and think more deeply about it before calling those of us who are not bisexual biphobic.. in fact bisexuals can even be biphobic and many are... an irrational fear and hatred of something, ie.. one's self and what one is, something many bisexuals feel, as do many homosexuals for that matter, is far too prevalent. There are often good reasons (well not good.. but reasons we all know well) why gays and bisexuals feel about themselves as they do,, eradicating that within the gay and bisexual community is as great a task as eradicating homophobia and biphobia from outside that community... and bisexuals, like gays and lesbians pay far too little attention to that while bandying about far too much attention to biphobia from external sources and lashing out with accusations of biphobia when they are often nothing of the kind..

...and u are an awkward sod.. but then hun... so am I!!!
`

Fran, hon....

For the life of me, I can't rightly say I know or have ever met, a Lesbian who wants to have sex with any male; hetero, bi or gay. If she did, then she wouldn't be a Lesbian, she'd be Bisexual. Who'd of thought?

People who talk about a "lesbian" as a person who inherently (or secretly) wants to sexually be with a man, are pretty ignorant and perhaps, stupid. They seem to be the same people who also use the words "female lesbian" when describing lesbians. (I guess they also believe in male lesbians).

"Phobia" this or that, is being linguistically over used to a point where it has started to become "cliché". I do not have arachnophobia, for example, but I do have gummibearphobia.

Pax,

Joan



http://i.imgur.com/AaTku.jpg

[darkeyes]

`

Fran, hon....

For the life of me, I can't rightly say I know or have ever met, a Lesbian who wants to have sex with any male; hetero, bi or gay. If she did, then she wouldn't be a Lesbian, she'd be Bisexual. Who'd of thought?

People who talk about a "lesbian" as a person who inherently (or secretly) wants to sexually be with a man, are pretty ignorant and perhaps, stupid. They seem to be the same people who also use the words "female lesbian" when describing lesbians. (I guess they also believe in male lesbians).

"Phobia" this or that, is being linguistically over used to a point where it has started to become "cliché". I do not have arachnophobia, for example, but I do have gummibearphobia.

Pax,

Joan



http://i.imgur.com/AaTku.jpg


Quite babes.. over-used, under-thought, clichéd, hackneyed..unfortunately, sometimes we need to spell things out for peeps in words of 1 syllable...and my over-long, laboured, twisting (though not twisted) and exhausting attempt to get that point over will no doubt fall on deaf lug'oles and there will be more ranting of cyber gobs and rumbling of cyber-tums.. why? Cos 2 many refuse to think more deeply bout things than their own shallow preconceptions and misconceptions...

Surprised ya didn't snip it for brevity.. glad ya didn't tho.. sometimes do wonder what goes through peeps heads... have enuff trouble wiv wot goes through me own... hmmm hostage to fortune that prob... don't have a phobia bout it tho...:tongue:

[Gearbox]

I think biphobia has gone adrift here. Obviously Tenni was joking!

Nobody can consciously dictate their own aesthetic preferences in terms of sexual attraction in ANY sexuality or gender. We likes what we likes, in that sense. It has nothing to do with any kind of preconceived vindictive prejudice.
BUT to ostracise a person due to their sexuality alone, IS a conscious vindictive prejudice that involves thought out beliefs harboured about those of that sexuality.
Nobody is born a racist, for eg. It is a learned attribute! I'm quite sure the KKK could come on here and reel off dozens of reasons to discriminate against ethnic minorities. NONE of which relate to ALL of any particular race. Yet that's good enough for them. Makes them feel just.

The 'Bisexual bridge' not only takes us back to the 80's when Aids was a so called 'gay disease' and not a hetero matter, but also gives a very dangerous impression that if bisexuals didn't exist, hetero's would be free to prance about in the daisies fucking each other BB 24/7 without the slightest regard for any nasty gay HIV infections.
Male bisexuals are apparently the cause of messing up that little fairytale with the druggies because they are unscrupulous about their 'safer sex' habits (It takes 2 to BB btw).
It's utter bolox! The quickest 'bridge' to HIV+ is the fantasy of being safe to BB with casual sex partners of ANY sexuality or gender.

So yes, it's so very easy to be convinced that bi males are this and that, and by cutting them out of your sex life makes you 'safer'. BUT seeing as we don't ALL confess our sexual identity, it still leaves you at 'square one'.
It also makes all this BS rationalisation of biphobic prejudice a waste of time!:rolleyes:

[darkeyes]

It also makes all this BS rationalisation of biphobic prejudice a waste of time!:rolleyes:
But assessed, rationalised, reviewed and articulated properly it has to be before it causes real harm...

[Gearbox]

But assessed, rationalised, reviewed and articulated properly it has to be before it causes real harm...
Fran sweetheart, that all died a death from the getgo, and you can't build castles on sand.

For the sake of 'being rational' lets insist that all bi males are incapable of safer sex, and we're all riddled with HIV etc and hetero males are the complete opposite.
So Aeon makes the wise decision to stop having safer sex(?) with bi men.
How? How exactly is that doable, if meeting for casual sex with various males?
I'm not the only male who has sex with 'hetero' males I'm sure. And how many bi males would tell a woman he's bi if it's just for m/f sex?

NOPE! Not exactly overflowing with rationality is it? It's a desperate self delusion technique to push those nasty 'high risks' into a little box and push it all away IMO.
But as anybody should know by now, the ONLY high risk group that exists are the ones that think they are 'safer' having casual sex with hetero's or anybody else with genitals.:eek2:

[darkeyes]

Fran sweetheart, that all died a death from the getgo, and you can't build castles on sand.

For the sake of 'being rational' lets insist that all bi males are incapable of safer sex, and we're all riddled with HIV etc and hetero males are the complete opposite.
So Aeon makes the wise decision to stop having safer sex(?) with bi men.
How? How exactly is that doable, if meeting for casual sex with various males?
I'm not the only male who has sex with 'hetero' males I'm sure. And how many bi males would tell a woman he's bi if it's just for m/f sex?

NOPE! Not exactly overflowing with rationality is it? It's a desperate self delusion technique to push those nasty 'high risks' into a little box and push it all away IMO.
But as anybody should know by now, the ONLY high risk group that exists are the ones that think they are 'safer' having casual sex with hetero's or anybody else with genitals.:eek2:
*laffs*.. u rabbit on all round the houses ifya like Gear.. I was talkin' 'bout phobia.. God knows wot u were..:tongue::kiss: Cos I'll tell u this.. if this phobia thing isn't sorted, it isn't a case of buildin' castles on sand.. its a case of trying to swim our way out of quicksand...:eek2:

[tenni]

"I think biphobia has gone adrift here. Obviously Tenni was joking!"

Yes, I was joking ;) The more that I think about it though, I do recall reading the thoughts of some gay men on the topic of vaginas. They were not joking but some were terrified of vaginas and showed disrepect and well near hatred for vaginas. They may very well have fit under "vagina phobic" if not "femalephobic"..lol

darkeyes
The thing is that there are biphobic statements made on this site. Some may have been in jest while others may not fit a formula of overt biphobia they do have underlying thoughts of aversion towards bisexuals..even from bisexuals themselves. Don't be afraid if such things are discussed as to whether they are biphobic statements. Biphobia is hardly a mainstream PC position in the mainstream of overuse. You, yourself, have pointed out months ago (if not years) that bisexual men have a more difficult time that bisexual women due to biphobic attitudes.(although I don't think that you used the word "biphobic").

[dafydd]

You sound like a nihilist.

i think ive decided Void is not a nihilist but an existential depressive like moi. Although I find no meaning or logical order in things that doesn't mean I'm not constantly searching for it. Nihilists have accepted their (non)fate. I want one last look around the house to find it before I have to go.

[dafydd]

Normally i don't disagree with G, basically because he's really great in bed and i don't want it to stop..and i have loose morals...

but G isn't into wallflowers... he likes to be challenged



BUT to ostracise a person due to their sexuality alone, IS a conscious vindictive prejudice that involves thought out beliefs harboured about those of that sexuality.


Prejudice and discrimination is not always a thought-out, conscious or vindictive act. Many people are prejudice without really realising it, or examining their thought processes as to why they believe what they do.
Not every homophobe can understand the logical reasons for their homophobia...they only know that the idea of homosexuality doesn't 'feel right'..that it's 'just not natural'. IT's often why there is so much queer bashing, because the sense of 'wrongness' that homophobes feel about LGBT people is not something they can articulate rationally, and often explodes in violence (this is not because they are thick..but because their ideas and opinions are utterly, molded by a society - and through childhood- that portray LGBT as deviants - if LGBT people are porttrayed at all.

A child in this climate has as much choice in growing up non-homophobic as a child of practicing Muslim parents in say, Jordan has a choice to grow up non-Muslim. We are the product of our times/society/parents and by the time we are able to assert some independence of thought and judgement in such issues..the programming has already been done.

So a lot of homophobia/biphobia is passively passed on through generations without any real logic or reason or explanation of why two men or two women shouldn't have sex other than the fact that 'it's not natural'. As much as spiders are to be feared, heights are to be avoided, and waklng up to find youself in a coffin in the dark ..is cause for concern.

For many people who exhibit homophobic/biphobic behaviours.. it is simply the reaction to the reversal of a moral imperative that has been instilled in them since birth (morals which they had no choice but to learn and believe).


Nobody is born a racist, for eg. It is a learned attribute!

Humans are biologically designed to fear that which is different....it kept us alive when we were hobbling around the plains of africa. Mummy cromag and daddy cromag loved cromag junior very much. Lots of dangerous animals out there..and wild things...and swamps with croccodiles in. Important to let cromag junior know to keep away from anything that looks different or it might eat you. Cromag junior listens to mum and dad..and believes what they say... and wants to stay alive and so avoids anything that doesn't look similar and runs away. When cromag junior grows up...instead of running..because he's trying to impress his cromag sweetheart...when he sees something that looks different.. he bashes it with a mammoth bone... shows his suitablity as a strong mate... and then runs away.

you assoicate with your own tribe... you don't approach something unfamiliar.. ...if it doesn't look like you it won't behave like you.... these were bumper stickers that you never saw on the Flintstones.

Learning to fear difference is rooted in our most primal of instincts: survival. And no though it may not always feel like it the instinct of SURVIVAL will always win out over any SEXUAL ones. It is The Reptilian Brain with only two options when presented with something unknown 1) Fight or 2) Flight

3)Fuck is not on the list.
(which means that repressed feelings of same-sex attraction are channelled into either bigoty (1 fight) or the closet (2 flight) - or both.

Most people have no choice about their prejudices... though how they act on them or learn to overcome them , that there really is nothing to be afraid of...requires good education AND lots of first hand experience getting to know that which they are afraid. In our case..they must know bisexuals, work with bisexuals, be taught by bisexauls, watch films with bisexuals in, be goverened by bisexuals, etc. etc.

How can we expect people to not fear difference if we don't *show* them that the difference is nothing to fear?

[darkeyes]

"I think biphobia has gone adrift here. Obviously Tenni was joking!"

Yes, I was joking ;) The more that I think about it though, I do recall reading the thoughts of some gay men on the topic of vaginas. They were not joking but some were terrified of vaginas and showed disrepect and well near hatred for vaginas. They may very well have fit under "vagina phobic" if not "femalephobic"..lol

darkeyes
The thing is that there are biphobic statements made on this site. Some may have been in jest while others may not fit a formula of overt biphobia they do have underlying thoughts of aversion towards bisexuals..even from bisexuals themselves. Don't be afraid if such things are discussed as to whether they are biphobic statements. Biphobia is hardly a mainstream PC position in the mainstream of overuse. You, yourself, have pointed out months ago (if not years) that bisexual men have a more difficult time that bisexual women due to biphobic attitudes.(although I don't think that you used the word "biphobic").
Tenni, I have never said there are not biphobic comments made on this site, nor am I saying that biphobia does not exist.. what I am saying is that people are being attributed biphobia for taking positions and for holding opinions which are not biphobic... we can argue until we are blue in the face, but until people accept that having a different viewpoint does not make people necessarily have a phobia then we shall indeed go round and round and in the end create issues which need not be... we will, and already are on this site at least creating friction which is unnecessary and possibly, create the biphobia against which you quite rightly so revile...

.. in the wider world I accept without reservation that there is widespread biphobia, but I am not discussing the wider world but the lgbt world in general and this site in particular.. in the wider world biphobia is aimed much more at men, but it remains for women too. Within the lgbt it is, or has been much less of a problem whatever you may say and think, but where it exists is both within and outside the lgbt more of male problem than for females. This is a similar situation to the view of homosexuality, where lesbianism is much more readily accepted than its male equivelant, but unlike female bisexuality it is less acceptable in mainstream society than its sister. Where I do agree, is that male bisexuality is less acceptable than male homosexuality in mainstream society, and this in a sense bears much of the responsibiity for the issue of bi-erasure. But even within wider society and the lgbt as a "community" gain we should be careful of attributing a phobia to many who may think about the issue of bisexuality differently than from yourself and those who think like you. We cannot afford to ignore it, but we should be very careful of misunderstanding biphobia and also making it out to exist where it does not and making accusations of biphobia to people who are plainly not biphobic.

[æonpax]

{snip/unsnip}
For the sake of 'being rational' lets insist that all bi males are incapable of safer sex, and we're all riddled with HIV etc and hetero males are the complete opposite. So Aeon makes the wise decision to stop having safer sex(?) with bi men. How? How exactly is that doable, if meeting for casual sex with various males? I'm not the only male who has sex with 'hetero' males I'm sure. And how many bi males would tell a woman he's bi if it's just for m/f sex?

Just a teeny-weenie problem with your analogy. I cannot tell if a person is gay, hetero or bisexual just by looking at them...unless they somehow identify themselves as such. In general, the problem with bisexual males is that most will not admit they are. The actual prudent course of action is having sex with NO males, unless there is a level of certitude that the person is HIIV/STD free, then it doesn't matter if they are hetero or bi. The penis doesn't change characteristics based on orientation.

[void()]

i think ive decided Void is not a nihilist but an existential depressive like moi. Although I find no meaning or logical order in things that doesn't mean I'm not constantly searching for it. Nihilists have accepted their (non)fate. I want one last look around the house to find it before I have to go.

Richard Bach is an interesting read to be sure. And yes, I have chronic clinical depression. Generally, I equate my beliefs to a vague Taoism. Though, more oft than naught I'm happy to be called a secular humanist.

After rereading Aeon's original post, I still disagree with the bias, but can better understand it. No it is not exactly bi-phobia. Rather, it is about looking for safety and sanity. In this case fear is being used as a tool for attaining what is seen as good results. Don't quite agree but can understand.

Still lost about an experiment and as lost over this. What are we to do? Oh well, ...

[DiamondDog]

Just a teeny-weenie problem with your analogy. I cannot tell if a person is gay, hetero or bisexual just by looking at them...unless they somehow identify themselves as such. In general, the problem with bisexual males is that most will not admit they are. The actual prudent course of action is having sex with NO males, unless there is a level of certitude that the person is HIIV/STD free, then it doesn't matter if they are hetero or bi. The penis doesn't change characteristics based on orientation.
I don't visit or post on this site at all anymore but I'm on vacation, saw this topic, read this post, and I figured I'd write my $0.02.

Actually a lot of bisexual men are out or open about our sexuality and we are not closeted about our sexuality both in general and especially to anyone who we're dating or sleeping with no matter what their gender is.

Some bisexuals like myself have excellent bidar and can easily tell if a man or woman is bisexual. Call it intuition, a survival mechanism, or telepathy of some sort but it's easy for some of us like myself to tell if someone else is bisexual. It's like this with gaydar too, and no it's not projecting yourself onto the other person. I've met lots of gay men who are like this with gaydar. I've met other gay men who joke that their gaydar is broken or they never got the manual on how to use it.

If anyone of any gender like the original poster who is a bisexual woman refuses to date or even sleep with me because I am bisexual and because they assume this means that I'm HIV+, I would not want to date, have sex with, be friends with, or have anything to do with someone like this who is a total hypocrite towards people of her own sexuality.

I didn't read all of the replies but I agree with Gearbox's post about how the original poster has an 80s mentality towards HIV/AIDS and bisexual men. It begs the quesetion: Hasn't the OP ever heard of using condoms and lube? Or about other safer sex techniques?

