Is Bisexuality the new Gay?

Originally Posted by Liquid Fire

Ugh, ok ignoring the fact you've just referenced to homosexuality as if its the "kewl new thing"
A) it's not.
B) Just because its being accepted and more people are letting their sexual orientation known does not mean the being a homosexual is somehow new and the thing 'everybody's doing'

Anyways, a phrase common to most gays "Bisexuality is a pit stop on the gay highway" and its in most cases pretty damn true. Most gays will come out as bisexual first, its a gradual stage of self acceptance without putting yourself a box, bisexuality is the nice grey area and you go back to the heterosexual side and be closeted or realize you are straight or you can go the other way and just come out and be gay.

So to answer the thread question, have you ever thought that the increase in out and proud bisexuality is just people on their way to coming out?

Now just to address the few bisexuals that are actually bisexual and not just hovering between gender limited sexualities. Again its not the new gay because I think its actually older than homosexuality, a bunch of historic figures were bisexual (julius ceaser, caligula etc.) rather than just plain gay. That could be people happy in grey region or people not wanting to lose their heterosexual identity (since it was all 'sinful' and an 'abomination' *cuss* back then) We'll never know.

But I don't think its the new gay (partly because neither are new) its just people feeling more free to talk about themselves. Simple as that.

Wow, rantage.

lol, nothing wrong with that rant.

You are right, it's common in the US to think of these sexual orientations as new. They are not, in fact, new. Rather, the societal norm used to be don't ask don't tell, from what I can gather.

So although homosexuality and bisexuality are not new concepts, being open with those self identities to society is a fairly new phenomena in the US.

Since homosexuality is open, but didn't used to be in the US; and bisexuality isn't as open yet(in my experience) I would still say that bisexuality is the new gay in the US. It seems that guys are more willing to proclaim their homosexuality than proclaim their bisexuality, in my experience.

Also to add further characterization to your notion of bisexuality being a pit stop on the "gay highway", I would direct your attention to David Bowie and the fictional character from "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" known as "gay" Parry.

Originally Posted by morval

lol, nothing wrong with that rant.

You are right, it's common in the US to think of these sexual orientations as new. They are not, in fact, new. Rather, the societal norm used to be don't ask don't tell, from what I can gather.

So although homosexuality and bisexuality are not new concepts, being open with those self identities to society is a fairly new phenomena in the US.

Since homosexuality is open, but didn't used to be in the US; and bisexuality isn't as open yet(in my experience) I would still say that bisexuality is the new gay in the US. It seems that guys are more willing to proclaim their homosexuality than proclaim their bisexuality, in my experience.

Also to add further characterization to your notion of bisexuality being a pit stop on the "gay highway", I would direct your attention to David Bowie and the fictional character from "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" known as "gay" Parry.

As far as bowie is concerned he said he is bisexual then changed it to 'was' after people called him closeted during his earlier years. True or not seems like he didn't appreciate that.

I'm a UK'er but didn't Tila Tequila do a big bisexual reality show over there in the us of a? Its on like season 2 or 3 now.

Originally Posted by Liquid Fire

As far as bowie is concerned he said he is bisexual then changed it to 'was' after people called him closeted during his earlier years. True or not seems like he didn't appreciate that.

I'm a UK'er but didn't Tila Tequila do a big bisexual reality show over there in the us of a? Its on like season 2 or 3 now.

Ahhh, I don't watch TV at all. Didn't have cable at my apartment this year, so I'm completely uncultured as far as TV shows of 2007/8 go, lol.

As for the David Bowie thing, it certainly seems that he didn't appreciate the importance that his sexuality played in the media. As to whether he is/was straight/gay/bi I haven't the foggiest. I think he said he's straight now, right?

I can like both chocolate and vanilla ice cream, can't I? So why can't someone like both guys and girls?

Originally Posted by Okami Wolfen.

I can like both chocolate and vanilla ice cream, can't I? So why can't someone like both guys and girls?

I often fail to see the beauty in simplicity.

I like that description. It seems logical to me.

Originally Posted by Okami Wolfen.

I can like both chocolate and vanilla ice cream, can't I? So why can't someone like both guys and girls?

This sums up everything that needs to be said, I think.

Originally Posted by Okami Wolfen.

I can like both chocolate and vanilla ice cream, can't I? So why can't someone like both guys and girls?

Because a the brain isn't a tongue, the tongue likes 89% of what goes into your mouth, around 4 million + things.
Genders, you have 2 (unless you're pansexual but thats a different thread) so chances of liking both flavors? Pretty slim, its like if there were only vanilla and iunno rum & raisin, you wouldn't have both and why are we comparing genders to food?

Originally Posted by Liquid Fire

Because a the brain isn't a tongue, the tongue likes 89% of what goes into your mouth, around 4 million + things.
Genders, you have 2 (unless you're pansexual but thats a different thread) so chances of liking both flavors? Pretty slim, its like if there were only vanilla and iunno rum & raisin, you wouldn't have both and why are we comparing genders to food?

