am i a hypocrite?

[naive]

with my sexual experience only extending as far as pornography, i'm obviously still finding myself. i know that everyone has their own personal preference and i'm sure that these extend far and wide beyond my comprehension. i don't know if i am bicurious, bisexual or even gay.

i've read some profiles about how some men are only looking for a j/o buddy, with no touching/kissing. this intrigued my innocent little mind as i mistakenly thought that being bisexual or even bicurious meant physical intercourse. i mean, if your attracted to a person of the same sex, why wouldn't you wanna fuck them?

this led me to look at myself. i've always like straight porn. i've hidden the fact that i prefer it when the men are fit and attractive (but i accept that now). i've seen some gay and bi porn but, at the moment, i'm not particularly turned on by it nor do i want to fuck/be fucked up the ass or suck a guy's dick. any insight?

[rmorti]

Im with you too there. mines a bit different, I am visually drawn more towards men at the moment, I just need to accept thats what is going on at the moment and probably tell my lady friend. However I love straight porn and fantasizing about girls when I see to myself.
I dont want anyone to "f*ck me in the ass" and Im pretty sure I cant bring mself to suck a guys cock but then I suppose ill find out at the moment in time. However I am not phased by the idea of wanking off a guy at all, shagging a guy or having him pleasure me. But personally I dont even want to kiss a guy to be honest. Preferences are preferences, I may find out I dont like it when I actualy "Try it" and all go back to the way I was, or vise versa, I may get really turned on adn changed my ideas completely. One thing i;ve learnt is go with the flow..not alot else you can do and do what feels right.

[Skater Boy]

this led me to look at myself. i've always like straight porn. i've hidden the fact that i prefer it when the men are fit and attractive (but i accept that now). i've seen some gay and bi porn but, at the moment, i'm not particularly turned on by it nor do i want to fuck/be fucked up the ass or suck a guy's dick. any insight?

I think you can work out the answer to that one yourself, can't you? Sounds fairly simple.

Athough it depends on how you define bisexuality and homosexuality. If you require the desire to have sexual intimacy to be labelled as Bi or Gay, then the truth would be that you're NOT either of those.

However, if you include emotional attraction and love, then its a whole different issue. I've debated this with numerous people, and everyone seems to have their own views. After all, there are very few certainties where gender and sexuality issues are concerned.

Personally, I would say that you are heterosexual, unless you have a strong desire for men in one form or another.

Rmorti, on the other hand, seems slightly more confused.

hey, if I had a dime for every one of these threads that got started by a newbie, I'd surely be rich by now! Maybe they should re-name this place " www.confused.com " and sell car insurance at Bisexual.com instead! :bigrin: hehe, I can see why Void Dweller's patience was was tested...

[canuckotter]

Short answer: Not everyone's into the same thing, and trust me, not everyone's into anal. And oral... Some people love to give, some love to receive, some love both, some don't want either. So yes, it's quite possible to be bi and not want to take part in those forms of sexual interaction.

Personally, I'm very definitely not straight, but most of the time I get no more aroused watching gay porn than I would watching the news... :tong: bi porn can be very interesting, but I also go through phases where I just have no interest in it.

Of course, it is worth considering the possibility that you're just an open-minded straight guy. If you really aren't sure either way, then the only way to be sure is to actually experiment. Until then... don't worry about it too much. ;)

[Skater Boy]

Of course, it is worth considering the possibility that you're just an open-minded straight guy. If you really aren't sure either way, then the only way to be sure is to actually experiment. Until then... don't worry about it too much. ;)

Two of the ways I judge my sexuality are through arousal and fantasy. Simply put, anything that automatically arouses me I hold some degree of preference for. So next time you get a sex-related erection, stop and think exactly WHAT gave you it. And if I can readily experience pleasure (and climax) through fantasizing (with or without physical stimulation), then similarly, I can suspect that whatever I fantasized about holds some relevance to the bigger picture of "my sexuality". :2cents:

[DiamondDog]

Anal sex and giving oral sex are not requirements for having sex with men.

Believe it or not there are gay/bisexual men who aren't into anal sex at all and who don't like to suck cock. Yes some men are more masturbatory in their sex practises with other men.

We all have our likes and dislikes.

I have a male friend that's bisexual that's big into fucking women's asses and getting fucked by them with toys but he does not like to fuck women's vaginas and finds them to be nasty compared to an anus of either gender, as he's VERY anal oriented and he will give a woman oral sex but only if she is clean.

