"Bioware Neglected Their Main Demographic:The Straight Male"

[Psychic Robot]

why would you date anyone whose sexual orientation doesn't match yours. it's a recipe for disaster. any man who claims he's "bi" is, as I said, gay and looking to score some dick on the side while maintaining the appearance of normalcy. any woman who claims she's "bi" is just looking for free drinks.

OH YEAH I'M TOTALLY BI LIKE I MADE OUT WITH ONE OF MY FRIENDS IN COLLEGE

[Orion]

I'll take one order of dick on the side, hold the appearance of normalcy.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Plastic only for me, thanks.

[DSMatticus]

I'm kind of curious how anyone can assert that bisexuality doesn't exist. Even if you ignore the fact that there are people who have fucked both sexes and achieved physiological arousal and ejaculation (edit: I should probably say orgasm here) during the process, there are dozens of cultures where bisexuality was/is a normal and frequent practice for some subset of the culture. And there are dozens of examples of normal bisexual behavior in animals.

See: Rome and Greece. Accounts vary, but at least some of the Greeks and some of the Romans during some time period would fuck anything that moved, man or woman.

See: Overlaps with above, but SPAAAAARTA. Yeah, they actively encouraged homosexual bangin' on military tour, and then actively encouraged heterosexual bangin' at home. They're in the running for gayest army ever.

See: Prisons. You'll probably reject this example because "they have no other options!" but when I'm not getting laid I don't start getting turned on by every vaguely cylindrical hole around me "because I have no other options!" It's very strange/special bisexual behavior, but it's bisexual behavior nonetheless.

See: Bottlenose dolphins. They form male partnerships and routinely stimulate another, while waiting for women to come along so they can stalk and rape them together.

See: Bonobos. And that's all I really have to say. They're a wonderful go-to for the types of freaky sexual behavior in a pure, natural environment. Every single bonobo is bisexual. They use sex as a conflict resolution mechanism. If you read this and are now thinking, "we evolved from the wrong monkey," there would be two things technically wrong with that sentence but your heart is totally in the right place.

And I really haven't even scratched the surface. And there's the fact that we had to discard everyone who's ever been sexually attracted to someone of both sexes to get here, which is kind of like saying, "discarding all the bisexual people, there are no bisexuals." Insightful.

[shadzar]

See: Rome and Greece. Accounts vary, but at least some of the Greeks and some of the Romans during some time period would fuck anything that moved, man or woman [or beast].

fixed that for ya, considering they were hedonistic.

[Psychic Robot]

See: Rome and Greece. Accounts vary, but at least some of the Greeks and some of the Romans during some time period would fuck anything that moved, man or woman.

See: Overlaps with above, but SPAAAAARTA. Yeah, they actively encouraged homosexual bangin' on military tour, and then actively encouraged heterosexual bangin' at home. They're in the running for gayest army ever.

the capacity to become aroused and have intercourse with someone of a certain sex does not indicate a sexual orientation.

See: Prisons. You'll probably reject this example because "they have no other options!" but when I'm not getting laid I don't start getting turned on by every vaguely cylindrical hole around me "because I have no other options!" It's very strange/special bisexual behavior, but it's bisexual behavior nonetheless.

thought rape was about power or did the feminist line you were spouting change

[DSMatticus]

fixed that for ya, considering they were hedonistic.

You would be surprised how completely wrong that is. Despite having legends about a super-deity who fucks everything, a lot of the forms of bisexuality had little to nothing to do with "hedonism." Slapping hedonism on the Greeks, as a whole, is actually pretty fuckin' wrong. There were entire schools of philosophy dedicated to the opposite of hedonism. The hedonism thing in general is kind of bullshit except for a small portion of the Roman empire when its ruling class was batshit insane.

the capacity to become aroused and have intercourse with someone of a certain sex does not indicate a sexual orientation.

"You got hard at the thought of it, fucked 'em because of it, and definitely enjoyed it. But that doesn't mean you're, you know, into dudes or anything."

So if the capacity to become aroused by the prospect of sexual activity, then willingly and enthusiastically engage in that sexuality activity does not define a sexual orientation, nothing does. At this point, all you are actually claiming is that sexual orientations don't exist. Which is actually a fairly legitimate claim substantiated by evidence: you can make a pretty compelling case that sexual orientations are just the products of social stigma and influences and the only thing people actually like is sex, but that's not the point you're trying to make.

If you hadn't pussied out on providing a set of criteria for what constitutes homosexuality and heterosexuality, your position would be pretty obviously contradictory because any definition you'd provide is going to be incompatible with the shit you're saying now.