If you want to stay HIV- you should assume that whoever you're having sex with is HIV+ and have safer sex with them. I've consistently practiced safer sex with all of my sexual partners both male and female and I'm HIV-.

I have had sex with one person that I know of who is HIV+ since they were out as HIV+, we had safer sex, and I'm HIV- since safer sex works.

There are ways you can have safe/safer sex with someone who is HIV+ and you're not going to get infected with HIV even if they have full blown AIDS or a very high viral load and are not on meds.

No I'm not a bug chaser or anything like that, and I am not that sexually active with nearly as many partners as people like to assume I am.

I want to remain HIV- but I did have sex with at least one person that I know of who is HIV+. They were out as poz and most people including women are not always out as HIV+, some don't know that they're HIV+, and some know fully well and lie about it.

If you're sexually active you've probably had contact with someone who is HIV+ and you may have even had sex with them. I read another post where someone wrote how if you're having safer sex correctly and consistenly HIV is actually very difficult to get infected with and this is true.

There are other STDs that are actually a lot easier to get and to transmit and one that's just as health and life changing as HIV is, but easier to get infected with especially if you rim or eat ass and that's Hepatitis and the various types of it. I don't engage in rimming at all either way giving or getting. If others want to that's fine but I don't want to get my anus licked and I don't want to lick anyone's asshole. If I did engage in rimming I'd just use dental dams or cut up latex condoms.

I don't live in fear of HIV or STDs and I don't stay celibate or avoid having sex because of them. Knowledge is power as corny as it sounds. The OP and others in this thread should get real about educating themselves about HIV and other STDs and how to have safer sex.

I know men who have had sex with others who had full blown AIDS, or men who are HIV+ and they had safer sex and are HIV neg. Yes this includes anal sex and vaginal sex which BTW I did not do either of when I had sex with the person I wrote about who is HIV+.

[DiamondDog]

Wow, you have executed with excellence, you are more than right and very assertive in this matter. Better yet...... you meet some one even before you thinking of getting involved intimately you test your potential partner for " ALL STDs then you can hang yourself from the ceiling fun { mission impossible here ).

Getting tested for HIV is something that everyone no matter what their gender/sexual orientation is should do, however keep in mind that just because someone has one test and it's HIV- that doesn't mean that they are actually HIV-. A lot of people have became HIV+ because of this and they forget about the window period for HIV and assume that one test actually means the person/people are actually HIV-.

It's best to do what I wrote about before and assume that whoever you're having sex with is HIV+ and practice safer sex with all of your partner(s) no matter their gender or sexual orientation. Worse than getting infected with HIV would be having HIV, not knowing it or assuming that you're HIV- because of just one test when you're actually HIV+, and passing it onto your sexual partner(s).

I would not say that the OP is somehow "more than right" since her views are decades old from the 1980s, and are based totally on bigotry, fear, and biphobia that gearbox wrote about with what he called the 'bisexual bridge' in his post. She's also ignorant about safer sex and that anyone of any gender and sexual orientation can be HIV+ not just, mainly, or only bisexual men.

[Gearbox]

@Fran- I was talking about this thread.LOL! Lord knows why I thought you were.:oh:

@Dafydd- Yes your right, yu sexy feker.:suave: We have 'built in' phobias to protect us from harm, and also tribal instincts to keep us 'friend' and not 'foe'. These instincts we have are for our security and self preservation. That's a great tool, and is enforced to some degree by parents if found to be lacking in them.
I tell my daughter never to trust a stranger, go near main roads or high walls etc etc. Some phobias are beneficial to us while vulnerable and instilled insecurity seems the lesser of two evils.
Where sexuality is concerned, I can only go by my experience of 'feeling right' about m-m-f sex as a pre-teen, then learning that it is not part of the tribes 'friend' policy later. So I can't help but put homophobia&biphobia down to a 'learned phobic response' but not like the other beneficial ones. IMO 'the tribe' dictates what is 'natural', and not allow nature to dictate to 'the tribe'. We got 'morals'.:rolleyes:

I think a lot of homophobia in particular is to do with masc&fem. Maybe we have distinctions in our DNA that route back to the cro magnum that selects feminine males to be viewed as less useful to perform the masc male roles? Don't know about that, as I've met lots of fem females who are much more capable with a hammer&saw than most males.LOL!
I've also met fem males who'd have no prob breaking a chickens neck for dinner or kicking the crap out of an enemy!:tongue:
Who knows?
But a LOT of our prejudices are gained from what we are told about a particular group if it encourages our insecurities. Humans are lazy thinkers on the whole when it comes to our insecurities. Most will hold onto them through adulthood even though they do us harm, because we seek the security of childhood and guard our irrational fears as if they are our sanctuary from the nasty world. They are really our prisons though.

@Aeonpax- Yes that was my point.LOL! If you want to ban bi males from your sex life, you'd have to ban ALL males. Then when left with just females, you'd have to consider banning bi females for being in the same predicament as you. Then you'd have to consider if those lesbians your left with were actually bi and have slept with bi males before they sleep with you.:tongue:

Having done my fair share of celibacy, I go for the 'treat ALL casual sex hookups as if they are HIV+' option. It's pretty common for the bi males I meet too. Most have partners, and are healthily paranoid about infections.YAY!

[æonpax]

I would not say that the OP is somehow "more than right" since her views are decades old from the 1980s, and are based totally on bigotry, fear, and biphobia that gearbox wrote about with what he called the 'bisexual bridge' in his post. She's also ignorant about safer sex and that anyone of any gender and sexual orientation can be HIV+ not just, mainly, or only bisexual men.

I can say with absolute certainty,


a) you have no idea what you are talking about,
b) your opinions reek of misogynistic puerility,
c) you are clueless as to the reality facing bisexuals,
d) you cannot comprehend what you read or take it in context,
e) you have your own personal agenda (trollish and/or sock puppet)
and
f) considering all the posts here that I've read about MSM with little or no mention of so-called "safer" sex, you are a hypocrite of the highest order.


Grow up child.

[æonpax]

I don't visit or post on this site at all anymore but I'm on vacation, saw this topic, read this post, and I figured I'd write my $0.02. {snip}

.02¢ is about all it's worth. I'll not deny that.

I deal in facts and evidence, not hearsay. For starters, I do not confuse on-line forums with reality. Online, many men will admit to being bisexual under the cover of anonymity but such things do not translate into reality. “A lot” without corroborating evidence is an inexact number and considering it's you, I would consider it to be false


Gaydar or Bidar is a just a colloquialism for the ability to recognize consistent factors such as behaviorism in specific people. I’m glad it works for you but can say is hardly something I would trust.


As “The Original Poster” I did NOT say I refuse to date or sleep with a bisexual male. Please read post #1. I said;

“…I do take extraordinary care in choosing the partner of my choice. Unfortunately, it does nothing to ally the fears of those whom see bisexuals as a high “at risk” group for being carriers, men especially.”


I was referring to “those” (and did not include myself) whom are in fact bias in regards to dating and sex with bisexual males. If you could point out where “I” said I didn’t, I would appreciate it.

Lastly, here is a meta-analytical study done in 2011 in regards to determining the actual population of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf In figures 2 and 3, the numbers are all over the place but show a trend that more female bisexuals are “out” than males. The caveat to all these studies is as already brought up; Many organizations group bisexual males with gays.


My entire point in discussing this is pointing out male biphobia (and those who cling to the notion that bisexuality doesn’t really exist) not only in the general population but within the LGBT itself. When a post gets as long as this one, the original purpose and frame of reference gets lost as your posts indicate.


To use your words, “a lot” more bisexual males need to come out. However, given the current wave of anti-homosexual prejudice and hatred coming from the political and religious right, it presents new challenges.

[darkeyes]

@Fran- I was talking about this thread.LOL! Lord knows why I thought you were.:oh:

@Dafydd- Yes your right, yu sexy feker.:suave: We have 'built in' phobias to protect us from harm, and also tribal instincts to keep us 'friend' and not 'foe'. These instincts we have are for our security and self preservation. That's a great tool, and is enforced to some degree by parents if found to be lacking in them.
I tell my daughter never to trust a stranger, go near main roads or high walls etc etc. Some phobias are beneficial to us while vulnerable and instilled insecurity seems the lesser of two evils.
Where sexuality is concerned, I can only go by my experience of 'feeling right' about m-m-f sex as a pre-teen, then learning that it is not part of the tribes 'friend' policy later. So I can't help but put homophobia&biphobia down to a 'learned phobic response' but not like the other beneficial ones. IMO 'the tribe' dictates what is 'natural', and not allow nature to dictate to 'the tribe'. We got 'morals'.:rolleyes:

I think a lot of homophobia in particular is to do with masc&fem. Maybe we have distinctions in our DNA that route back to the cro magnum that selects feminine males to be viewed as less useful to perform the masc male roles? Don't know about that, as I've met lots of fem females who are much more capable with a hammer&saw than most males.LOL!
I've also met fem males who'd have no prob breaking a chickens neck for dinner or kicking the crap out of an enemy!:tongue:
Who knows?
But a LOT of our prejudices are gained from what we are told about a particular group if it encourages our insecurities. Humans are lazy thinkers on the whole when it comes to our insecurities. Most will hold onto them through adulthood even though they do us harm, because we seek the security of childhood and guard our irrational fears as if they are our sanctuary from the nasty world. They are really our prisons though.

@Aeonpax- Yes that was my point.LOL! If you want to ban bi males from your sex life, you'd have to ban ALL males. Then when left with just females, you'd have to consider banning bi females for being in the same predicament as you. Then you'd have to consider if those lesbians your left with were actually bi and have slept with bi males before they sleep with you.:tongue:

Having done my fair share of celibacy, I go for the 'treat ALL casual sex hookups as if they are HIV+' option. It's pretty common for the bi males I meet too. Most have partners, and are healthily paranoid about infections.YAY!
It would help if just about every thread doesn't swing round and go on about biphobia or if it does I do wish peeps would get it right what it is..., Gear...funnily enough this post of yours seems to do the same very substantially..

[tenni]

Post 1
"While this statement may be controversial, I find myself justifiably shying away from any bisexual male when it comes to sex. The risks of getting STD/HIV is just too great. The key here is promoting “safe sex” and while even that is not fool proof, it is a start."

The bold italic section is what I have difficulty as not being biphobic towards bisexual men.


darkeyes
It would help if you began to acknowledge the biphobic statements being made on this site. Not every thread has been pointing out biphobic statements. (chat room threads, Welcome, shaved or unshaved, my wish my need, coming to age 49, specific sex practices and more). There are a few threads where this word has been introduced. I think that it is important that they be discussed. This is a long thread and I may have missed your post but I have not read why you think that the OP has not made a biphobic statement in her first post. You seem to support and emphathize with her and then expect a friendly site with no friction from bisexual men on this site? The studies that she introduced much later had some validity for the cultures where they were done (with some flaws in the study) but not cross culturally to non Latino countries until further studies are done. Flaws in studies of MSM as far as whether bisexual men or gay men created this HIV statistic were pointed out to her. Caution and preventative measures should be practised by all bisexual men and their partners when it comes to casual sex but overall her position is irrationally biphobic to treat all bisexual men in this manner.

I don't think that the OP intentionally wished to discriminate against all bisexual men and she now states that the issue is complex. She has been a victim of biphobic discrimination from lesbians and was probably just trying to find her way in life like the rest of us. It is not helping her as being seen as more open minded (less biphobic) to accuse a male bisexual of trollism who has been a member of this site since 2006.

[darkeyes]

Of course bi-phobic statements are made, Tenni.. I have acknowledged this not only in this thread but others..bi-phobia is alive and well on this site as elsewhere... as indeed is homophobia.. my questioning of what constitutes bi-phobia may have lost my acceptance of that but just to set ur mind at east I accept as i have always accepted that fact..... but what bi-phobic comments are seems to be something u and I are not going to agree upon and yes I do empathise with the OP because I detect no bi-phobia in anything she says... that there are those like you who disagree is fair and where there is disagreement there is likely to be friction.. there is nothing necessarily wrong with discriminating against anyone, it is the reasons for that discrimination which bring into question whether or not people are phobic.. we are human beings and we consciously, subconsciously and instinctively discriminate every day of our lives about everyone and everything we come into contact with.. and many things and people we do not..

There are always flaws in any study but we use them as best we can as the best information we have available to us.. is shying away from sex with bisexual men because of information available bi-phobia? No because it has been rationalised and is not in my view as a result of irrational fear and certainly not out of hatred created by fear, irrational or otherwise... but the sOP has not said as far as I am able to detect, that she will not date or have sex with a bisexual man, but that she is very careful and discriminating in doing so... as are we all in whomsoever is our choice of partner.. or should be...

I am all for debates on bi-phobia.. but would prefer it to be about what bi-phobia is and what can be done to eradicate it.. not what it is not...

[Gearbox]

It would help if just about every thread doesn't swing round and go on about biphobia or if it does I do wish peeps would get it right what it is..., Gear...funnily enough this post of yours seems to do the same very substantially..
Just to be sure now, are you saying that this thread isn't about singling out bi males as riskier sex partners?:tongue:

[darkeyes]

No. It is about a view of them as sex partners and more.. but unfortunately has deviated somewhat from that by people not reading or comprehending what the op says and once again has led to accusations which are not justified...... my view.. not shared obviously but how I see it...

[Gearbox]

Fran, the thread is littered with accusations about bi males being high risk sex partners. Even has studies reported as fact of that. They are not about 'safe sex', but about unprotected sex though, and that's not a bi male issue. It's a 'safe sex' issue. It takes 2 to BB.:eek2: Bi's that practice 'safe sex' are not on any survey.

As a bi male you get used to being type cast way out of proportion, so it's not surprising that many will protest that "I'm not like that!".
Another quirk we get as bi males is that we are more guilty of everything. ALL sexualities have their fair share of 'bad points', but bi males in particular get noted for it. That's what we get identified with:
Bi males cheat, sleep around, lie and spread diseases. As if it was all a bi thing.:rolleyes:
I get TOLD that to my face by gays that I've dated or hooked up with.LOL! Not an inkling of doubt nor concern for being biphobic in their head. It's like being a gypsy and being called a thieving dirty feker by youths who know no better.lol

This thread is like that. The concerns about having a bi partner is like that. You date the PERSON! Not the bolox about their sexuality!:)

[DiamondDog]

I do not confuse on-line forums with reality. Online, many men will admit to being bisexual under the cover of anonymity but such things do not translate into reality. “A lot” without corroborating evidence is an inexact number and considering it's you, I would consider it to be false

You don't even know me or who I am. Who says I was writing only about bisexual men online or from an online perspective only?

I was actually writing about meeting bisexual men from the perspective of in reality, face to face, and actually communicating and coming out to each other in person.

I do not like using the internet to meet people to date or have relationships with.

I'm writing from the perspective of a sexually active bisexual man who has been out and active since he was very young, and as someone who practices safer sex and keeps up about HIV and STDs who isn't living in the 80s when it comes to sexuality, HIV/STDs, or safer sex. So no I'm not clueless to the reality that's facing bisexual men, bisexual women, LGBT people, and others.

I don't care about your other temper tantrum of a post. I will say this though, whenever sex between two or more bisexual or gay men comes up on this site safer sex is discussed and written about. I don't care if you think I'm a misogynist since I'm not.

You yourself do have some major misandry and you're very biphobic too. Oh well. Those are your issues to work out and it's not my problem that you're a bigot and a hypocrite towards your fellow LGBT people and people of your own sexual orientation.

I find it coincidental that you claim that other people have issues or agendas, are misogynists, or are trolling when you get called out by others about your biphobia, your viewpoints about HIV and bisexual men which are not only wrong they're outdated, and how you live in a world of theory not facts, and posting links to studies or articles that prove your point does not mean that it's correct and since it's coming from you and this is the internet why should anyone believe anything that you write at all?

This is one big reason why myself and many other longterm original members who I've kept in contact from this site don't go to this site at all or as much anymore since there's all of this constant fighting and a lot of us got sick and tired of biphobia/homophobia here from other members who claim to be allies towards bisexuals or allies towards everyone in the LGBT community but are anything but that.