People's tastes can change too. When I first came out as a teenager I never thought that I'd find fisting or whipping to be hot or that I'd want to do W/S but people change.

Have sex with both genders and pay attention to your fantasies and sexual dreams, as these can tell you a lot about yourself.

[shameless agitator]

Until then... don't worry about it too much. ;)This, I think is the best advice we can ever give people trying to identify their sexuality. You like what you like, what turns you on turns you on. How important is the label anyway?

[naive]

wow, a lot to catch up on after only one day. yes i am a newbie, and i hope i'm not wasting too much of your time with my newbie questions but i really appreciate all the advice.

not knowing any LGBT's, i wasn't really sure what was common, if there really is any such thing. i guess i'm trying to classify/label myself because that's where the focus lies when you come out. i know that, deep down, it doesn't really matter and that people evolve throughout their accumulation of experiences. but i mean, if people actually consider me to be simply an open-minded hetero then it kind of seems silly for me to be in this forum at all.

unfortunately i haven't lived long enough to have any emotional connection with either guys/girls and so i've had to base my sexuality on lust rather than love. i have preferences, but i'm not going to rule out anything. i have at least come to terms with the fact that i would be open to "almost" anything and that i am allowed to change my mind once i've tried it.

one thing that i've questioned about myself, which may seem strange, is that sometimes i feel that i like fantasising about attractive men having sex because i've believed (in my screwed up mind) that the women are more attracted to that type, and so i like picturing myself looking like that (even though i know i don't).

[Skater Boy]

but i mean, if people actually consider me to be simply an open-minded hetero then it kind of seems silly for me to be in this forum at all.

See, I disagree there. It all depends on what you're looking for. if being an "open-minded heterosexual" means you are open to potential homosexual encounters, then visiting this site and gaining information and communicating is certainly not silly, IMO. Check our member list... we DO have 100% heterosexual members on this site. Just like we have 100% gay ones too. Its like going to a niteclub... some people say if you're gay you have to go to a "gay club", and if you're straight, you have to go to a "straight club". But IMHO thats narrow minded. I much prefer clubs that are frequented by a VARIETY of people... thats what life is all about. No more Sexuality Fascism please!

Btw "open-minded hetero" would just a working title until you eventually progress from the "Bi-Possible" state to the "Bi-Definite" or "heterosexual" one.

But remember that many people suspect that Bisexuality is mankind's natural state, and that in reality labels are not really all that important.

[DiamondDog]

If you like men you're not an open minded "straight" guy.

Guys that are heterosexual simply don't want sex with other men at all, not even oral sex or jack off.

[Skater Boy]

If you like men you're not an open minded "straight" guy.

Guys that are heterosexual simply don't want sex with other men at all, not even oral sex or jack off.

I think the term "open-minded" is misleading. What it actually means is "open to non-heterosexual experiences". Which wouldn't make you 100% straight either. But it has been said by some that very few people are 100% straight, even if they never act on those impulses or have a homosexual experience. Another reason why "labels" can be confusing.

[DiamondDog]

I think the term "open-minded" is misleading. What it actually means is "open to non-heterosexual experiences". Which wouldn't make you 100% straight either. But it has been said by some that very few people are 100% straight, even if they never act on those impulses or have a homosexual experience. Another reason why "labels" can be confusing.

yeah but that's being bisexual.

you don't have to have acted upon your sexual attractions to both genders and you can be bisexual and be a virgin as I was once like this.

I wouldn't say that very few people are 100% hetero as heterosexual people are in the majority of the population as sex research and just society will show you this.

[Skater Boy]

yeah but that's being bisexual.

you don't have to have acted upon your sexual attractions to both genders and you can be bisexual and be a virgin as I was once like this.

I wouldn't say that very few people are 100% hetero as heterosexual people are in the majority of the population as sex research and just society will show you this.

Agreed about not having to have acted on your impulses to be considered Bi. But some people go through a state of confusion in which they question their sexuality. And at this point they may be "open" to alternative sexual encounters without having confirmed a true preference. The term "Bi-curious" also applies to people who *think* they might also be attracted to the same sex, but have not yet confirmed it to themsleves, or though intimacy.

Hell, maybe we should just have a catagory called "confused"... it'd be simpler.