[Orion]

Actually I think his claim is that because everyone has a preference for one gender, everyone is either straight or gay. The willingness to have sex with the other gender when circumstances demand it says nothing about your orientation because it's circumstantial.

EDIT: The whole "rape is about power" phrase has been thrown around by lots of different types of feminists, so I'm not gonna declaim on what crazy things it may have meant in the past. But these days I typically see it used as shorthand for "the people most likely to be raped are the least powerful, not the most attractive" or equivalently, "rapists consciously select victims they know they can get away with assaulting, rather than impulsively being overwhelmed by attraction."

[Draco_Argentum]

In PRs mind, men are either straight or they're not straight. He can't be fucked to use actual definitions of words.

if you're a "bi" guy you're actually gay.
if you're a "bi" girl you're just an attention whore.

if you argue otherwise, you're wrong.

So you're a "bi" girl? You certainly like attention whoring.

[shadzar]

fixed that for ya, considering they were hedonistic.

You would be surprised how completely wrong that is.

no, Greeks and Romans were into hedonism very much so... look up the Hellenistic Era and similar.

[DSMatticus]

Actually I think his claim is that because everyone has a preference for one gender, everyone is either straight or gay. The willingness to have sex with the other gender when circumstances demand it says nothing about your orientation because it's circumstantial.

Except his latest statements show his argument for that being "wanting, seeking, and liking sex with X isn't enough to base a sexual orientation on," at which point there is no meaningful metric left to determine sexual orientation at all. His claims are either wrong (nobody could ever be aroused by the idea of doing guys and girls!) or meaningless (but being aroused by the idea of doing guys and girls doesn't make you bisexual).

[Psychic Robot]

"You got hard at the thought of it, fucked 'em because of it, and definitely enjoyed it. But that doesn't mean you're, you know, into dudes or anything."

So if the capacity to become aroused by the prospect of sexual activity, then willingly and enthusiastically engage in that sexuality activity does not define a sexual orientation, nothing does. At this point, all you are actually claiming is that sexual orientations don't exist. Which is actually a fairly legitimate claim substantiated by evidence: you can make a pretty compelling case that sexual orientations are just the products of social stigma and influences and the only thing people actually like is sex, but that's not the point you're trying to make.

If you hadn't pussied out on providing a set of criteria for what constitutes homosexuality and heterosexuality, your position would be pretty obviously contradictory because any definition you'd provide is going to be incompatible with the shit you're saying now.

that's not what I said at all you chucklefuck. you have 10 seconds to provide me evidence of a bisexual man who isn't secretly gay.

[fbmf]

not believing in the legitimacy of bisexuality != redefining the term "illegitimate"

"Bi-sexual" has an established definition. You may not agree with the definition, but that does not make it wrong or "not established".

You don't like (read " have a negative emotional response to") the idea that someone can swing both ways, so you reject an established definition of "bisexual".

Game On,
fbmf

[Psychic Robot]

unicorns also have an established definition but that does not mean that they exist

[Count Arioch the 28th]

you have 10 seconds to provide me evidence of a bisexual man who isn't secretly gay.

You'ave already said that your brain can't comprehend that a bisexual man can possibly not be secretly gay. Which means even if I did provide evidence, you would reject it because you define bi men as secretly gay and there's nothing anyone can say to disprove it.

In short, not your most subtle attempt at trolling. You are capable of so much better. C+

[DSMatticus]

unicorns also have an established definition but that does not mean that they exist

I gave you three entire (sub)cultures that were open and practicing bisexuals, and two animals for which bisexuality is the norm. There are countless more examples of this kind of thing. Unless you think bonobos are "just trying to seem open-minded to their liberal friends," we have demonstrated without any doubt that bisexuality exists. And we've also done it in humans, but apparently your defense there is "showing historical and contemporary examples of people who seek and enjoy sex with both men and women is not sufficient to demonstrate bisexuality." It's also pretty hilarious that you use 'closet homosexual' to justify the non-bisexuality of people from an era when homosexuality wasn't stigmatized and there was zero reason to be in the closet. So that's quite possibly one of the worst defenses you could come up.

Just stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALA please stop challenging my worldview with facts." It'd work out the same.

[Psychic Robot]

You'ave already said that your brain can't comprehend that a bisexual man can possibly not be secretly gay. Which means even if I did provide evidence, you would reject it because you define bi men as secretly gay and there's nothing anyone can say to disprove it.

indeed

In short, not your most subtle attempt at trolling. You are capable of so much better. C+

no I literally believe there is no such thing as a bisexual man. of course perhaps my internal definitions of sexuality are different than others. for instance I do not consider a hedonist who fucks men for the purpose of achieving orgasm to be necessarily homosexual/bisexual, in the same way that a man who has sexual intercourse with a fleshlight is not sexually oriented around the fleshlight although he derives pleasure from it and becomes aroused by it.

but I also believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder so perhaps the point is moot. fyi I am gay I just don't talk about it incessantly unlike other people.