[Long Duck Dong]

gearbox, most other sexualities do not argue that, as a sexuality, they have the need for multiple partners, its a bisexual only aspect......so in a sense, the very thing that bisexuals are up against, is something that is being pushed as a bisexual right, the multiple partners aspect..... but the moment a person chooses not to be in a relationship or have sex with a bisexual, they are bi phobic...... however when have you heard anybody in the forum accuse bisexuals that have NSA sex ( not in a relationship ) of being commitment phobic

use the argument that the person doesn't want to be in a relationship... and its still commitment phobia.....

that is using the same rule of thumb that is being used to define bi phobia... the reasoning for not dating / fucking a bisexual doesn't matter, the person is automatically bi phobic for exercising freedom of choice with partners.....as if choosing not to have a bi partner ( relationship or sex ) is a crime and discrimination

but that aside, something I have noticed over the last year in the site, the people most likely to lay accusations of bi phobia against people, are males that have sex with males and ID as bisexual..... and its also predominately people that show a tendency to be biased against females ( the cock sucking threads and how females can not suck cocks as good as guys etc )..and most of them are also the ones that will make comments about people being poz phobia and are still living in the 80s, they have traveled extensively and have slept with HIV pos people..........

what is different about you... is that while you address the issue of bi phobia and the reality of it.... you have been in a relationship with a female partner and have a child.....and the way you address the issue of bi phobia is by talking about your experiences with it in a even handed and balanced way....and that for me, is why I find your posts more readable and less judgmental and full of accusations, than most of the other people that talk about dealing with bi phobia and how wrong people are for exercising their right of choice

[tenni]

darkeyes

"There are always flaws in any study but we use them as best we can as the best information we have available to us.. is shying away from sex with bisexual men because of information available bi-phobia?"

I'm not sure as to your education in psychology and sociology. I don't know if you can read a study and interpret it scientifically. There are limitations to any study and how far that it may be interpreted/extrapolated. The studies presented do have major flaws as far as generating the results to all bisexual men. I've pointed these flaws out. The information is not wrong in the studies. The Brazilian study pointed out the limitation of interpreting its results as far as Latin maschismo (masculine was the word used) as a factor that was not part of the control factors in that study. It was rather good in other areas though as far as validity and reliability structure within the study. The other studies on HIV have limitations to extrapolating them to "ALL" bisexual men due to the lack of data separating gay men from bisexual men. The fact that bisexual men were not separated from stats from gay men indicates bi erasure. "Bisexual men are the same as gay men" stereotyping.

The biphobia is the application of the OP's fears to any entire group rather than the individuals..in this case the group is bisexual men. The fact that you find nothing in the OP sentence that I pointed out to you as being biphobic is a disturbing statement. You deny that it is not full of generalizations of a sexuality and gender is a phobic reaction. Fran saying that it isn't biphobic doesn't give it validity. Would it be homophobic to state that ALL GAYs AND LESBIANs are disease carrying people full of HIV and other STI? Yes, it would be. Somehow, in your mind, it is not so for ALL bisexual men though.

"I am all for debates on bi-phobia.. but would prefer it to be about what bi-phobia is and what can be done to eradicate it.. not what it is not..."

What then is biphobia for you? Eradicating begins with challenging and educating the biphobic statements on this site.

[slipnslide]

gearbox, most other sexualities do not argue that, as a sexuality, they have the need for multiple partners, its a bisexual only aspect......so in a sense, the very thing that bisexuals are up against, is something that is being pushed as a bisexual right, the multiple partners aspect..... but the moment a person chooses not to be in a relationship or have sex with a bisexual, they are bi phobic...... however when have you heard anybody in the forum accuse bisexuals that have NSA sex ( not in a relationship ) of being commitment phobic


The whole bi-phobic is getting increasingly funny though no? If you don't like someone's opinion, well that opinion is based on bi-phobia.

It's like Fox News.

[æonpax]

You don't even know me or who I am. Who says I was writing only about bisexual men online or from an online perspective only? {stops here}

This is a classic example of hypocrisy at the very least. Here's some guy out of nowhere, I never seen or chatted with before, resurrects a old thread, jumps all over me about it then has the sheer audacity of saying, "You don't even know me or who I am." then claims not to have an agenda? Yeah, right...cry me a river too.

You remind me of an old Buddhist "koan" about a foolish monk who figured out that a donkeys head causes it's tail, by viewing it through the slit in a fence. The monks mind could not process whole ideas from information it saw and of course came to an erroneous conclusion.

"Inference" is not a substitute for knowledge as you and another poster seem to believe. Thought processes become flawed by peoples prejudices and biased as exhibited in your case here.

Here's another one of your classic excuses which made me laugh;


"This is one big reason why myself and many other longterm original members who I've kept in contact from this site don't go to this site at all or as much anymore since there's all of this constant fighting and a lot of us got sick and tired of biphobia/homophobia here from other members who claim to be allies towards bisexuals or allies towards everyone in the LGBT community but are anything but that."


Aside from the fact that you are speaking only for yourself and no other person, plus judging by your deliberate and antagonistic statements made towards me, without proof or evidence, sort of puts you in a special self-righteous category, eh? I don't think so. Speaking for myself, I don't see you as anykind of authority on anything. Then you whine about all the fighting, YOU STARTED....yeah right. Methinks the man doth protest too much.

It most likely hasn't entered your mind yet but in the real world (not yours) that most often, the only way problems can be solved is by brutal facts and verbal conflict which is something that scares you or aggravates your conflictphobia since you admitted that is why you ran away from this forum. Progress is forged on the anvil of conflict and it is something people, or should I emphasis adults, can learn how to manage.

[darkeyes]

darkeyes

"There are always flaws in any study but we use them as best we can as the best information we have available to us.. is shying away from sex with bisexual men because of information available bi-phobia?"

I'm not sure as to your education in psychology and sociology. I don't know if you can read a study and interpret it scientifically. There are limitations to any study and how far that it may be interpreted/extrapolated. The studies presented do have major flaws as far as generating the results to all bisexual men. I've pointed these flaws out. The information is not wrong in the studies. The Brazilian study pointed out the limitation of interpreting its results as far as Latin maschismo (masculine was the word used) as a factor that was not part of the control factors in that study. It was rather good in other areas though as far as validity and reliability structure within the study. The other studies on HIV have limitations to extrapolating them to "ALL" bisexual men due to the lack of data separating gay men from bisexual men. The fact that bisexual men were not separated from stats from gay men indicates bi erasure. "Bisexual men are the same as gay men" stereotyping.

The biphobia is the application of the OP's fears to any entire group rather than the individuals..in this case the group is bisexual men. The fact that you find nothing in the OP sentence that I pointed out to you as being biphobic is a disturbing statement. You deny that it is not full of generalizations of a sexuality and gender is a phobic reaction. Fran saying that it isn't biphobic doesn't give it validity. Would it be homophobic to state that ALL GAYs AND LESBIANs are disease carrying people full of HIV and other STI? Yes, it would be. Somehow, in your mind, it is not so for ALL bisexual men though.

"I am all for debates on bi-phobia.. but would prefer it to be about what bi-phobia is and what can be done to eradicate it.. not what it is not..."

What then is biphobia for you? Eradicating begins with challenging and educating the biphobic statements on this site.
In a sense, tenni, sexually, bisexual men are as homosexual men. or at least those who have sex of whatever kind with other men... the added complication is that they also have sex with women.. nothing wrong with that at all, but it is impossible not to link homosexual behaviour to bisexuality because fundamentally much of bisexuality revolves around homosexual activity.. this very fact has much to do with the problem which concerns u very much.. bi-erasure. Studies are imperfect and what my qualifications are to read psychology and sociology are probably as yours.. that of a lay person with no particular expertise in the area except what I have learned from life, through experience, reading, and what little training I received of it... the OP has not stated that all bisexuals are carriers of the disease but that some are... since the advent of HIV/AIDS many people have adapted and altered how they approach sexual relations, period.. not simply within the homosexual and bisexual communities.. not every rationalised change in the pattern of sexual behaviour is as a result of phobia...

I will say this.. I do not accept entirely everything the OP has said as a premise and as a way to approach having sex with men... but having taken the stance she has, I can see no phobia there, but a rationalised argument based on caution and her understanding of the world.. nothing she says is an irrational argument based on an irrational hatred or fear.. that there is some fear is undoubted, for when having casual sex with anyone there is always at the back of the mind at least some about the possibility of being infected with something.. safer sex protects against this but does not protect against it entirely... but nothing she says is irrational.

I don't deny what u say about eradicating phobia.. but not all the statements which u feel are phobic are phobic.. the difficulty with educating people however is that there are within any group or community, differences of opinion about anything.. this discussion is but one small example. Differences of practice and practicality, of standards and of ideology. Yes argue and correct misconception and error, but my point remains... misconception and error are not in themselves phobic.. often they are born of it, and are used as phobic instruments and where that occurs u have every right to get hot under the collar.. but as to the case in point? No hun.. not this time... in any case... being human failings, misconception and error are subjective judgements that people make.. what is misconception and error to one is not to another...

For now we have reached an impasse.. that's the trouble with being awkward sods hun.. it happens.. but I end by saying this.. I do not belittle your concerns in the least and do understand why u feel as u do and much of what u and others say is perfectly valid and I can even agree with... but on the point of phobia.. and what is a phobia, who is phobic and why, there we part company..

[æonpax]

Fran,

I've dissected what Tenni said and an confident he's here just to argue. I've seen absolute no attempt on his part to actually come to a consensus or understanding..or as he pompously put it, "eradicate" biphobia. The guys a sham. He has spent the entire length of this thread attempting to prove, for some unknown reason, that I'm biphobic instead discussing biphobia itself.

Aside from that, I'm very inclined to follow the intelligent and informed definition biphobia put forth by a person like "Robin Ochs" ( http://www.robynochs.com/writing/essays/biphobia_short.html ) or ( http://www.robynochs.com/writing/essays/biphobia.html ) who rational approach is not accusatory but constructive.

My purpose was to address biphobia as it applies to the general public in regards to the fear of HIV/STD which is another topic that was completely ignored in Tenni's overzealous attempt to prove he was right about me.

This argument (with certain people) is like rocking in a rocking chair...it gives you something to do but doesn't get you anyplace.

[DuckiesDarling]

Fran,

I've dissected what Tenni said and an confident he's here just to argue. I've seen absolute no attempt on his part to actually come to a consensus or understanding..or as he pompously put it, "eradicate" biphobia. The guys a sham. He has spent the entire length of this thread attempting to prove, for some unknown reason, that I'm biphobic instead discussing biphobia itself.

Aside from that, I'm very inclined to follow the intelligent and informed definition biphobia put forth by a person like "Robin Ochs" ( http://www.robynochs.com/writing/essays/biphobia_short.html ) or ( http://www.robynochs.com/writing/essays/biphobia.html ) who rational approach is not accusatory but constructive.

My purpose was to address biphobia as it applies to the general public in regards to the fear of HIV/STD which is another topic that was completely ignored in Tenni's overzealous attempt to prove he was right about me.

This argument (with certain people) is like rocking in a rocking chair...it gives you something to do but doesn't get you anyplace.

Aeon, many people have come to the same consensus, even going so far as to put him on ignore, yet he continues with his digs and slurs trying to be careful about Rule 2 by not actually naming names. He will never change, it's like asking a leopard to change his spots, it won't happen unless he's skinned. Just ignore him mentally and move on because until he's banned it will continue and continue and continue and still be nothing but a rocking chair. Nice analogy btw :)

[DiamondDog]

See me trollin'.

I wasn't even going to bother posting to your drivel but this isn't an old thread.

No I'm not whining about any of what I wrote; but you do have a very out dated viewpoint about HIV, how people actually get infected with HIV, and bisexual men.

Yes there is a problem with people fighting and arguing on this site, and with people such as yourself who claim to be bisexual or for LGBT rights spreading biphobia such as the dated attitude about HIV and bisexual men in your original post about how bisexual men are HIV+ and infect others with HIV.

When I first started posting here people would argue and fight but they wouldn't spread biphobia or misinformation about HIV like you are.

I don't expect you to understand any of this or even admit that you're wrong in your biphobic viewpoint about HIV and bisexual men.

Don't get angry or become a total hypocrite towards your fellow LGBT people or others of your own sexual orientation you write bigotry and then the people who you write bigotry against challenge you on it or tell you that you're wrong and being a bigot. If this were the 80s you'd be siding with the religious right and claiming that HIV/AIDS was something that only gay and bisexual men need to worry about, and that it's a "gay and bisexual men's disease that bisexuals spread to people of other orientations"; but then again that is what you're doing by spreading biphobia about bisexual men, and misinformation about HIV.

[csrakate]

You know...I have finally reached the point where I am sick and tired of all of it! This whole pissing match of a forum has become a sham....because a few individuals refuse to listen to what others have to say and the others refuse to believe that other people have a right to their opinion. I am not pointing a finger at anyone in particular....it's all of you....it's ME....but in order to emphasize my feelings, DD, I have to point out one thing....what you just posted about Tenni has been posted about LDD by others......Both men love to argue their points and both of them tend to argue without listening....and YES...both of them sometimes skew things to make a point. Aeon....you are very intelligent and you have so much to offer....but your intelligence sometimes keeps your humanity at bay and instead of listening and perhaps trying to understand the other side, you choose to belittle your opponents with your intellect. And my dear, dear lil' tart, Fran....you are so devoted to your ideals but hon, I just don't think others always share your views and because they don't know you like I do, they just don't see the goodness of your heart beneath your words. Is this REALLY what this forum is for???? I have a feeling that Drew never intended this forum to divide our community.....perhaps we need to look within ourselves to make it work a bit better.

I am not judging others.....I am just as guilty as anyone....I have been as sanctimonious and self righteous as the best of them, but since I have taken a bit of time away from this site, reading the forum far more than I post to it, I have begun to notice a trend and it bothers me. We seem to be so determined to be right that we forget who we are talking to.

[DuckiesDarling]

Then Kate, do like I advise others. If you have a problem with what anyone posts, use your ignore button :)

[Gearbox]

gearbox, most other sexualities do not argue that, as a sexuality, they have the need for multiple partners, its a bisexual only aspect......so in a sense, the very thing that bisexuals are up against, is something that is being pushed as a bisexual right, the multiple partners aspect..... but the moment a person chooses not to be in a relationship or have sex with a bisexual, they are bi phobic...... however when have you heard anybody in the forum accuse bisexuals that have NSA sex ( not in a relationship ) of being commitment phobic

use the argument that the person doesn't want to be in a relationship... and its still commitment phobia.....

that is using the same rule of thumb that is being used to define bi phobia... the reasoning for not dating / fucking a bisexual doesn't matter, the person is automatically bi phobic for exercising freedom of choice with partners.....as if choosing not to have a bi partner ( relationship or sex ) is a crime and discrimination

but that aside, something I have noticed over the last year in the site, the people most likely to lay accusations of bi phobia against people, are males that have sex with males and ID as bisexual..... and its also predominately people that show a tendency to be biased against females ( the cock sucking threads and how females can not suck cocks as good as guys etc )..and most of them are also the ones that will make comments about people being poz phobia and are still living in the 80s, they have traveled extensively and have slept with HIV pos people..........

what is different about you... is that while you address the issue of bi phobia and the reality of it.... you have been in a relationship with a female partner and have a child.....and the way you address the issue of bi phobia is by talking about your experiences with it in a even handed and balanced way....and that for me, is why I find your posts more readable and less judgmental and full of accusations, than most of the other people that talk about dealing with bi phobia and how wrong people are for exercising their right of choice
Wanting multiple partners either for sex or a relationship isn't a bisexual only thing. Nor is it a bisexual thing. There are plenty of hetero's, gays and lesbians in relationships who seek others for sex, and polyamory exists in all sexualities too.
What stands out about some bi's is the two gender thing. I don't hear about bi's who 'cheat' or have open relationships to include the opposite gender, but that probably goes on too. Usually you hear of the bi's who have an opposite gender partner and after many years of being in a loving relationship, their urge to explore their attraction to the same gender sexually or romantically gets overwhelming.