As for most people not being potentially Bi, well, Freud called it "Innate Bisexuality" :

"Innate bisexuality (or predisposition to bisexuality) is a term introduced by Sigmund Freud (based on work by his associate Wilhelm Fliess), that expounds all humans are born bisexual but through psychological development (which includes both external and internal factors) become monosexual while the bisexuality remains in a latent state." (Wiki)

Which basically means that at birth, all humans are "potentially" Bisexual, and any preference that eventually occurs is usually a result of developmental factors.

But obviously I know that some of Freud's theories are questionable.

[shameless agitator]

I wouldn't say that very few people are 100% hetero as heterosexual people are in the majority of the population as sex research and just society will show you this.I would argue that this is simply because most people in society never aknowledge their attractions to the same sex. Basic biology shows us that all mammals are naturally bisexual to some degree. The difference between humans and other mammals is simply that they don't have societal rules and mores saying that anything non-hetero is wrong or as many freudians would have it infantilized.

[AdamKadmon43]

I am beginning to suspect that people spend far too much time being pre-occupied with sex.

[Azrael]

I am beginning to suspect that people spend far too much time being pre-occupied with sex.

Trying to make sense of nonsense. It's the human experience defined :bigrin:

[parkwings]

:rolleyes:Sex/sexuality is VERY important to me, so yes I am pre-occupied with it..so what!

Would it be better if I was pre-occupied with checkers or chess?

[shameless agitator]

:rolleyes:Sex/sexuality is VERY important to me, so yes I am pre-occupied with it..so what!

Would it be better if I was pre-occupied with checkers or chess?At least with checkers and chess you know what the rules are.:bigrin:

[naive]

i guess labels are just as important to people on one side of the fence as the other. i'll try not to be phased by the purists and continue with this forum no matter how i (or anybody else) decide to classify myself, regardless of its changing state.

sorry i dont know how to quote people properly (i'm a forum newb too!)

Skater Boy: "Which basically means that at birth, all humans are "potentially" Bisexual, and any preference that eventually occurs is usually a result of developmental factors."

i've never heard this before. is this one of the arguments that fundamentalist christians put forward when they claim that GLBT's attraction to members of the same sex is their choice? and that if they weren't poisoned by the sexual world we live in, they should be able to control their homosexual urges and become like the majority?

are u on the "questionable" side of that argument or do u believe it holds some truth?

[Skater Boy]

i'll try not to be phased by the purists and continue with this forum no matter how i (or anybody else) decide to classify myself, regardless of its changing state.


Skater Boy: "Which basically means that at birth, all humans are "potentially" Bisexual, and any preference that eventually occurs is usually a result of developmental factors."

i've never heard this before. is this one of the arguments that fundamentalist christians put forward when they claim that GLBT's attraction to members of the same sex is their choice? and that if they weren't poisoned by the sexual world we live in, they should be able to control their homosexual urges and become like the majority?

are u on the "questionable" side of that argument or do u believe it holds some truth?

Don't worry about the "changing state" of the forum. everything is in constant flux, and there will always be disagreements.

Do I agree with the "innate Bisexuality" theory? I'm not sure. Its just one theory out of many about human sexuality. And there is little way of proving it right or wrong.

I DON'T think its something that fundamentalist Christians would agree with though. Because it implies that bisexuality is mankind's natural state at birth- something they would NOT like. Controlling one's sexuality is a very difficult thing under ANY circumstances. And "developmental factors" should not be mistaken for "choices".

HTH :2cents:

[naive]

lol, i just realised there's a quote button :)

it certainly does help. by "changing state" i actually meant my self-definition, rather than the forum, but i'm not worried by either.

and sorry for not being clear about christianity's point of view. i certainly understand that the church wouldn't accept a belief that everyone is born bisexual. the part that they would take from that theory (because they certainly do love to take things out of context) is the statement that a person's preference can be altered by "outside" factors rather than an attraction being simply a force of nature.

i can understand how a person's development can definitely be influenced by the world around him/her but as far as it being the deciding factor in determining a person's identity? i think free will is a strong thing and if there is any "innateness" in a person, it will probably come out no matter the situation.

i don't think i mistook "choice" with "developmental factors", i was just trying to verbalise a christian's opinion that if a person's sexuality can be changed, then it's their choice that they become influenced by these developmental factors. if you're tempted by sin (by their standards, not mine), you should control yourself and change your surroundings.

i hope i'm not confusing myself again, but i guess imho, i wouldn't be able to fully trust freud's theory because i can't imagine a world where the majority of people are keeping their innateness latent (if that makes sense).