That's retarded. The number doesn't make a difference at all, the proportions of which you like can still vary. You act as if, when I give you two random flavours of ice-cream, the chances of you liking both are slim, when in fact it's nothing of the sort. In fact the chances of you liking one a lot, and not liking the other at all, are slimmer than you just liking both.

Originally Posted by morval

lol I guess we're going there. I like food. What's wrong with metaphors and similes?

The tongue may like 89% of what it touches, but my dick pretty much likes 100% of the things it touches. (aside from the painfully obvious things like fire, swords, HCl, etc...)

ok . . . graphic.

BUT (graphic ) you are identifying sexuality with just plain sex. Finding someone attractive has nothing to do with sex, its fair enough using your "a hole is a hole" analogy, but you ain't going to get that far unless you have the lust/attraction or the alcohol. So it brings me back to my other point, chances of you liking both (from an attraction point of view) are relatively slim.

Well, it depends. Attraction isn't a case of "I like women", just like taste isn't necessarily a case of "I like vanilla". Your body, or mind, simply like certain features which may be prevalent in women, such as large hips, breasts, certain types of eyes, etc. So if a man were to hold these traits as well, you'd probably find them attractive (like when someone crossdresses incredibly well, sometimes guys don't know the difference and still find them hot, because they don't register to the mind as "men", they simply register as a set of features which are appealing).

Originally Posted by Lelouch

Well, it depends. Attraction isn't a case of "I like women", just like taste isn't necessarily a case of "I like vanilla". Your body, or mind, simply like certain features which may be prevalent in women, such as large hips, breasts, certain types of eyes, etc. So if a man were to hold these traits as well, you'd probably find them attractive (like when someone crossdresses incredibly well, sometimes guys don't know the difference and still find them hot, because they don't register to the mind as "men", they simply register as a set of features which are appealing).

But then they break out into "zomg that's a man" then attraction becomes fickle regardless of the features they find attractive being present.
It kind of saying Man a likes blondes, his girlfriend just died her hair red and his male best friend just dyed his blonde, does he find his girlfriend ugly and his best friend attractive now? Its not how it works. Hair colour is a rather bad example though.

Originally Posted by Liquid Fire

ok . . . graphic.

BUT (graphic ) you are identifying sexuality with just plain sex. Finding someone attractive has nothing to do with sex, its fair enough using your "a hole is a hole" analogy, but you ain't going to get that far unless you have the lust/attraction or the alcohol. So it brings me back to my other point, chances of you liking both (from an attraction point of view) are relatively slim.

You bring a good point. Sensual stimulation is different than aesthetic preference of either male, female, or both figures.

I don't know if it is a genetic factor, or a learned preference via empirical/emotional experiences, but certainly the idea of having a preference of both or neither is not impossible.

Originally Posted by Liquid Fire

But then they break out into "zomg that's a man" then attraction becomes fickle regardless of the features they find attractive being present.

That's only because men can get so uncomfortable, disturbed, and confused, by the fact that they just found a man attractive. Whereas if I were in that situation, I'd just say "he's still hot", and leave it at that. Because I, unlike many others, am secure enough in my sexuality not to have a moral dilemma about it.

It kind of saying Man a likes blondes, his girlfriend just died her hair red and his male best friend just dyed his blonde, does he find his girlfriend ugly and his best friend attractive now? Its not how it works. Hair colour is a rather bad example though.

Men like a lot of different qualities however, same as women. You can't pinpoint one quality and say "I'm attracted to anyone who has this one feature". Some people could easily be that simple however, and I've known people who were. Some people could only be attracted to people who have every box ticked on a "checklist" of qualities, and aren't attracted to anyone who's missing even one of them. If I asked you what you liked in women, you wouldn't just tell me "I like women", because this implies that you like everything that is of the female persuasion, when this quite simply isn't the case. You can find some women attractive, and some women unattractive, which means that attractive women have certain qualities that the unattractive don't, and these qualities appeal to you.

Originally Posted by Lelouch

That's only because men can get so uncomfortable, disturbed, and confused, by the fact that they just found a man attractive. Whereas if I were in that situation, I'd just say "he's still hot", and leave it at that. Because I, unlike many others, am secure enough in my sexuality not to have a moral dilemma about it.

Men like a lot of different qualities however, same as women. You can't pinpoint one quality and say "I'm attracted to anyone who has this one feature". Some people could easily be that simple however, and I've known people who were. Some people could only be attracted to people who have every box ticked on a "checklist" of qualities, and aren't attracted to anyone who's missing even one of them.