YES that can be viewed as an excuse to get extramarital sex etc.:tongue: "Oh I just can't help myself!".lol
But as you can see from the many testimonies from such bi's on this site, its way deeper than just an aversion to commitment or a bit sexy fun. It's a desperate need to bring out something that has been subdued in yourself. To accept it as a part of who you are. Much like gays who come out to themselves, and feel kind of liberated. Only for bi's, that liberation isn't so clean cut. They don't shed their 'hetero skin', remove what's 'false', or part with anything that's 'them'. They ADD to their sexual/emotional spectrum when accepting themselves.:eek2:
YES that can be viewed as greedy, needy, selfish etc etc but it's no surprise that many start coming to terms with their bisexuality in later life. It's something fundamental to that persons life, that feels the tick tock of time making that little voice shout louder "Let me out yu bastard! I'm a good thing, so quit fearing me for fek sake before you cark it!".:yikes2:
I'm lucky to have been single when that happened.LOL!

I'm pretty sure that if you asked bi women "Who's best at cunnilingus M or F?", you'd get a LOT of F's!lol AND as revealed on this site, lots of men won't even attempt it. That's not being anti-male IMO. And neither is saying that men suck cock better being anti-female. It just makes sense that we know what out own gender likes.

What I notice about biphobia, is that it hasn't reached that point where it's politically incorrect, like homophobia etc. I wouldn't DARE tell a gay or lesbian "Oh so you are this and that you are! You'll cheat on me and BB everybody!", upon meeting for the very first time!:eek2:
BUT as a bi, you'll get that! There's no remorse nor concern for the individual at all, in many cases. As if YOU don't matter! And it's even denied to be biphobic!:confused:
I don't go looking for gays! I go looking for a nice bloke regardless of what I read about their sexuality. Pity we can't all do that.:)
*Shit! I've done a novel again! Sorry!lol

[Bayoubear9]

When I was a teenager in the mid 80's HIV was still new enough that we didnt understand it at all. The only thing we knew for sure was that it was killing-off members of our community. Aids was in the news on a daily basis and discussions about hiv/aids were as ubiquitous in american homes as coffee pots and television sets. To a former LTR lover and many friends, may you rest in peace.

Part of the media blitz for hiv awareness focused on IV drug users and bisexual males being the primary scourge upon society. As if I didnt have enough reasons to stay in the closet as it was. Remember the old Smokey the Bear campaign... only YOU prevent forest fires? As a bisexual male I was getting the vibe of "YOU are responsible for this". While I know that wasnt true in my case it certainly made me more aware and to accept responsibility for my own risks. Safe sex was/is always a must. I have been tested countless times over the years and happy to say hiv- and clean.

I saw a lot of discrimination too. Not as bad now as it was but still enough to notice and methinks will always be around to some degree. I jokingly look at it like this: Straight people think im a freak, Gay people think im confused, and im just happy being me. To avoid some hassles there have been times I have identified as gay. Aside from my lovers knowing I love women also for the most part when in MM relationships I kept use of the term "bi" to a minimum. More than once I would bite my tongue when anti-bi comments were made in conversation. I stick up for the bi community in such situations by letting my opinions known but leave it at that. Having the same argument that this thread has devolved into in a bar full of drunk queens isnt my idea of a good time.

As I mentioned in another post, animosity towards me personally for being bi is very rare but does happen. I have had this from a few men as well as women over the years however the overwhelming majority of attitudes are positive. One thing I find amusing is how for some unknown reason its almost "cool" to be bi these days. A trendy or passing fad??? Raises awareness so I find no fault but do think a good number of these newly bi people are either jumping on the bandwagon or acting on satisfying some sexual curiousity. I'm not knocking anyone and am happy to see our numbers grow regardless of the reason why. Reading through the myriad of forum threads here or any other bi site show a huge diversity of sexual identities all under the umbrella of bisexual. All one happy dysfunctional family. :)

[tenni]

You wish to reach some form of consensus Aeonpax?

May we agree that:
Some bisexuals have HIV.
Some heteros have HIV
Some gays and lesbians have HIV
We should all practise safer sex practices when having sex with a person.
We should listen carefully to what is being said to us when someone wants to have sex with us. What is said and what is not said. (this is the weakest link though)

[darkeyes]

....Fran....you are so devoted to your ideals but hon, I just don't think others always share your views...
*laffs* wotya mean don't always? U mean.. don't hardly eva don'tcha mean?;) Is cool Mumsie.. honest..:tongue:

[void()]

Fran, the thread is littered with accusations about bi males being high risk sex partners. Even has studies reported as fact of that. They are not about 'safe sex', but about unprotected sex though, and that's not a bi male issue. It's a 'safe sex' issue. It takes 2 to BB.:eek2: Bi's that practice 'safe sex' are not on any survey.

As a bi male you get used to being type cast way out of proportion, so it's not surprising that many will protest that "I'm not like that!".
Another quirk we get as bi males is that we are more guilty of everything. ALL sexualities have their fair share of 'bad points', but bi males in particular get noted for it. That's what we get identified with:
Bi males cheat, sleep around, lie and spread diseases. As if it was all a bi thing.:rolleyes:
I get TOLD that to my face by gays that I've dated or hooked up with.LOL! Not an inkling of doubt nor concern for being biphobic in their head. It's like being a gypsy and being called a thieving dirty feker by youths who know no better.lol

This thread is like that. The concerns about having a bi partner is like that. You date the PERSON! Not the bolox about their sexuality!:)

Thank you.

[æonpax]

{snip/unsnip}. Aeon....you are very intelligent and you have so much to offer....but your intelligence sometimes keeps your humanity at bay and instead of listening and perhaps trying to understand the other side, you choose to belittle your opponents with your intellect.{snip}

1 - I stand corrected and to those offended, I offer my sincere apologies.

2 - I see myself as being informed as opposed to intelligent.

3 - Aside from my primary job, I do a lot of reading...and writing, under various nom de guerre's.

[**Peg**]

....since I have taken a bit of time away from this site, reading the forum far more than I post to it, I have begun to notice a trend and it bothers me....

yep, that's the #1 reason I don't get involved here anymore kate. The namecalling, backbiting, belittling, sneering at others' opinions, posturing, empire building...it's so juvenile...I'm mighty sick of it myself. And I know for a fact that this is the main reason a lot of our regs have either left or don't post any more...

[IanBorthwick]

When this WHOLE thing finally wound down, I wanted to chime in at last and add the facts as laid out by the experts. The spread of AIDS has been blamed on bisexuals for ages, and yet...and yet, the LGBT experts knew that we(bisexuals) were not to blame. The official reason is:


Myth#6:Bisexuals caused the spread of AIDS to be transmitted to the straight population.

In reality, unsafe sexual practices and spread AIDS not, not bisexuals. There is no research supporting the ideas they bisexuals are to blame for bringing AIDS to the straight community. The reality is that AIDS does not discriminate based on sexual orientation"

http://www.bridgew.edu/glbta/pdfs/BiMythsFacts.pdf

Because of bigotry and the kind of nonsense spread as if it were information when in fact it is fear, to this day I cannot give blood and I am O+. Universal donor. Red Cross will take my blood only to destroy IF they choose to take it because I identify as Bisexual. The way the forms are written it excludes us without asking it outright. You might as well put a yellow star on our chests and tattoo a number on our arms. If this doesn't sound to you like bigotry the instant you start to espouse it as FACTS when there are no facts attached(Tenni proved that) then there literally is no way to change it from being forefront in anyone else's mind.

When you want to know if something is bigotry, look for something similar, change the wording, expand your mind.

I'm nobody's scapegoat. I have never used drugs. I am bisexual. I am HIV Negative. I cannot give blood to my wife and two boys.....

[darkeyes]

Ian won't see this since I am on his ignore list and I have no issue with what he says... but both in Scotland and England the criteria is now whether a man has had sex with another man within the previous 12 months.. women who have had sex with a man who has had sex with a man in the previous 12 months are also on the proscribed list.. funnily enough I am also proscribed because of my weight... I am currently 4kgs below the minimum weight restriction (weightist??) of 50kgs (7 stone 12lbs or 110lbs 2 the non stone users among us)..

[æonpax]

You know...I have finally reached the point where I am sick and tired of all of it! This whole pissing match of a forum has become a sham....{snipped}

I have a question, why did you just point out myself, Slip and Fran then conveniently leave out;

PeterNZ - Who resurrected this thread and stated right off with the the insults and attacks. #95, 101, 119, 129, 134, (146)
BiDaveDtown - #123
DiamondDog - #167, 168, 178, 186,



who were equally as insulting, demeaning, discourteous and worst of all, offered absolutely no proof, evidence, reports and research to corroborate their opinions. Yet somehow, in your estimation, it was just us three that caused the problem? Give me a break. Can you say Hypocrisy?

Guess what? When attacked, I respond in kind. When insulted, I respond with an insult. I am no ones punching bag, especially by those whom lack even the basic qualities of a civil conversation and discussion. Some just want to argue for God knows what reason but all of them have no intention of having an academic argument. I can understand insults in the heat of an argument and can handle that. It's human nature. But for these three, to start right off with their uninformed posts with the insults and false accusations, violated both the letter and spirit of polite discussion here.

I admitted, I got carried away and offered my apologies. However, neither Slip nor Fran though deserved the brainless retorts they got from the three....which again, you failed to mention.

If I'm wrong, PROVE me wrong. I am not stupid enough to believe anything I read without evidence...not from religious leaders, the news media, certainly not from politicians and especially not from some yahoo in a discussion forum.

End of vent.

[csrakate]

I have a question, why did you just point out myself, Slip and Fran then conveniently leave out;

PeterNZ - Who resurrected this thread and stated right off with the the insults and attacks. #95, 101, 119, 129, 134, (146)
BiDaveDtown - #123
DiamondDog - #167, 168, 178, 186,



who were equally as insulting, demeaning, discourteous and worst of all, offered absolutely no proof, evidence, reports and research to corroborate their opinions. Yet somehow, in your estimation, it was just us three that caused the problem? Give me a break. Can you say Hypocrisy?

Guess what? When attacked, I respond in kind. When insulted, I respond with an insult. I am no ones punching bag, especially by those whom lack even the basic qualities of a civil conversation and discussion. Some just want to argue for God knows what reason but all of them have no intention of having an academic argument. I can understand insults in the heat of an argument and can handle that. It's human nature. But for these three, to start right off with their uninformed posts with the insults and false accusations, violated both the letter and spirit of polite discussion here.

I admitted, I got carried away and offered my apologies. However, neither Slip nor Fran though deserved the brainless retorts they got from the three....which again, you failed to mention.

If I'm wrong, PROVE me wrong. I am not stupid enough to believe anything I read without evidence...not from religious leaders, the news media, certainly not from politicians and especially not from some yahoo in a discussion forum.

End of vent.






You are right, aeon....I didn't mention them because I don't consider them active members of this community and I should have pointed that out. Those posters, with perhaps the exception of DiamondDog who has been absent for a long period of time, only post to start trouble and I usually just ignore them. I enjoy the posts by the rest of you....most of the time....but it was wrong of me to single you folks out. I was just extremely frustrated that this thread took off as it did and I erroneously thought I could intervene and get everyone to play nice. I should have kept my nose out of it and let it play out on it's own. I respect your opinions and quite often agree with them but I was beginning to feel as though no one was paying attention to what the other was saying nor were they giving any credence at all to the opinion of someone else. Things were spinning out of control and the original premise of this thread was lost.

Once again I apologize. It is not my place to correct anyone and at this time, I stand corrected myself.

[darkeyes]

I have a question, why did you just point out myself, Slip and Fran then conveniently leave out;

PeterNZ - Who resurrected this thread and stated right off with the the insults and attacks. #95, 101, 119, 129, 134, (146)
BiDaveDtown - #123
DiamondDog - #167, 168, 178, 186,



who were equally as insulting, demeaning, discourteous and worst of all, offered absolutely no proof, evidence, reports and research to corroborate their opinions. Yet somehow, in your estimation, it was just us three that caused the problem? Give me a break. Can you say Hypocrisy?

Guess what? When attacked, I respond in kind. When insulted, I respond with an insult. I am no ones punching bag, especially by those whom lack even the basic qualities of a civil conversation and discussion. Some just want to argue for God knows what reason but all of them have no intention of having an academic argument. I can understand insults in the heat of an argument and can handle that. It's human nature. But for these three, to start right off with their uninformed posts with the insults and false accusations, violated both the letter and spirit of polite discussion here.

I admitted, I got carried away and offered my apologies. However, neither Slip nor Fran though deserved the brainless retorts they got from the three....which again, you failed to mention.

If I'm wrong, PROVE me wrong. I am not stupid enough to believe anything I read without evidence...not from religious leaders, the news media, certainly not from politicians and especially not from some yahoo in a discussion forum.

End of vent.





Ahhh me luffly lil prickly pear... don't read in2 Mumsie's post wot isn't there... 'er lil rant wos 'bout the general tenor of the thread and other threads, and she could have had a huge list of God knows who.. an she didnt quite just single us out an' who she singled out doesn't show her own personal feelings in the matter.. trust me on that..... chill babes... u do have a tendency 2 get uptight at times... tradin' insults btw is never cool... just gets peeps backs up an leads 2 a confrontion we can do without and also tends 2 distract from the purpose of any debate cos peeps lose sight of the purpose and arguments of it.. .. am no angel cos it isn't unknown for me 2 infringe me own advice in that regard.. have a temper like ne 1 else... but do try an argue logically without getting personal or getting mesel 2 wound up.. not sayin don't stand up for urself at all.. just saying u can do it differently and still get ur point over..in fact prob get ur point over better cos peeps r not blinded by the insults banded bout an get the impression thatyas a nowty cow havin a partic bad period..... in end we all argue as we think fit.. as best we can.. can't makeya change the way u argue... do think u have far 2 much 2 offer 2 have it spoilt by what some peeps wud argue r tantrums an a thin skin,..

U've been like a breath of fresh air on this site far as I'm concerned an' think the world ofya for it.. but do think u have so much 2 offer u can make the air of this place even sweeter still... let the buggers insult.. just rise above it an show themselves up for wot they r...

[welickit]

The ignore button works fine.

[void()]

I am no ones punching bag, especially by those
whom lack even the basic qualities of a civil conversation and
discussion. Some just want to argue for God knows what reason but all
of them have no intention of having an academic argument. I can
understand insults in the heat of an argument and can handle that.
It's human nature.

I will remember you quite well. Enough so in fact, I have doubts upon
missing you whence you're ignored.

[tenni]

"I've dissected what Tenni said and an confident he's here just to argue."
I am here to discuss or debate your biphobic statement in your OP.

You presented no evidence or support for your thesis initially. After proving your statements about MSM not sufficiently delineating between gay and bisexual men, you presented a few interesting studies. I presented their strength and weakness in extrapolating these studies to your general phobia towards bisexual men. There was no discussion or debate from you to refute my analysis of these studies.

"My purpose was to address biphobia as it applies to the general public in regards to the fear of HIV/STD which is another topic that was completely ignored in Tenni's overzealous attempt to prove he was right about me."

That was not stated in your OP. You referenced experiencing biphobia from lesbians. Did you use the word "biphobia"?
OP statement "It was there I first came face to face with a lesbian prejudice, if not enmity, for being bisexual." Not exactly but close.

It was specific to yourself and not having sex with ANY bisexual male to avoid HIV. Your purpose was not to discuss biphobia as it applies to the general public or you would have referenced that in you the OP. You referenced your own fear about getting HIV from any bisexual man. You did not introduce the term biphobia. Instead you have been identified as writing biphobic statements towards ALL bisexual men. You did state in your OP that what you wrote was controversial though. Connecting this thread to your thread on "down low" may indicate your purpose for being on this site.

As far as wanting to use a consensual approach that was not presented in your OP instead you referred to this thread as potentially controversial. When I presented a basis of beginning such an attempt, you have ignored it. I am use to using a consensual model as well as a debating or more assertive model. All be it no feminist worth her salt that I have met would slur the group that she wished to reach consensus with. (ALL bisexual men).

I think that the words that Daffy used to counter your attitude towards bisexual men in your "down low" thread are worth repeating here. Post #13

"It's having sex without condoms that is the main risk factor in spreading HIV. Somebody's gender, race, or their 'down low' status is not a risk factor if they use condoms. You shouldn't be held accountable for the unsafe sex practices of anyone else but yourself."