[naive]

although, "innate bisexuality" would be an interesting point of discussion with an attractive straight guy. :bigrin:

[Skater Boy]

Naive, never under-estimate the power that environmental factors can have on one's development. Its a known fact that those who are abused during their childhood can sometimes go on to abuse others in later life, and thats just one example. Another would be research indicating that homosexuality is more common in the youngest of multiple brothers. Obviously environmental factors are not everything... internal ones (such as genetics) matter too. But to deny one's environment has an impact on one's personality (and sexuality) doesn't seem sensible to me.

:2cents:

[DiamondDog]

Nobody takes Freud seriously anyway nowadays.

[Azrael]

Nobody takes Freud seriously anyway nowadays.

You'd be surprised how many people still revere the works of this degenerate blow-monster :eek:

[naive]

skater boy, i think that we basically agree on the same thing but are coming from slightly different perspectives. i've learnt enough about the theory of nature vs nurture (albeit in the field of myopia) to understand that each play an important role in the development of a person, whether it be their sexual identity or their refractive state. and neither side has been able to disprove the other, despite the years of research. although i can't have a very educated opinion about a person's psychological development, i certainly have seen many inescapable genetic traits that get passed on from parent to child.

what i find difficult to grasp about freud's theory is that despite the fact that all humans are born bisexual, the world we live in today has enough influence to hide the bisexual traits of the majority of the population. i mean, wouldn't "innate heterosexuality" be just as plausible? and this question is where i felt that christians may distort the theory to support their claim that non-heterosexuality can be changed/fixed with the right "developmental factors" whilst disregarding any genetic effects.

[Skater Boy]

Naive, I can't quote exact figures, or even substantiate this claim. But find it interesting that as society's TOLERANCE toward homosexuality is increasing, so, it would seem, are the NUMBER of people admitting to having such feelings. thats not necessarily to say there are MORE homosexuals and bisexuals than previously. But perhaps rather that more are exploring, or owning up to these feelings where before they could not, or opted not to.

As for society's influence not being enough to supress the innate homosexual traits... homosexuality was ILLEGAL less than 100 years ago, and in some places, it may still be, for all I know. Before it was legalized people displaying homosexual traits were, to some degree marginalized and victimized. It is estimated that the Nazis killed 15,000 people just for being homosexual. The Catholic church STILL claims that homosexuality is "inherantly wrong". And even though society claims to have changed since the old days, IMHO we still have a LONG way to go before TRUE equality and sexual freedom exist. Are the above reasons, combined with the numerous others that I omitted, enough to repress a persons innate homosexual side? I would guess that they most likely are.

Never under-estimate the power of the group mentality. Social and moral norms are dictated largely by the society we live in, IMO. And you just have to do the research on how humans often think differently when in groups to understand this.

:2cents:

[naive]

you seem to think that i under-estimate a lot of things skater boy. i don't have to do much research to understand pack mentality. i can just as easily look out the window. and i also did go through high school where the mob runs rampant.

i still can't say that i'm very convinced that one particular trait like sexuality to be innate in "all humans". if anything, a genetic predisposition to be heterosexual would make more sense because, for humans, it more efficiently allows our race to survive. but where does the innateness end? it may seem like a stretch, but another theory may be that we are all born herbivores but societal pressures and the livestock industry influence the majority of humans to become omnivores?

[dafydd]

As for society's influence not being enough to supress the innate homosexual traits... homosexuality was ILLEGAL less than 100 years ago, and in some places, it may still be, for all I know. Before it was legalized people displaying homosexual traits were, to some degree marginalized and victimized. It is estimated that the Nazis killed 15,000 people just for being homosexual. The Catholic church STILL claims that homosexuality is "inherantly wrong".

Forget 100 years, homosexuality in Britain was legalised in 1967, only 40 years ago.
There are 70 countries in the world in which homosexuality is still illegal. In 9 or 10 it is punishable by death.
In some states in the US sodomy is still ilegal. If you serve in the US army, sodomy is also illegal.

kindof put things in perspective.

d

[Skater Boy]

Ho, ho, ho, naive. I have to admit, you made me smile. The "Innate Bisexuality" theory was put forward by FREUD and not myself. Therefore, if you feel you have done enough research in this field, and are competent enough in psychoanalysis to completely disproove Freud's theory, then why not submit your thoughts to the relevant experts, and see what they say? They may even offer you an honorary title. My comments were partially hypothetical, and in response to your queries on the subject. In fact, as I stated in my previous post: this is but one theory of many on the subject, and is by no means a given, nor does it reflect my own personal beliefs... partly because I don't have any solid beliefs on this subject, other than a few that have been suggested by researched conclusions.