[tzor]

Bi women exist though.

Yes, I think I read an article about that somewhere (I'll look for it and post it ... I'll need to use bit.ly on the link because the domain name contains the c-word and the board will filter out even http links) that talked about and explained some of the reasons why bi-sexuality is higher among women than men.

Ah, here is the article I was thinking of ... not sure if it is exactly related to the general question. Female Sexual Orientation: Medical Quote(Note really Worksafe ... drawing of topless woman on top of page ... sex toys on bottom ... link goes to middle of page.

Women’s genital arousal responses are less related to their sexual preferences; although a woman might report psychological (attraction, thoughts, self-reported sexual arousal) and behavioral preferences for women or men, her genital responses are not higher to sexual images of her preferred gender. Women report increased sexual arousal to both preferred and nonpreferred sexual stimuli, which suggests that their cognitive and affective responses to sexual stimuli are not dependent upon their sexual preferences, such as sexual orientation.

Research on the specificity of women’s sexual arousal converges with current models of female sexual orientation that emphasize flexibility in women’s sexual attractions and sexual identities. Flexibility refers to a pattern of intraindividual variability in sexual preferences, attitudes, and behaviors. With respect to sexual orientation and identity, women are more likely than men to experience and express same-gender attractions and less likely to engage in exclusively heterosexual or homosexual sexual behaviors, and women’s sexual identities show less temporal stability than men’s. Diamond has suggested that the processes underlying romantic and affectionate bonding are not intrinsically gendered toward females or males, and that romantic and affectionate feelings have the capacity to kindle sexual desire, particularly among women. Therefore, a woman’s sexual desire for another woman may emerge from a close emotional relationship instead of from sexual attraction to and arousal by women. Self-reported data on the development of female sexual orientation support this proposition; women report that social and emotional factors are more salient than sexual arousal to the development of their sexual interests in either the same gender or opposite gender. Nonspecific sexual responding may increase the potential for flexibility in women’s sexuality because patterns of sexual arousal do not constrain women’s sexual behavior, feelings, or identity.

Overall, current research suggests that little can be inferred about a woman’s sexual orientation or motivation from her genital responses alone.

[Orion]

So put out or shut up, what do you consider constitutive of a sexual orientation, [EDITED]?

[fbmf]

unicorns also have an established definition but that does not mean that they exist

The fact that they are mythological is established in the definition of the word "unicorn".

Try again.

Game On,
fbmf

[Whatever]

but I also believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder so perhaps the point is moot.

In other words, people either have a "lets make babies" sexual orientation or they are crazy?

[DSMatticus]

In other words, people either have a "lets make babies" sexual orientation or they are crazy?

Praise Jeebus, amen.

[Josh_Kablack]

In other words, people either have a "lets make babies" sexual orientation or they are crazy?

That hasn't been true since the revision of the DSM-II in 1973.

Here's a link to a pdf documenting the change and arguments for and against it.

20th century psychiatry: it wasn't just insulin shock therapy and forced lobotomies.

[Psychic Robot]

So put out or shut up, what do you consider constitutive of a sexual orientation, (On a personal note, I'm gay!)?

sexual orientation is the proclivity toward having sexual and romantic feelings toward someone of a certain sex, not merely the sexual act

In other words, people either have a "lets make babies" sexual orientation or they are crazy?

if they aren't inclined toward the natural order (that is men attracted to women and women attracted to men) then yes I consider it a mental disorder. why wouldn't it be a mental disorder is a better question imo.

[DSMatticus]

if they aren't inclined toward the natural order (that is men attracted to women and women attracted to men) then yes I consider it a mental disorder. why wouldn't it be a mental disorder is a better question imo.

1) Why are you implying that natural is a word that means anything, as opposed to a bullshit word people pull out of their ass based on the completely unscientific premise that 'things people do aren't natural' AND the outright fallacious assumption that 'nature is better'? Put up or shut up; if your assertion is that the natural way is the best way and the things people do aren't natural, go live in the god damn woods or stop talking about how the creatures that do 'have it figured out.'

2) But hey, even how they do it in the woods is completely at odds with you: I gave you example of bisexual animals where it is used as a means to emotionally bond with someone. That is how bottlenose dolphins use it, that is bonobo chimpanzees use it. It's for strengthening functional partnerships and societal structures. So if your premise is that the natural order doesn't include emotional bisexual partnerships, you're already wrong, nevermind the fact that an appeal to nature was a stupid move to begin with.