Following Daffy's advice you might want to stop assuming that ALL bisexual men are going to give you AID's if you have protected sex with them.

[æonpax]

You are right, aeon....I didn't mention them because I don't consider them active members of this community and I should have pointed that out. Those posters, with perhaps the exception of DiamondDog who has been absent for a long period of time, only post to start trouble and I usually just ignore them. I enjoy the posts by the rest of you....most of the time....but it was wrong of me to single you folks out. I was just extremely frustrated that this thread took off as it did and I erroneously thought I could intervene and get everyone to play nice. I should have kept my nose out of it and let it play out on it's own. I respect your opinions and quite often agree with them but I was beginning to feel as though no one was paying attention to what the other was saying nor were they giving any credence at all to the opinion of someone else. Things were spinning out of control and the original premise of this thread was lost. Once again I apologize. It is not my place to correct anyone and at this time, I stand corrected myself.

You were correct. As an adult who claims to be learned, I was acting childishly with the insults. You were right to point that out. The next reply was phrased wrong. You have no reason to correct yourself and did the prudent thing. It was "Mea Culpa". Please see your email for a full explanation. - Joan

[æonpax]

The ignore button works fine.

This is true. There are just some people who lack the intestinal fortitude for unstructured argument and should avail themselves to ignore those they cannot comprehend or agree with. It also works well for the emotionally overwrought.

Now me, on the other hand, don't use it. I have various reasons;


1) A manual ignore is obviously for weak people, that's not me. I can just mentally recognize and blow off the absurdities, ego-speak and agenda's. There is no person so offensive where I need to use a tool to block what they write.

2) Even the most combative and/or ignorant people occasionally have sentient moments of brilliance, which I will not deprive myself of viewing and learning from. Is it not written someplace that we should "listen to others, even the dull and ignorant for they too have their stories?"

3) To learn, one must understand. Most conflicts are about misunderstandings. Some people lack the patience or foresight it takes to get to the root of that problem. Personally, on line forums only present one dimension or persona of a person. No human is that simple and such things intrigue me. We are vastly complex beings. In this case, the message I may not agree with but the messenger him/herself becomes of interest. A manual ignore shuts out an opportunity to observe and learn.

4) A manual ignore is childish. "I don't like what you are saying and am putting you on ignore. Na, na na na na na." Whatever turns their crank I suppose.

[darkeyes]

This is true. There are just some people who lack the intestinal fortitude for unstructured argument and should avail themselves to ignore those they cannot comprehend or agree with. It also works well for the emotionally overwrought.

Now me, on the other hand, don't use it. I have various reasons;


1) A manual ignore is obviously for weak people, that's not me. I can just mentally recognize and blow off the absurdities, ego-speak and agenda's. There is no person so offensive where I need to use a tool to block what they write.

2) Even the most combative and/or ignorant people occasionally have sentient moments of brilliance, which I will not deprive myself of viewing and learning from. Is it not written someplace that we should "listen to others, even the dull and ignorant for they too have their stories?"

3) To learn, one must understand. Most conflicts are about misunderstandings. Some people lack the patience or foresight it takes to get to the root of that problem. Personally, on line forums only present one dimension or persona of a person. No human is that simple and such things intrigue me. We are vastly complex beings. In this case, the message I may not agree with but the messenger him/herself becomes of interest. A manual ignore shuts out an opportunity to observe and learn.

4) A manual ignore is childish. "I don't like what you are saying and am putting you on ignore. Na, na na na na na." Whatever turns their crank I suppose.


*laffs* Great minds... I have said on a number of occasions that I never use any ignore facility.. I am not sure I would agree quite that it is for weak people always, but it is a weakness in them and a childishness that they are unable to take what others say whether or not it is directed personally at them.. as I have said about trolls, even they have moments where they have something to offer and so it is with those with whom we disagree vehemently and who may be less educated, knowledgeable and even, yes, bright than the norm. It is a contempt for difference, for people, both of opinion and of another's right to be heard. We cannot truly evolve and mature how we think and what we think and come to proper and fully informed ( or as fully as we are able) conclusions without as much input from the world as we can muster and by ignoring we are contemptuous of our own search for knowledge and our own intellectual fulfilment.

I understand why some ignore others because of personal issues, yet even then that too is a mistake, however vehement criticism is, however much personal antipathy and however nasty... sometimes we have to be prepared to defend ourselves properly and be prepared to reply to such if and when the need arises... to do that an ignore facility is a distinct disadvantage. Sometimes however much we don't like it, criticism is even justified and to ignore and miss that is a crime against our own human betterment..

In a wider sense as I have also argued in the past, putting someone on ignore or ignoring another point of view by closing our minds to it and bypassing without absorbing or even scanning what others say, is a dangerous thing which can and will bite our arse in time if we let it.. best see and know what our opposition is up to rather than allow them to rant and gain advantage, support and potentially destroy all we believe in and stand for and hold most dear...often it can destroy our own personal credibility by our blindness to what others are saying and by being blind to what they are saying we often are blinded to what they are doing and by the time we become aware of something amiss, it is far too late to rescue our beliefs from disaster.. history is full of such foolishness and stupidity..

[slipnslide]

This is true. There are just some people who lack the intestinal fortitude for unstructured argument and should avail themselves to ignore those they cannot comprehend or agree with. It also works well for the emotionally overwrought.

Now me, on the other hand, don't use it. I have various reasons;


1) A manual ignore is obviously for weak people, that's not me.



I use it often. I give people a chance, but too often they're not contributing anything valuable. The Ignore button filters it down to just the views I find interesting. Not necessarily agree with, but find interesting.

I've noticed there's an over 50, angry at world demographic here. They seem to try to be justifying their behaviour to themselves or something. Either way, by eliminating the noise I find the forum way more interesting.

This isn't the UN, it's just bisexual.com. Not every voice needs to be heard.

[void()]

This is true. There are just some people who lack the intestinal fortitude for unstructured argument and should avail themselves to ignore those they cannot comprehend or agree with. It also works well for the emotionally overwrought.

Now me, on the other hand, don't use it. I have various reasons;


1) A manual ignore is obviously for weak people, that's not me. I can just mentally recognize and blow off the absurdities, ego-speak and agenda's. There is no person so offensive where I need to use a tool to block what they write.

2) Even the most combative and/or ignorant people occasionally have sentient moments of brilliance, which I will not deprive myself of viewing and learning from. Is it not written someplace that we should "listen to others, even the dull and ignorant for they too have their stories?"

3) To learn, one must understand. Most conflicts are about misunderstandings. Some people lack the patience or foresight it takes to get to the root of that problem. Personally, on line forums only present one dimension or persona of a person. No human is that simple and such things intrigue me. We are vastly complex beings. In this case, the message I may not agree with but the messenger him/herself becomes of interest. A manual ignore shuts out an opportunity to observe and learn.

4) A manual ignore is childish. "I don't like what you are saying and am putting you on ignore. Na, na na na na na." Whatever turns their crank I suppose.



1. Ignoring others does not denote weakness but rather discipline. It is discipline of self to not engage in a worsening of an already bad conversational situation.

2. For someone claiming only to respond to insults in kind, you can sure launch a volley of your own accord.

3. Excuse me while I express this thought wholly. I will bring up something you recently posted as it bears relevance.


Guess what? When attacked, I respond in kind. When insulted, I respond with an insult. I am no ones punching bag, especially by those whom lack even the basic qualities of a civil conversation and discussion. Some just want to argue for God knows what reason but all of them have no intention of having an academic argument. I can understand insults in the heat of an argument and can handle that. It's human nature. But for these three, to start right off with their uninformed posts with the insults and false accusations, violated both the letter and spirit of polite discussion here. #198 (http://www.bisexual.com/forum/showthread.php?12718-HIV-Bisexuality-and-the-Gender-Conundrum&p=229570&viewfull=1#post229570)

I began to respond this last night. Stopped myself thinking you would let everything diffuse. It seems other people are making efforts to let things diffuse. The argument looks to be over. You continue.

Here is what I started writing.

There have been some whom have in earnest attempted engaging you in civil conversation and polite debate. You assail readers with propaganda (http://www.vocabulary.com/definition/propaganda) and when it is pointed out, you suggest the one doing so is a half-wit whom does not understand you're talking with the adults. Propaganda is propaganda none the less.

As a 'learned' writer, or so you profess being, I would think you aware of the dangers in using propaganda, much less be hesitant in using it. Accordingly though, I am just some half-wit, right? Whom insults whom?

This added into the lump of what point three expresses for you, really seems to batten the last hatch. It is clear you do not seek to learn or understand a thing. You're correct, people are complex and multidimensional. No one on public forums is ever honest, no one ever risks open honest communication. And by no means does anyone present every facet of themselves on forums.

In case you have not figured something out yet, I am brutally honest, I communicate openly. That is unless of course someone endangers that conversation via using propaganda, slinging mud, debasing and dehumanizing others. At that point I issue forth a glorious fuck you proclamation, and it's a fuck you to everyone involved. Old Japanese proverb comes to mind, "seek to bury an enemy, dig two graves."

4. Childish is continuing to bash ones head into a brick wall after busting their head open. The mature adults find another way around the wall. Some of us prefer just tossing a fragmentation at the wall are quite versed in that technique.

I think ultimately it comes down to this right here.

On behalf of all men, I apologize. I am not the ass hole whom hurt you. Most of the other men here are not him either. I will still apologize for him as he apparently could not, would not apologize. Now, please live in the here and now, forgive and let it go.

By the by, "frag out!"

[æonpax]

"I've dissected what Tenni said and an confident he's here just to argue."
I am here to discuss or debate your biphobic statement in your OP.

You presented no evidence or support for your thesis initially. After proving your statements about MSM not sufficiently delineating between gay and bisexual men, you presented a few interesting studies. I presented their strength and weakness in extrapolating these studies to your general phobia towards bisexual men. There was no discussion or debate from you to refute my analysis of these studies.

"My purpose was to address biphobia as it applies to the general public in regards to the fear of HIV/STD which is another topic that was completely ignored in Tenni's overzealous attempt to prove he was right about me."

That was not stated in your OP. You referenced experiencing biphobia from lesbians. Did you use the word "biphobia"?
OP statement "It was there I first came face to face with a lesbian prejudice, if not enmity, for being bisexual." Not exactly but close.

It was specific to yourself and not having sex with ANY bisexual male to avoid HIV. Your purpose was not to discuss biphobia as it applies to the general public or you would have referenced that in you the OP. You referenced your own fear about getting HIV from any bisexual man. You did not introduce the term biphobia. Instead you have been identified as writing biphobic statements towards ALL bisexual men. You did state in your OP that what you wrote was controversial though. Connecting this thread to your thread on "down low" may indicate your purpose for being on this site.

As far as wanting to use a consensual approach that was not presented in your OP instead you referred to this thread as potentially controversial. When I presented a basis of beginning such an attempt, you have ignored it. I am use to using a consensual model as well as a debating or more assertive model. All be it no feminist worth her salt that I have met would slur the group that she wished to reach consensus with. (ALL bisexual men).

I think that the words that Daffy used to counter your attitude towards bisexual men in your "down low" thread are worth repeating here. Post #13

"It's having sex without condoms that is the main risk factor in spreading HIV. Somebody's gender, race, or their 'down low' status is not a risk factor if they use condoms. You shouldn't be held accountable for the unsafe sex practices of anyone else but yourself."

Following Daffy's advice you might want to stop assuming that ALL bisexual men are going to give you AID's if you have protected sex with them.

Tenni,

This thread started off as my opinion, nothing more, nothing less. However, it was also a tacit challenge to prove my opinion was without merit. Where you and others went wrong was to assume a personal stance instead of an academic stance and gloss over or completely ignore the crux of the problem. It isn't ME who came up with these myths, falsehoods and misconceptions, I got them from the general public's attitude. I happen to agree with exercising caution when it comes to the possibility contracting HIV and that is something you nor anyone else will ever budge. But at the same time, while scurrying about trying to find flaws in my message, you and others whizzed by the REAL problems in the Bisexual community...and that is a shame.

There are dozens of bisexual writers, Robin Och's for one, that spend their time and energy trying to correct the many misconceptions the general public has about bisexuality, contracting HIV is a big one. While personal observations and experiences are great, such anecdotal evidence does not translate in trying to convince an already hostile audience that bisexuals, males in this case, are much less than culpable in spreading HIV than most feared. All I'm seeing is overt machismo reactions to a female who dares broach an admittedly emotional male topic. Sorry but as I have time and time again said, I'm look for substantiated facts, neither you nor your group have provided.

You and others are free to object to and be critical about my own personal opinion, not that it will change anything. Bisexuality is not just what you and a few other hyper sensitive guys perceive it to be and the on-going complaints about bisexual invisibility and public's false perceptions of bisexual males are not being addressed by whining and complaining...shit or get off the pot. All this extensive rhetoic proves nothing other than I suspect male ego here has the upper hand over the larger more crucial issues facing bisexuals. Bisexuals span a very large and diverse group and many have opinions you may not agree with. Get used to it.

With all due respect sir, when you can respond with academic protocol, then see me.

[tenni]

Aeonpax
I began to read your most recent post #209 with an attempt to find some common ground that I might be able to be consensual. It is difficult when you write in an attack format rather than your supposed preferred academic approach. The best that I am able to write is that I sincerely appreciate you presenting some of these interesting studies. There is some merit to some of their findings. I admire your courage in stating that you are a hedodonist with hedonistic sexual practices with women. As a woman in a relationship with a man, I can understand why you are chosing not to have sex with other men and not just bisexual men. It is similar for some bisexual men in a primary relationship with a woman. They exclude all other women and have casual sex with men. There is some evidence that anyone entering into a sexual activity with a bisexual man should practise caution. It is common practice for many bisexual men in my country wishing to have casual sex with other men. It is not universal though.

"All I'm seeing is overt machismo reactions to a female who dares broach an admittedly emotional male topic."

Well, you may be seeing perhaps what you wish to see? I will admit that some posts were as hostile as much as your thesis is hostile towards all bisexual men. You might have "broached" this topic in a more supportive manner for bisexual men but that is not what your words in the OP were. You could have written in the third person when making the accusatory statement that "some people think (incorrectly)" etc. Do you believe and wish to promote that other women practise biphobic behaviour towards all bisexual men? As you write that it is your perspective and you are not open to discussion but yet you ask for an academic discussion?

If you wish an academic discussion, should you not discuss the facts and provide support evidence that you contextualize to your thesis? Merely referring to a study alone is not part of an academic discussion/debate but the footnotes to your expanded thesis. An academic approach rarely brings the personal into the discussion on an issue. We have fallen to that level due to how you presented your thesis imo.

If I may ask, what is your academic background and training in academic discourse?

[darkeyes]

Wow.. she musta rattled ur cage ver ver hard Cowboy.. hope ya didn fall off ya horse an hurt yasel... poor horsie musta been frightened haff 2 death...

[slipnslide]

Wow.. she musta rattled ur cage ver ver hard Cowboy.. hope ya didn fall off ya horse an hurt yasel... poor horsie musta been frightened haff 2 death...

I'm not going to bother reading his post but let me guess, he completely missed the point and then mentions the 1980s?