Futhermore, it IS my view that MANY people under-estimate MANY things. So for anyone to under-estimate the issue in my previous post would certainly not be such a large stretch of imagination.

At a guess, I would say that the "Innate HETEROsexuality" theory is the popular belief of the vast majority of heterosexual society. Is it correct? Without EXTENSIVE research, we can never be sure. So if you're searching for concrete answers, or implications of such, then I would recommend frequenting an internet forum that is more scientifically or psychoanalytically orientated.

:2cents:

[Skater Boy]

Forget 100 years, homosexuality in Britain was legalised in 1967, only 40 years ago.
There are 70 countries in the world in which homosexuality is still illegal. In 9 or 10 it is punishable by death.
In some states in the US sodomy is still ilegal. If you serve in the US army, sodomy is also illegal.

kindof put things in perspective.

d

D, those are just the LEGAL implications of homosexuality. lets not also forget that the SOCIAL ones are equally important and just as powerful.

[naive]

*shakes skater boy's hand*

i never really wanted to go into very deep psychoanalytical discussion because i know that most of the time it is over my head. in no way do i believe myself to be competent in these matters but if i have an opinion, i can't help but voice it. and i guess its not enough for me to simply voice it, but to drag it out to the point where others understand it as much as i do, regardless of whether they agree. not sure if this is a good or bad thing yet.

i don't think that i, or anyone else for that matter, would get concrete answers on this issue any time soon. i'm spending enough time battling my demons without needing to help the rest of the world discover their true identities.

one thing i can say is that i have no doubt learnt a lot about myself and about a small slice of the big bad world out there that i never bothered to venture into before. all because of this damn forum (and its only been a week)!

[Skater Boy]

Naive, my 2 cents is to concern yourself with WHO/WHAT you are at this moment in time. And not worry so much about the WHY.

Because, after all, the "why" is usually beyond our control, and to some people, it doesn't even matter.

Accept yourself for who you are, and live your life to the fullest.

Good luck! :)

SB

[naive]

questioning "the why" is the thing that makes me who i am. and i don't think that i will ever completely be free from that curiosity. although i think that i can control it enough to the point of not letting get the better of me.

everyone is different when it comes to this but i think that it is what makes us human.

[dafydd]

D, those are just the LEGAL implications of homosexuality. lets not also forget that the SOCIAL ones are equally important and just as powerful.


of course. I was just responding to your comment about homosexuality being illegal 100 years ago.

d

[DiamondDog]

You'd be surprised how many people still revere the works of this degenerate blow-monster :eek:
That blow monster needed a good fucking.

[michnele]

questioning "the why" is the thing that makes me who i am. and i don't think that i will ever completely be free from that curiosity. although i think that i can control it enough to the point of not letting get the better of me.

everyone is different when it comes to this but i think that it is what makes us human.

I am that way too: if I can't explain something consistently or find reasons for why I am doing something, I start to feel guilty about it.

[michnele]

questioning "the why" is the thing that makes me who i am. and i don't think that i will ever completely be free from that curiosity. although i think that i can control it enough to the point of not letting get the better of me.


I am that way too: if I can't explain something consistently or find reasons for why I am doing something, I start to feel guilty about it.

[Skater Boy]

I am that way too: if I can't explain something consistently or find reasons for why I am doing something, I start to feel guilty about it.

Oh really? Then maybe you can explain to me WHY you (and most of the people who use this site) are Bisexual?

It seems to me that as Naive says, we should not expect to find any concrete answers to these questions in the near future.

That won't stop me from asking questions, but nor will it stop me from engaging in homosexual activities! ;) :bigrin:

[naive]

i may have been a bit presumptuous in saying that everybody else wouldn't be able to find out why they are the way they are. i would think there are some people who honestly believe they have the answers and, if that's the case, we'd all like to hear them! of course, that doesn't mean i would automatically agree (as demonstrated by the innate bisexuality theory) because one answer may not hold true for everyone else.

for michnele's sake, i hope you have an answer of some sort because i'd hate to think you are feeling guilty for being the way that you are.