Men in general aren't stable enough to just go "oh yeah that guys hot" because men think about sex too much, they won't just see attraction their head fast forward to the sex and its sex with a man (morally wrong, abomination, daddy wouldn't be pleased etc.) then it pretty much blow attraction out of the water, but that may just be limited to the dying generation (yay)

Attraction to me, doesn't seem like an exact science. You hear stories of people who were 100% hetero then they met 'blake' or w/e and then they swapped sides, and if 'blake' ever left they'd go back to their team, so attraction isn't set in stone and by saying this it seems I've shot my own theory in the foot but the chances of you meeting the 'one' person who attracts you beyond the fact of their gender is pretty rare, but it can still happen.

Originally Posted by Liquid Fire

Men in general aren't stable enough to just go "oh yeah that guys hot" because men think about sex too much, they won't just see attraction their head fast forward to the sex and its sex with a man (morally wrong, abomination, daddy wouldn't be pleased etc.) then it pretty much blow attraction out of the water, but that may just be limited to the dying generation (yay)

It's nothing to do with attraction. Finding out it's a man doesn't kill the attraction, it simply causes what I believe is referred to as Cognitive Dissonance - a conflict between one's strong beliefs (such as "screwing members of the same sex is wrong") and one's actions (about to, or screwing, a member of the same sex) which causes their process of thought to break down or something (the psychologists among us can clarify that if they want). If they thought they were attractive to begin with, finding out they have a penis is hardly going to kill the attraction, it'll just cause a lot of conflicted thoughts (usually along the lines of "should I still stick it in?"

Attraction to me, doesn't seem like an exact science. You hear stories of people who were 100% hetero then they met 'blake' or w/e and then they swapped sides, and if 'blake' ever left they'd go back to their team, so attraction isn't set in stone and by saying this it seems I've shot my own theory in the foot but the chances of you meeting the 'one' person who attracts you beyond the fact of their gender is pretty rare, but it can still happen.

Attraction isn't an exact science, no, which is why you can't narrow sexuality down to pure "I like women" or "I like men" at all. You probably couldn't even narrow it down to particular features like "I like blondes with large breasts and wide hips" or something like that. You could pull at and pick apart someone's tastes until the end of time, which is why saying that you're "straight", "gay", or even "bisexual" is a bit redundant as far as I'm concerned. I simply consider myself attracted to "sexy", because hot is hot, tits or not.

Originally Posted by Lelouch

If they thought they were attractive to begin with, finding out they have a penis is hardly going to kill the attraction, it'll just cause a lot of conflicted thoughts (usually along the lines of "should I still stick it in?"

ROTFLMFAO!

That was good

hot is hot, tits or not.

I didn't know you were a poet.

Originally Posted by Eijiro

Same here. They were always using it is a cover because they weren't confident enough to come out completely, or they were just plain confused. Actually, I've also known some part-time ones back in High School who were just doing it because it was the trendy thing at the time.

Some bisexuals actually are very aware of their sexuality and are not confused at all. I'm bi and very sure of it. I would like to be gay, I really would but I'm not. And when coming out, even the woman who raised me, claimed I was, but I really aren't. I find your comment rather insulting because there never was any kind of doubt in my own accord about my sexuality. And gladly I'm old enough to say that my sexual preference is not part of any kind of trend or because I wanted to be hip and on the edge. Not to mention that I was about 12-13 years old when realising it myself. Now over ten years later I still am and always will be Bi.

I understand that there are many who use bisexuality to ease the realisation to be gay, but there are also people who actually are bisexual for good.

I'm comfortable with my sexual harrasment towards others regardless of their gender. Unfortunately for me, so are my friends.

(I'm actually very shy when it comes to strangers.)

Originally Posted by Tally-chan

I don't believe people are bisexual. They are either confused by being raised in a typically heterosexual society (which is still honestly not that tolerant of gays.) or they just want attention and will say things like that. Or they figure they want to go on both sides and just go for everyone.

Confused or Greedy.

Now, I have no doubt any people will like this viewpoint and when that's the case there are about 10 posts for each one of mine so I probably won't come back.

Hmm. I consider myself bisexual, but I definitely lean more towards straight than towards gay. I'm thinking I'll probably spend most of my time with women, though I would very much like to be in a gay relationship. I don't really understand why that's greedy. (Or confused, for that matter.)

The truth is, bisexuality is by no means 'new' and was, at times, very much the norm.

In a word, no.

I don't know any bisexuals who care at all for that pride nonsense.

Bisexuals are less common to be deep into that whole mess.

I don't know many bisexual women who dress like men etc.

Bisexuality I believe, is more about sex, than it is about attraction.

Originally Posted by Aziel Satori

In a word, no.

I don't know any bisexuals who care at all for that pride nonsense.

Bisexuals are less common to be deep into that whole mess.

I don't know many bisexual women who dress like men etc.

Bisexuality I believe, is more about sex, than it is about attraction.

I was thinking about that. If you were a female and you find another female sexually attractive, does that clearly make you a bisexual? Or if you wanted to have sex with her, would that make you a definite bisexual?

I'm becoming bicurious...