[BiDaveDtown]

Now you're completely changing your original arguments and statements and pretending that you never said, argued, or claimed them at all and you're pulling the "Poor me! I'm a professional victim and a lone womyn! Fighting against those evil men/bisexual men!" card. You're the one who claimed that bisexual men are somehow responsible for HIV infections to people of other sexual orientations running around in an 80s AIDS panic about bisexual men how you will avoid dating and having sex with bisexual men since in your mind bisexual men are somehow more likely to be HIV+ than hetero men are, and you're trolling with your personal agenda about those horrible bisexual men. The whole "All of these men who are writing against my biphobic arguments!" argument is silly and you're being overly sensitive and crying "Misogynist!" as though these bisexual men who are posting against your bigotry somehow actually are misogynists when you're a misandrist and biphobic. You're blaming the public when you yourself are spreading bigotry about bisexual men and completely wrong about HIV. I showed this thread to some of my friends who are HIV+ and they just shook their heads at your bigotry towards bisexual men and HIV+ people and thought of you as some crazy random stranger online. The general public actually does not think that most bisexual men are HIV+ or that we spread HIV to people of other sexual orientations since the general public got real about educating themselves about HIV and other STDs and stopped living in the 80s decades ago unlike you. As others have posted before you're living in the 80s and in your own world of delusions and theory. You're blinded by your own agendas, and bigotry towards bisexual men and people who are HIV+. Even Robyn Ochs would agree that you're a biphobic bigot with your totally wrong and outdated views about bisexual men and HIV in your OP. You're allowed to have your opinion but when you attack, have your own personal agendas against bisexual men and people who are HIV+, and go on a campaign against bisexual men, consistently post completely wrong information about bisexual men and HIV, and are repeatidley told that you're wrong and are trying to pass off biphobia and an 80s attitude about HIV/AIDS and bisexual men off as fact don't complain when you get told your opinions are wrong and when you are told that you're a hypocritical bigot who is without any merit at all and is not nearly as informed or intelligent as she likes to pretend she is. You're not debating anything either. You're just attacking anyone who does not agree with your posts that are full of biphobia and wrong information about bisexual men, the bisexual community and larger so called LGBT community, and HIV and all people who are HIV+ or who have died from AIDS. You're not posting facts either. Anyone can look up any sort of study that will prove their bigotry, agenda, or in your case biphobia. As Simone de Beauvoir said best about Feminists such as yourself, "You can say it's too bad so many of them (feminists) live only in a world of theory instead of in real life." Studies about HIV and safer sex-including correct condom use and consistently having safer sex with all partners destroy all of the biphobic bigotry BS that you've been posting as your own agenda on this site. Then again since you got pregnant as a teen having safer sex correctly and consistently with all partners was the last thing on what you call a mind. You've shown how you're nothing but a biphobic bigoted hypocrite towards bisexual men, and that you are neither informed or intelligent when it comes to how you believe that bisexual men are a risk for contracting HIV; but people of other sexual orientations are not nearly as risky for you when it comes to HIV. You're living in the 80s in a world of theory, and have shown how you don't know anything about HIV or STDs which is not surprising. Quoted for truth.
...mentions the 1980s... Actually dsc was correct, wrote about the topic, and wrote things that the OP wants to deny. Mentioning the 80s is not a moot point since aeonpax's viewpoints about HIV and bisexual men are from that decade as others have posted about.

[darkeyes]

Quoted for truth. Actually dsc was correct, wrote about the topic, and wrote things that the OP wants to deny. Mentioning the 80s is not a moot point since aeonpax's viewpoints about HIV and bisexual men are from that decade as others have posted about.
My views bout killin' peeps an' war an whale hunting were evolved in the 1980's when I was just wee...being young it was very black and white, but essentially they haven't changed much and are as pertinent to today as they were then.. arguably more so.. and long before that by peeps far brighter an' more worldly wise than me or thee. Now whether Aeon is right or wrong is unimportant... she has her view and you yours.. but it would be taken more seriously if it wasn't u that supported the Cowboy..

[tenni]

"Now whether Aeon is right or wrong is unimportant... she has her view and you yours"

It may be "unimportant" to you as a lesbian but it is important to bisexual men.


There is as much right in Aeon's view as the following is right.

Lesbian sex isn't real sex because it does not involve a penis.

;) .............te he he

[darkeyes]

"Now whether Aeon is right or wrong is unimportant... she has her view and you yours"

It may be "unimportant" to you as a lesbian but it is important to bisexual men.


There is as much right in Aeon's view as the following is right.

Lesbian sex isn't real sex because it does not involve a penis.

;) .............te he he
Bloody awkward sod an stirrer:tongue:.. u kno wot I meant.. ne way.. even if it isn't real sex wich mite 2 some depend wetha u consider Sally Strapon a penis or not..wy shud I care?? It just blows me head away ne way..M2M sex doesn't involve puss.. that not real sex eitha?? tee hee..

[tenni]

"M2M sex doesn't involve puss.. that not real sex eitha?? tee hee.."

No m luvly...just requires a penis for it to be sex...na a puss....tee hee....according to that myth..;)

[Gearbox]

Hey guys! I know how cool the 80's were. Me and the boyz had a great time thanks to you guys. But we just got to let it go.
Yehh sure it was fun! We had a blast! But cmon you crazy cats, let it lie! Kisses Mwa Mwa.xxx

You heard the man!:tongue:

[IanBorthwick]

One the biggest issues I have with feminists and feminism is that when you back it up to a wall, it can't come out swinging. It's a toothless and clawless kitten pretending to be a predator and uses shaming tactics, as Aeonpax was using, and then outright rude responses while claiming that they are put upon unjustly and are "responding in kind", when in fact they have had truth politely laid at their feet. I've watched it happen innumerable times in this thread alone. It's all an attempt to put themselves on the victims side, and this mentality gives rise to the "I can do anything, it's ok, I'm really the victim so anything is permissible on my side." While at the same time maintaining a stance that anything you send THEIR way is meant as insult, injurious, etc because it breaks them out of their bubble and that's bad for them therefore evil. And things like this leveled at men are EXPECTED to be just accepted, we roll over, apologize and take our lumps when there is simply NO incentive to do so.

We're Bi Men, we aren't hetero men. We're not going to roll over because you have something we want. You don't. Therefore the idea of "I have the pussy I make the rules" doesn't work here and it makes them scared. We simply don't care.

So the end result is the "Rebranding Game" I mentioned before in other threads and Aeonpax shamelessly goes about doing it again. This game takes many forms, including the "Oops, I didn't mean it how you think I meant it" to "It was just a practice in theory or just what I have experienced" and the ever wonderful "I didn't say that, you're just too stupid to understand typical male, violent, vulgar beast" which is what we've been watching here. It's the only way in the end to squirrel away and try to retain victim status while pathetically claiming some pyrrhic level of victory.

Let me make this analogy for you to sum up what's been happening in this thread:

We're all at a party, some of us chatting, some discussing when into the room comes Aeonpax, and levels a charge that we Bi Men in the room are a higher risk and that she has known bigotry from lesbians, but doesn't call it by its proper name of BIPHOBIA. Many more expostulations occur, opinions presented as fact and all the men in the room are now quietly shocked.

As each of us speaks up, pointing out how she's wrong, she cries out as though struck as each "fact" she presents is knocked down, sometimes calling the presenter a misogynist, idiot, both or just not paying attention to her.

The more she speaks, the worse things get as men now cluster together and pick her "facts" even neater to the bone, and she draws back as though struck, crying even more as though wounded and draws back to the wall, screaming until some come to her and tell her she's understood and agreed with by a few in the room, consoling her against "Those Big Bullies against this Poor Defenseless Woman". Composing herself once more, the SPIN occurs and she levels her gaze upon us and proceeds to tell us we were too stupid to see the truth and unable to grasp simple facts, like her life is the end all of experience for EVERYONE and all should aspire to live as she did, that there is no bigotry in bigotry, and we are seeing things. Even caliming how we, who have lived a deal longer, are inexperienced next to her...my my.

However, we do not let this be and are told off for daring to FLUSTER her, my god, she has the vapors, get the smelling salts, aren't we awful fo rnot letting her retain HER dignity at the cost of our own.

Bad Bisexual MEN, BAD! For shame! Leave her be and let her say what she wants, you don't get that right! Don't you understand? Can't you see the "truth"?

Now at the end, a few people joke to regain levity but the fact is this is something that CANNOT BE UNSEEN. What has been said cannot be unsaid and what you did is on each page and post.

We recognize it for what it is, but you seemingly never will. And for that it is OUR duty to make sure you never forget or try to ease away from it, and that is a duty we will not shirk.

Aeonpax has been playing the game of Rationalization Hamster.

http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/the-rationalization-hamster-is-now-immortal/

I'll repost it here, this is not MY article:


The Rationalization Hamster Is Now Immortal

The Manosphere contains many, many words regarding a woman’s rationalization hamster because it’s such an effective and amusing way to describe how a woman thinks. Occasionally it’s necessary to re-educate Manosphere readers to the nuances and details of how the rationalization hamster operates.
The rationalization hamster is an analogy for the thought processes used by women to turn bad behavior and bad decisions into acceptable ones to herself and her friends. When a woman makes a bad decision, the hamster spins in its wheel (the woman’s thinking) and creates some type of acceptable reasons for that bad decision. The crazier the decision, the faster the hamster must spin in order to successfully rationalize away the insanity.
When the hamster rationalizes successfully, a woman can divorce [yeah, I meant to use that verb] herself from the consequences of her bad decision or behavior. Here are some examples:
Bad Decision:
“I’m going out and getting drunk with my friends.”
Resulting Consequences:
Drunken and unsatisfactory hookup sex with a stranger.
Hamster Processing Result:
“I was drunk and he took advantage of me or maybe even raped me! Maybe it was a date rape drug!”
Final Result:
“It’s not my fault.”

Bad Decision:
“I deserve only the most attractive and successful man despite the fact that I don’t have much to offer in the context of dating and relationships.”
Resulting Consequences:
Can’t find any man for dating or a relationship or only has one-night stands.
Hamster Processing Result:
“There are no good men” or “Men suck”
Final Result:
“It’s not my fault.”

Bad Decision:
“I have such chemistry [vagina tingles!] with this guy so I’ll ignore the obvious red flags regarding his character.”
Resulting Consequences:
The sex is great for a short time and then the guy dumps her.
Hamster Processing Result:
“All men are players”
Final Result:
“It’s not my fault.”
Bad Decision:
I want to have a baby but I don’t have a man.
Resulting Consequences:
8lb bundle of “joy” through dubious means and resultant loss of career opportunities because of time management issues.
Hamster Processing Result:
“I’m a strong and empowered woman fulfilling her own needs but who has an employer who doesn’t support my lifestyle decision.”
Final Result:
“It’s not my fault.”
Note how the final result is always the same.
The vast majority of women simply won’t understand the concept of the rationalization hamster. This makes the hamster immortal. Sure, it can be slowed down, but it always lives on. Hamster wisdom is now passed on to the younger generations of women with messages of “you deserve anything you want” or “you’re a special snowflake”. The hamster has become an integral part of our social fabric.
There is a social expectation that women cannot be faulted for their decisions and behaviors. Mark Rudov (http://thenononsenseman.com/) calls it the 11th commandment – Thou shalt not criticize women. This means that our collective folklore has “liberated” women to act on their worst motivations and behaviors without consequence. This will be for generations to come.

From the Rubayat I will always remember part of the ending lines in that grand poem.


The writing finger writes, and having writ moves on
For all your Piety and Wit cannot remove a word of it
Though all your sorrow and tears cannot blot out half a line.

[slipnslide]

LOL. What the hell was that?

[csrakate]

LOL. What the hell was that?

I believe it was an except from "The Misogynist Monthly Journal".

[darkeyes]

I believe it was an except from "The Misogynist Monthly Journal".
Mumsie...tsk... how cudya say such a thing...

Never let it be said I don't try and look at both sides...http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/13/men-victims-new-oppression *stirs pot*..:bigrin:

[IanBorthwick]

I believe it was an except from "The Men's Rights Journal on understanding feminist Cognitive Dissonance".


There, fixed it for you. Now don't get it wrong in the future, there will be a test.

[csrakate]

There, fixed it for you. Now don't get it wrong in the future, there will be a test.
Nice words, Ian.....Let me know when you truly understand the concept of cognitive dissonance. Until then, I'm still waiting to hear what it is that made you hate women so much.....You never respond anytime that I ask you.

[tenni]

I don't know about Ian CSkate but here is how the writer of the blog where he got his quote from describes himself. I'm not 100% in agreement with how Ian expresses himself but men who have fallen through the cracks of change seems to come to mind. I don't think that it is about "hating women" at all.

I’m that guy.
I’m the pleasant, intelligent, gregarious, middle-aged fellow you met at the party. I’m the guy sitting at your poker table. I’m the one telling mediocre jokes at the weekly status meeting. I am every man over 45. I also embrace my complexities to keep my own rationalization hamster spinning in his little wheel.
"I’m the guy who drinks too much after work, smokes too much during work, and tells little of his private life to an endless stream of new colleagues because of new contract employment gigs.
I’m the patriarchy of mediocrity and diminished expectations.
I’m the credit card debt load and the mortgage crisis. I’m the last one to collect Social Security if there’s any money left.
Too young to be a Boomer, too old to be Gen Xer, I’m demographically irrelevant.
I have no kids, no television, no car. I ride my motorcycle too fast.
I have an ex wife of over 10 years and an another ex wife whom I left two years ago. The first ex and I never talk. The second ex and I still talk and exchange emails. She’s not from this country.
Her youngest son could very well be seriously mentally ill.
My health is questionable but I look like I am in good shape.
I use online dating ruthlessly and have become the very definition of “dated briefly”.
My home is in South Florida where I live in a very modest apartment two blocks away from the Atlantic ocean. My second ex-wife and her adolescent son live in a nice community with good schools to the west of me. I still help her financially.
I have learned Charisma and practice it when there is enough beer in my system.
With a public blog entitled “The Private Man”, irony abounds."

Now, what this has to do with biphobic statements about bisexual men in the OP and mainly other women supporting them, I'm not sure.

[csrakate]

I agree that this has nothing to do with the OP Tenni.....that much we can agree on. I also agree that men have gotten the shaft many times in areas of child support and custody....That also has no place in this OP. I just tire of people like Ian who post generalizations about women....generalizations that stem from either some sort of personal trauma or obvious hatred. Those feelings are no better than the biphobia that is being discussed in this thread and they by no means cancel out one another. I have feminist leanings, but I have never, ever used the sort of rationalization that Ian attributes to women who are feminist. So yes...I take offense whenever he posts his rants....This isn't the first time and I am sure it won't be the last.

My apologies for taking part in the derailment of this thread....Airing my frustration at my inability to understand someone like Ian should be left to another time and place....It is my issue and quite frankly, I would be better served just to ignore him.

[slipnslide]

Nice words, Ian.....Let me know when you truly understand the concept of cognitive dissonance. Until then, I'm still waiting to hear what it is that made you hate women so much.....You never respond anytime that I ask you.

Is it just women? I note seething anger anytime there are facts that run counter to his opinion.

[tenni]

CSKate
I see your points. I think that the same argument may be referred to when discussing the OP statements. Feminism has been referred to as justification for the OP perspective and men were dismissed as emotionally reacting to biphobic statements addressed to all bisexual men(HIV issue). I do wonder if it is male language and female language styles that creates friction? (not in all cases though). I think that some men have made very valid points from a male perspective and women have spoken up against them. In part I find it is the writing styles. There is a bluntness to some of the posts by bimen. This is appreciated by men but not some women.

The issues for men whether bisexual or not referred to the blogger go way beyond child support. They seem to touch upon the role of feminist theory impact on society in the western world. There was good and there was a strange surfacing ridicule of men as the blogger points out. Not all relationships are this way, but I am reminded of Dennis O'Leary's joke that when he wakes up in the morning, he rolls over and says to his wife. "I'm sorry". Why? He knows that he is going to screw up sometime during the day and he might as well get the apology over with...te he. There are many more "jokes" that reflect the issues between men and women. No one side is correct. How and why a woman can believe that she may make sexist biphobic statements against all bisexual men and it is acceptable and be supported by other women on this site..does reflect the juxtaposition of radical perspectives.

[void()]

Isn't cognitive dissonance when I'm working and concentrating very hard on defusing one of my defunct explosive traps to avoid terrible loss of life, and someone wanders by and yells, "Oh look, a chicken!"

At that point, I drop everything and go off looking for the damned chicken man. Everybody know, chicken is yummy to eat. What explosive booby trap? Oh, you mean that little twang sound of a trip wire ejecting the pin from the hand grenade over there? No worries, you need to release the spoon lever too. Everybody knows, I always rip those off before rigging my traps, too. Now, where's that fraging chicken?

Or is cognitive dissonance some form of cruel punishment the alien invaders place upon those not enjoying the anal probes? I can never remember what it is, always too busy watching worlds fall apart from something called entropy. You know, there wouldn't be any trouble if not for that idiot yelling about a chicken. Now, I want buffalo steak and pitcher of good dark ale. Ha, I'm getting on that bus.

[ExSailor]

I read this entire thread and needless to say I'm disgusted and yet not surprised. As a bisexual man who happens to be HIV+ I am not surprised by æonpax and other people's biphobic and pozphobic agenda and attitude towards bisexual men, and her and their own agendas and phobias towards people who are HIV+. The most biphobia and poz-phobia I have ever experienced has happened not from straight people; but from our so called allies from within the LGBT community. The attitude that æonpax has about bisexual men and HIV is a dangerous one and needless to say very ignorant. It's rooted in her own bigotry towards bisexual men and people who are HIV+. HIV is a disease that effects all people of all orientations and genders. I have met and know people of all sexual orientations and genders who are HIV+. I have read the flat out ignorance and denial in this thread and yes even heterosexual men and women are HIV+ and infect each other even in North America and Canada. I became infected with HIV in the early 80s when I was raped by a man. I got very sick and I felt as though I had the worst flu of my life. Just when I thought I would get worse with this horrible flu I was perfectly fine. It was very scary since nobody knew what was happening. In 1985 when the first HIV test came out I tested poz. It did not surprise me since I was having the symptoms of HIV infection. As soon as I learned about safer sex in the early 80s I started practicing it with all partners not just female partners who I'd been with in the 60s and 70s who requested I use condoms. I have been with the same female partner on and off since I was 20 and we've had an open relationship for decades. We practice safer sex and she is HIV-. We know a lot of other couples where one person is HIV+ and the other partner is HIV- and they have been together for decades like us. Just like us the HIV- person remains that way since they practice safer sex. If you actually do practice safer sex the HIV status or sexual orientation of your sexual partners should not matter.

[slipnslide]

If you actually do practice safer sex the HIV status or sexual orientation of your sexual partners should not matter.

You've missed the point. Since 50% of HIV infections are in the MSM community, eliminating sexual contact with that community IS A CONTRIBUTING FORM OF SAFER SEX.

Engaging in safer sexual activity with people who statistically are less likely to have HIV, lowers ones chance of accidentally contracting it. Hence heterosexuals having such lower rates of HIV.

If people were more responsible HIV rates would be going down, not up. http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110603/aids-hiv-20-anniversary-110602/

Why is this such a contentious point? Clearly the refusal of many to deny reality for obviously selfish and hedonistic reasons is at play here.

Being poz-phobic is Darwinian - it's a survival instinct.

[BiDaveDtown]

XSailor is correct. You can have safer sex correctly with someone who is HIV+ or who has AIDS and you're not going to get infected. Condoms work damn well and people who claim that they were infected from a condom breaking or a condom failure have usually been shown by studies to have been lying about actually using a condom or using a condom correctly. In most cases the person never used a condom at all or wasn't using it correctly. Hets are not statistically less likely to have HIV. Look at the number of people worldwide who are heterosexual and who are HIV+ and who were infected via heterosexual sex, or they very large number of hetero people worldwide who died from AIDS. Just because you are having sex with heterosexual partners only and avoid sex with bisexual or gay men it does not mean that you're somehow statistically lower to get HIV, or that you won't have sex with a hetero partner who is HIV+. You get infected with HIV from having unprotected sex, and blood exchange, not from having safer sex with a bisexual or gay man. It's a virus dude. It doesn't care about someone's gender or sexual orientation. Worldwide, most cases of HIV/AIDS are found among heterosexuals. In Western nations (including the USA, Canada, Western Europe, Australia etc.), we are seeing a steady and faster increase in HIV infections among heterosexuals, both men and women. The number of heterosexual cases is on the rise and continues to rise. Do you really believe a virus can tell the difference between a bisexual or gay man and a heterosexual man or woman? Slippy, if you don't want to believe scientific fact and nearly 30 years of HIV epidemiological statistics, how about just using a bit of common sense? You seem to be stuck in 1982. Please join everyone else in the present. You and the OP are the only people here who are denying reality. It has nothing to do with being selfish, hedonistic, but instead just shows how you've got biphobia and pozphobia, and don't know anything about HIV or about how HIV is not a disease primarily found in bisexual or gay men. For instance, if you want to believe "there is an airplane-landing-in-your-front-yard chance of heterosexuals contracting HIV through normal every day heterosexual sex," or that "by having sex with a heterosexual you're statistically less likely to get infected with HIV than if you have sex with a bisexual or gay man" that's entirely your prerogative. But considering there are 33.5 million people worldwide living with HIV and nearly 16 million of them are women, I really have to wonder how you could expect anyone in their right mind to conclude HIV is a gay and bisexual men's disease! The fact is that worldwide HIV/AIDS is primarily a heterosexual disease transmitted primarily by what you term "normal every day heterosexual sex", and by heterosexuals. Why not spend some time at an AIDS hospice or visit the AIDS ward at a hospital? Or actually meet people who are HIV+?

[æonpax]

You've missed the point. Since 50% of HIV infections are in the MSM community, eliminating sexual contact with that community IS A CONTRIBUTING FORM OF SAFER SEX.
Engaging in safer sexual activity with people who statistically are less likely to have HIV, lowers ones chance of accidentally contracting it. Hence heterosexuals having such lower rates of HIV.
If people were more responsible HIV rates would be going down, not up. http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110603/aids-hiv-20-anniversary-110602/
Why is this such a contentious point? Clearly the refusal of many to deny reality for obviously selfish and hedonistic reasons is at play here.
Being poz-phobic is Darwinian - it's a survival instinct.


*sigh* To quote the biblical saying, you are casting "pearls to the swine." This handful of misogynistic males;


* are not interested in facts, evidence and research.
* are not interested in adult and intellectual discussion,
* are not interested in solving problems,
* cannot read that well or have a grasp of the complex societal dilemmas,
* do not represent anyone (least of all bisexual males) other than themselves
and
* have their own agenda.


ALL their responses have a few things in common, a) Attack those who disagree with us, b) ignore the topic, c) ignore logic and evidence. Some of their overly garrulous and bloviated responses reek of ignorance of the highest degree. However important their anecdotal experiences are to them, it is not peer-reviewed research.

I realized that continued discussion is useless with these children as they have shut off their minds. I the only thing I would end up doing is insulting them...and believe me, they have left me plenty of ammunition. However, I see no utility in that. This is where I employ the "Serenity Prayer";




God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

[void()]

*sigh* To quote the biblical saying, you are casting "pearls to the swine." This handful of misogynistic males;


* are not interested in facts, evidence and research.
* are not interested in adult and intellectual discussion,
* are not interested in solving problems,
* cannot read that well or have a grasp of the complex societal dilemmas,
* do not represent anyone (least of all bisexual males) other than themselves
and
* have their own agenda.


ALL their responses have a few things in common, a) Attack those who disagree with us, b) ignore the topic, c) ignore logic and evidence. Some of their overly garrulous and bloviated responses reek of ignorance of the highest degree. However important their anecdotal experiences are to them, it is not peer-reviewed research.


* are not interested in facts, evidence and research.

Excuse me, believe you are not an apt judge of everyone. You have no clue what strikes anyone's fancy save your own. Neither you nor I are the center of the cosmos. Accept that and get over yourself.

* are not interested in adult and intellectual discussion,

No, I'm not interested in someone berating others for no purpose save for their own amusement. You were asked specifically, what we are to do. I asked that. You never bothered responding aside from more abasing and snidely calling me a nihilist.

You continue using propaganda and alarmist discussion, even after it has clearly been demonstrated you are and you're asked not to do so. I believe that reveals all that is needed to be known about your intellect. You either cannot or will not apply it in this case.

Who does not want intellectual discussion, again? That mirror shows you the pure ugly, doesn't it?

* are not interested in solving problems,

Plenty of bisexual men, at least three have posted here regarding using safer sex. We are all still wondering if you've figured out that is a method of solving a few problems. It helps solve pregnancy, HIV, and other various STDS.

Instead you abase us by positing an assumption that we are Neanderthal and haven't a foggy clue. Why else would you espouse such boisterous alarm on a modern site for bisexual people? It is 2012 still. People have read, heard, seen all sorts of public services announcements, articles, essays regarding using safer sex. People do 'get it', play but be responsible.

Do you not get it?

* cannot read that well or have a grasp of the complex societal dilemmas,

When thirteen years of age, I read half the books in our local college library. That college by the way is JMU. They are pretty versed in a library. I also drew upon EMU's library as I was not really finding lots in JMU's to hold my interest. Somehow theology and history turned my crank more than learning about why Heather Locklear and Tommy Lee were the new bee's knees.

What has always seemed to find its way to me is a peculiar definition of stupidity. We have history records, do we learn from past mistakes? No. And apparently you did not either. See? There is all I need to know of your intellect again. You did not learn from a mistake of slinging propaganda here and having someone point it out to you.

* do not represent anyone (least of all bisexual males) other than themselves
and


Know what? I have never claimed to represent anyone but myself. Sometimes that is hard enough of a job as it is. I was not aware that I was your personal messiah. Please excuse the fuck out of me for not being sensitive to your feminine need of a savoir, guess it can be excused though, I am an icky bisexual male after all.

Keep playing the victim card. I double dare you. Be warned, I'll rub your nose in that shit every time.

* have their own agenda.

My 'agenda' is simple. I'm here to talk with friends, to find understanding, to be understood. I am not here to rehash old public service announcements for the sake of those whom need protective personal head gear. If you want to keep banging your head against a wall, by all means do not let me interfere with your journey.


N.B.

Come to think upon it, I really ought to thank you. It is through your evocation I have learned it's clear, I really have no further desire being here. You specifically, and your type of personage and countenance are my reason for so loathing the site now. You come here and spout of hate filled diatribe which serves no function except to divide the site, self agrandizment, and egotistical masturbation.

I genuinely loathe even speaking sternly to anyone, for any reason. Growing up and seeing twenty plus odd years of abuse does that to you. Contrary to statistics not every abused child grows into an abuser, sociopath or psychopath. I'm living proof of beating those odds. And I'm tired of people like you coming here and dragging people like me down.

So, I find a real simple way to deal with it. See ya.

[æonpax]

{snip/unsnip}So, I find a real simple way to deal with it. See ya.

I thought you said that you were putting me on IGNORE? As my reply was not directed at you, I find it mighty suspicious, if not telling, that you assumed it was. On one hand you claim you speak for yourself then in the same post how you speak for all bisexual men..."like you." What does "like you" mean? Reactionary? Uninformed? Poorly read? Incessantly whining? Sympathy/attention seeking? How many times have you said you were going to leave here becuase things were said that you don't like, then come right back? Can you say "Drama Queen?"

Let me attempt one last time to put this in perspective.

An Ounce Of Prevention Is Worth More Than a Pound Of Cure - Survival is an inherent if not instinctual, human trait, which includes avoiding possible harm. While not always applied with common sense, it none the less is a logical reaction to a threat...perceived or real.

If I or anyone else, concludes that having sex with bi-sexual men carry a greater degree risk in contracting STD/HIV, based on available data and evidence and regardless how it's presented, you can react to it in two ways;



a) You can attack the person with torrents of cliche's, insults and illogical innuendo's
or
b) You can attempt to dissuade or correct such a misconception by providing evidence that will prove such a "myth" to be false.




Sorry bunky but all you and your ilk did here was whine and attack. Not a single attempt was made to academically prove such a mindset was in error. All you and your buddies do is further entrench the problem, making it worse than before. You do the bisexual community, and in my estimation, bisexual man, more harm than good, with these juvenile outbursts. Personal attacks are the first refuge of the incompetent. I know enough bisexual men to realize you and your handful of buddies here do not, nor will ever, represent anyone other your own personal agendas.

When I go to defend bisexuals (and yes, bisexual males too) I have arm myself with scientific fact and research which personal experiences, however important as they are to the individual, have no weight. When confronted with facts like I'll show below, ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf ) how do I mount a plausible and intellectual counter-point? By calling those who presented such facts, biphobic? If the facts plainly state that 50% of all MSM account for new cases of HIV, do I tell people, "Oh, that's just biphobic". Get real.

`

`

http://i.imgur.com/ciEu1.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/iOrKL.jpg



Admittedly, this is not an easy topic to discuss as it evokes emotions but that is not a reason it should not be openly, logically and fairly discussed without the ad hominems and I'm just as guilty of it as the next person...when provoked.

I came here with a contentious topic and while many of the posters in this thread stuck to the topic at hand, a few with their own agendas, did not.

We have a saying where I come from, "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."

[Bamram]

I kind of went through this thread and most of it is a bunch of wackiness. I have been HIV+ for 23 years. I have slept around a lot. You would not be able to spot me. You would not peg me as gay, or by, and these days would just assume I was somebody's grampa. There are some subtle signs that can indicate if someone has been infected for a long time, or has been on meds for a while, but i didn't see any of these mentioned. Statistics may point to lower risk in this group or that, but lower risk is not no risk. Assuming you always wear your seatbelt whether to the 7-11 or 6 hours on the freeway, you have embraced the concept that there is always risk. If you buy a lottery ticket, you acknowledge that no matter how small there is a chance you might win. I have barebacked straight married men in the bushes, and I have crossed paths with all sorts of "safe only ddf free" guys who can't wait to get a bare penis up the back side. I am a lot more at ease with someone who is upfront about being positive and is following a proper regimen and is honest about viral load that someone who claims to be negative. Why would anyone risk anything on flimsy demographics and possibly very practiced liars?. Either you practice safer sex every time or you don't. If you cannot be 100% certain that your partner is negative and monogamous with you, then you must practice the regimen there too, or there is a risk. The only risk free sex is no sex. After that there is an asymptotic curve that rises with a lot of factors that can get you infected. Even then, some manage to never sero convert, some manage to do it in one encounter. It's a little like getting pregnant. it only takes one time, but you can do it 100 times and not get there. It does not matter who you do, if you want to MINIMIZE the risk, use the rubber. You can get HIV/std's from anybody. They don't walk around with tattoos on their foreheads. Some will tell you, some will lie. Assume everyone is positive and behave accordingly. It is up to nobody but yourself to be responsible. Rape aside, you can chose your behavior. Don't be a hater, and don't condemn an entire group on shaky statistical data. There is nothing easier to lie about than sex. love whomever you wish, but accept nothing.

[void()]

1. Never said I was going to place you ignore via the site. What I said,


I will remember you quite well. Enough so in fact, I have doubts upon
missing you whence you're ignored.

Please notice, I specifically said whence you are ignored. This does not state you are ignored, or I am using the site's ignore feature. It infers the option exists, which may be applied or not at my discretion. This is why I used a phrasing of whence you are.

2. Like me, in the context used is to imply people whom are tired of your underhanded, puerile, antics in abasement and degradation of others. I could care less if those people 'like me' are men, women, or something in between. You abuse ideas and people. I really do not see what you gain from it. I don't have to know what you gain, or why to see and know you do it.

3. I am a non-promiscuous bisexual male. I have used safe sex practices, will do so in the future. Your academic theory or mindset is wholly dispelled in the fact that I exist. I do not need to do, say anything further. Even you yourself admitted, you said, most and not all. And yes, there is a demonstrable chasm of separation of two classes of ideas there. I even admitted that much herein as well.

4. You assuredly were provoked prior to posting originally, enough so that you continued on some tirade against a few. It is good you admit to bashing others, the same as everyone involved. I too admit speaking gruffly and harshly of and to others.

5. Sorry to disappoint you. The drama is over. I can no longer subject other people to anything I may say here. It is clear to me certain types of people are meant for certain types of things. Obviously, you are meant to be the steadfast voice of reason and light in the dismal world of online forums. I obviously am meant to move along from the internet after having hanging around on it for about sixteen, or so years in free time. There's plenty of other things i can do. For example, I have a loving family to enjoy, finally. Don't need this any more.

[ExSailor]

I kind of went through this thread and most of it is a bunch of wackiness. I have been HIV+ for 23 years. I have slept around a lot. You would not be able to spot me. You would not peg me as gay, or by, and these days would just assume I was somebody's grampa. There are some subtle signs that can indicate if someone has been infected for a long time, or has been on meds for a while, but i didn't see any of these mentioned. Statistics may point to lower risk in this group or that, but lower risk is not no risk. Assuming you always wear your seatbelt whether to the 7-11 or 6 hours on the freeway, you have embraced the concept that there is always risk. If you buy a lottery ticket, you acknowledge that no matter how small there is a chance you might win. I have barebacked straight married men in the bushes, and I have crossed paths with all sorts of "safe only ddf free" guys who can't wait to get a bare penis up the back side. I am a lot more at ease with someone who is upfront about being positive and is following a proper regimen and is honest about viral load that someone who claims to be negative. Why would anyone risk anything on flimsy demographics and possibly very practiced liars?. Either you practice safer sex every time or you don't. If you cannot be 100% certain that your partner is negative and monogamous with you, then you must practice the regimen there too, or there is a risk. The only risk free sex is no sex. After that there is an asymptotic curve that rises with a lot of factors that can get you infected. Even then, some manage to never sero convert, some manage to do it in one encounter. It's a little like getting pregnant. it only takes one time, but you can do it 100 times and not get there. It does not matter who you do, if you want to MINIMIZE the risk, use the rubber. You can get HIV/std's from anybody. They don't walk around with tattoos on their foreheads. Some will tell you, some will lie. Assume everyone is positive and behave accordingly. It is up to nobody but yourself to be responsible. Rape aside, you can chose your behavior. Don't be a hater, and don't condemn an entire group on shaky statistical data. There is nothing easier to lie about than sex. love whomever you wish, but accept nothing. Well said! I agree with you completely. The bisexual men that aeonpax wants to falsely and foolishly claim are a major risk for infecting her and all women or their sexual partners of either gender with HIV or with being HIV+ actually know more about how to practice safer sex correctly, and actually do practice safer sex correctly and consistently with all partners of either gender-while straight people of both genders do not, and even lesbians and gay men do not always practice safer sex consistently or correctly. You would not believe the large number of gay men I have met who once they learn I am poz tell me how they want me to fuck them raw without a condom and they tell me how they want my poz load up their ass. Yes they are the "HIV- DDF UB2" type that you posted about. I do not do this, and I have never infected anyone with HIV. I avoid people who want to engage in unsafe sex with me. Even when I am having sex with someone who is also HIV+ we use condoms and have safer sex. I do not want to get infected with another strain of HIV, get reinfected with the strain I carry, or infect someone else with the strain of HIV I have. I also do not want to mess up my or their meds from working.

[Gearbox]

The chart does not depict the most careless (white msm) to the most careful (white hetero male) in regards to 'safer sex' practices.
What it does, is:
1. Depict groups in order of carelessness + HIV being present.
2. Depict NEW infections in 2009.
3. Omit what group the new infections came from.
4. Not give the names, addresses and pics of those with HIV+ of any group.

I'd think that I was stating the blatantly obvious there, but apparently I'm not. I'd also naively assume that everybody would take into account all the unwanted pregnancies and STI infections that heterosexuals are 'treated for' each year due to unprotected sex.
It doesn't add up!:rolleyes: Because the only way to get yourself on that chart is to get HIV+. In 2010 you'd be OFF that chart.
So you can not claim to be 'safer' by avoiding any group!


Statistics may point to lower risk in this group or that, but lower risk is not no risk. Assuming you always wear your seatbelt whether to the 7-11 or 6 hours on the freeway, you have embraced the concept that there is always risk. If you buy a lottery ticket, you acknowledge that no matter how small there is a chance you might win.
THIS is what I've tried to say! (Thanks).
Discrimination against a group is just 'feel good chicken soup' that makes you believe your safer. When in fact, there is no practicality in statistics being any use to YOUR 'safer sex' practice.
(I mean 'YOU' in general btw! Not 'you' the lovely Mamram!):tongue:

[slipnslide]

Don't be a hater, and don't condemn an entire group on shaky statistical data.

Again, SHOW why you think that data is shaky, don't just claim it to be.

I've never seen a bunch of people so incapable of backing up their opinions with data.

But I know why you don't - you can't. The data is against you.

Every dataset I've seen from national services to local public health offices make the same approximate claim: the MSM community has HIV and STI infection rates that are 40x their heterosexual counterparts.

Using this data is why I don't have sex with men. Sex with a heterosexual woman would be far smarter. Very little infection in white hetero women my age + condoms = very low risk to my health.

[BiDaveDtown]

It's 2012 you should know by now how to have safer sex and how not infect someone with HIV or get infected with HIV. I remember when AIDS/HIV was new and how everyone learned about how it was transmitted, and how to have safer sex. Aeon and others who are living in an 80s AIDS panic want to completely revise history and spread their own agendas about bisexual men and people who are HIV+. Someone's sexual orientation, race, and gender have nothing to do if they're HIV+ or at high risk for being HIV+ since you get infected with HIV by having unprotected sex not by the the fact that your sexual partner is a gay or bisexual man, and yes there are many straight people who are HIV+. Despite the HIV denialists, biphobes/homophobes, and pozphobes like the OP and another who are posting in this thread most people worldwide who are HIV+ are heterosexual and they were infected via unprotected heterosexual sex. Yes white hetero women of all ages can and are HIV+. The OP isn't nearly as intelligent or worldly as she claims to be, and it's clear to everyone here that she has her own agendas and wants to spread biphobia about bisexual men, homophobia about gay men, and wrong information about HIV and how safer sex does not prevent HIV transmission or infection which is false. She was a teen mom and already has multiple kids and isn't even in her early 30s yet and spends more time getting knocked up on purpose-remember folks it takes two to tango when it comes to safer sex and birth control- than actually learning about how to prevent HIV/STDs and pregnancy, and how to have safer sex correctly by using condoms. She has no other ambition in life than to be some dude's baby mama and leech off of him for child support. She and others posting about how bisexual men spread HIV all while completely ignoring the fact that people have safer sex with HIV+ people all the time and don't get infected. No this is not an attack on them, it's a fact. Safer sex, birth control, and HIV/STDs are not something that aeon knows anything about and she can scream from the rooftops about how those icky bisexual men are HIV+ and go around infecting women after we have sex with gay men, and those horrible bisexual men posting here have their own agendas, don't actually present studies or facts-when actually we do and they are based on over 30 years of studies done about HIV/AIDS and safer sex and partnerships like ExSailor has where one person is HIV+ the other is HIV- and they practice safer sex and the HIV- person remains HIV- and they've done this for decades.

[slipnslide]

It saddens me how poor so many of you are at critical thinking. I'm starting to understand why these infection rates are so high in the MSM community. They can't think or reason.

Again, it's so simple:

(MSM infection rate)(risk of transmission) > (heterosexual infection rate)(risk of transmission) > celibacy

Where, the MSM infection rate is 40x the heterosexual infection rate, and the transmission risk of anal sex is 18x that of vagina intercourse.

Substitute those numbers in:

(40)(18) > (1)(1) > 0

720 > 1 > 0

Don't get hung up on the precision of the numbers, the magnitudes are there, but fundamental principle is what I'm demonstrating. If you can't follow that, you probably shouldn't be having sex at all.

[darkeyes]

Don't be a hater, and don't condemn an entire group on shaky statistical data. There is nothing easier to lie about than sex. love whomever you wish, but accept nothing.
I agree that people should avoid hate... and that we should not condemn anyone even on the basis of reliable and trusted data... there is a misconception that æon hates.. that she is relying on untrustworthy and unreliable studies and condemns accordingly.. we rely all of us on the best data we can to decide upon our own path.. it is odd how when we come from a certain position that we often tend to reject data and studies which do not uphold our position... but not unknown or unusual...that most here disagree with æon does not make her a hater.. she has chosen her path as best she is able and has decided how best to live her sexual life.. a form of safer sex however we look at it.. I am not sure were I still attracted to men whether I could be quite so scrupulous and disciplined but possibly.. when I was interested in men I never knowingly had sex with a bisexual guy.. but by the law of averages it is likely.. I never asked and the information was never offered because tbh I didn't care.. that æon does, means not hate or biphobia or misandry.. it simply means she knows what she thinks she knows and has decided accordingly...

I have several times refused sex with men (and women) who had outbreaks of herpes as well as several guys who had very dodgy unhealthy looking penises and no amount of persuasion could make me have sex, safer or otherwise with anyone I knew was syphilitic or had a dose of gonorrhoea or chlamydia or whom I suspected may be a carrier of such infections and I would have to think twice about one who was HIV irrespective gender. Neither would I ever have sex, protected or other wise with a cottage cheese or ne other dodgy looking cock...It is not quite the same, but to me it is close enough to æon's position to have some understanding of why she thinks as she does..... at the end of the day it is her body and her life... she does not dislike or hate gay or bisexual anyone, but she has taken a conscious decision how she will live her life and with whom she will or will not fuck and how based on the best information she has available.... people may think she is over cautious and even wrong.. but that is for her to decide and it is and for no-one else and she should not be condemned for it.. safer sex is all very well and something to be applauded and is a wise course. But safer sex is not and never shall be infallible...

[slipnslide]

But safer sex is not and never shall be infallible...

True. This thread has reaffirmed my decision to not have sex with guys also. The cavalier and irresponsible attitudes displayed by some of these guys make me see them as disgusting cesspools of disease. I've made some gay friends over the last few years and about 75% have admitted to having contracted an STI at some point in the last 3 years. I couldn't believe it. Their response is incredible too, and always the same, "it's not big deal, you just take a pill and you're fine."

I've never met a woman that irresponsible.

[darkeyes]

True. This thread has reaffirmed my decision to not have sex with guys also. The cavalier and irresponsible attitudes displayed by some of these guys make me see them as disgusting cesspools of disease. I've made some gay friends over the last few years and about 75% have admitted to having contracted an STI at some point in the last 3 years. I couldn't believe it. Their response is incredible too, and always the same, "it's not big deal, you just take a pill and you're fine."

I've never met a woman that irresponsible.They exist ok Slippy... I know a few..far fewer in number than guys but equally irresponsible... interestingly married heterosexual women are more likely to be HIVpos than prostitutes or single bi and heterosexual women... that tells us something but I haven't quite made up my mind what... marrieds,male or female were always off limits to me but not because of knowledge of ne data of HIV or other std infection except those who had recently left a relationship.. if we consider married heterosexual women as a parallel to bisexual males (humour me please) as a group, my attitude now were i still foot loose and fancy free would remain the same both in respect of those still in their relationship and my attitude to those who had ended theirs......and if I was still bisexual it would be the same in respect of married men.. but having said that... this does not change my view on æon's position...

[dafydd]

if you wear a condom or make sure they wear a condom there's really very little to worry about.
It really saddens me to think you imagine most gay or bi men as "cesspools of disease".
it's just so wrong that the guys you meet are all irresponsible players. have faith in men slipnslide, it doesn't do you any good to feel that a large part of your sexuality is to do with disease, sexual immorality, aids ridden gays and death and dying.

Horrendous.

How do you see your future battling against your physical desire with men... It doesn't sound like it's going to be easy... If not soul destroying. What is your plan for the future in regard that side of your sexuality? sometimes I forget how disgusting it all really is. Perhaps you're the one ultimately better off and ill be wishing I hadn't even done as much as looked at cock, when I fester away, reeking of AIDS and Hep C and sin at 45.

"Should have only pounded pussy" - may that be my epitaph: a warning to the next generation of rotten, unnatural, perverted cock hungry men. Unclean! Unclean! Lucky heather! Lucky heather!

D
(just extending your depressing, misleading world view on bisexuality slip, to it's logical if not ridiculous conclusion)


True. This thread has reaffirmed my decision to not have sex with guys also. The cavalier and irresponsible attitudes displayed by some of these guys make me see them as disgusting cesspools of disease. I've made some gay friends over the last few years and about 75% have admitted to having contracted an STI at some point in the last 3 years. I couldn't believe it. Their response is incredible too, and always the same, "it's not big deal, you just take a pill and you're fine."

I've never met a woman that irresponsible.

[Gearbox]

Their response is incredible too, and always the same, "it's not big deal, you just take a pill and you're fine."

I've never met a woman that irresponsible.
They are called 'Morning After Pills'. Not around when Boy George released Karma Chameleon, but very popular these days. Also it's not often a woman will tell you her STI history. Unless your her Dr.;)

[slipnslide]

How do you see your future battling against your physical desire with men... It doesn't sound like it's going to be easy... If not soul destroying.

Actually it's faded away on its own. I'm not even sure I'd use the bisexual label to describe myself anymore.

[BiDaveDtown]

I'm starting to understand why these infection rates are so high in the MSM community. They can't think or reason. If you can't follow that, you probably shouldn't be having sex at all. As others have posted, it's a virus. It does not care about your race, gender, sexual orientation, or age. It does not care about your or the OP's bigotry, issues with biphobia, or flawed statistics and flawed logic either that you and aeon are claiming is factual to promote your personal agendas of biphobia and pozphobia. You get HIV not from having sex with certain people of a gender, race, or sexual orientation; but because of having unprotected sex. Try telling all of the millions of heterosexuals who have died from AIDS or who are living with HIV that they contracted from having unprotected sex with hetero partners that heterosexuals have low risk for HIV or that vaginal sex is somehow less risky than anal sex. I know hetero men and women who had unprotected sex just once with a heterosexual partner and they were infected this way. You are assuming that hets don't have unprotected anal sex which isn't true. Also not all bisexual or gay men even engage in anal sex with each other. Most bi and gay men do not despite the stereotypes about bisexual and gay men and how people think that when two men get together we're just going to have anal sex. The only people who should not be having sex at all are people like yourself and aeon who don't know about safer sex and are in complete denial about how HIV can and does infect people of all ages, genders, sexual orientations, and races and who have your heads buried in the sand with denial about HIV and how it can even infect straight men and women, and people of all races.

[BiDaveDtown]

Their response is incredible too, and always the same, "it's not big deal, you just take a pill and you're fine." I've never met a woman that irresponsible. They're out there. I have met straight white women who are in complete denial about how they can get infected with HIV and there are A LOT of foolish hetero women and men who think that because they're hetero and not bisexual or gay, or an IV drug user that they can't get HIV from unprotected sex with their male or female heterosexual partners and they're wrong. I have also met hetero women who thought that the meds for HIV are a cure when they're not.

[slipnslide]

I give up.

Let the cesspools fuck the cesspools and spread their diseases to each other.

Let those who know better, be healthy.

[æonpax]

`
This has now turned disgusting. I can understand where a few guys whom are misogynistic will lie about, twist and contort what I say to suit their pathetic and sick agenda but their willful and deliberate ignorance on a topic that has life and death repercussions is an affront not only to bisexuals and the LGBT, but entire human race. These are not rational people.

“Shaky Data” – Huh? The CDC or Centers for Disease Control is the number one organization in the world on information regarding the existence and transmission of all diseases. There is nothing better. When I see desperate people attempt to semantically parse or obfuscate a statement by the CDC to suit their own ideology, it scares the hell out of me. Their rationalization here is so egregious as to be deadly.

The CDC itself states;


“There are three essential ways to reduce
your risk:
1. Don’t have sex (i.e., anal, vaginal or oral)
2. Only have sex (i.e., anal, vaginal or oral) if you’re in a
mutually monogamous relationship with a partner you
know is not infected
3. Use a condom every time you have anal, vaginal or oral
sex. (Correct and consistent use of the male latex condom
is highly effective in reducing HIV transmission.)”



At least one of the protagonists here is so full of personal rage it has affected his ability to reason and he had become a living example of the bisexual males worst nightmare. If one cannot change the reality of facts, then divert peoples attention away from them, which appears to be his mantra, as the two posts above plainly show. Rather than confront an issue, it’s far easier (and cowardly) to cast aspersions and misinformation. A dangerous person.

Sites and forums like this can be a good source of information and discussion but beyond that, every bisexual should be aware that there are those can and will distort such information for their own gain, which is why nothing should be taken verbatim and should be researched. Safer sex is possible but it's up to the individual to decide what works best for them. Don't allow yourself to get bullied into do something you are not comfortable with.

[dafydd]

They are called 'Morning After Pills'. Not around when Boy George released Karma Chameleon, but very popular these days. Also it's not often a woman will tell you her STI history. Unless your her Dr.;)G... We're yet to have that talk. PS hey Mr.Winner. You were amazing last nite. Erudite. Witty. Handsome. Charasmatic. I can't believe no one else was stalking you at the awards reception.The way you held your Gong, so well was it endowed upon you.You'll always be fist place in my nook. X ? (a waitor; a dinner guest; a face in the crowd; a pot plant)