|
| Thread: Bi Sexual People |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
posted February 24, 2005 03:45 PM |
|
|
Please tell me your a female Vladd because I dont think I know many countries & especially not america when guys always hug constantly & TAP  & well yea Italians do the kiss thang but heh they do it mob style so it's cool  .
Would you tap me Vladd ?
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 24, 2005 05:15 PM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 24 Feb 2005
|
Hi,
I thought I'd jump in to post my way of seeing things. 
For the question of why men on men is not attractive and women on women is:
I think women are more liberal than men. I find men to be more conservative. Who runs the Church? Men. Pope? A man. Politicians? Mainly men. In fact, in Canada, the liberal and New Democrat parties count more women in their ranks then in the conservatives' side. Also, social workers are majority of women, and in social services, community centres and the like, you see women most of the time.
That beeing said, I *think* that most men have a more conservative mind, and when they see a men on men scenario, they imagine themselves and frown. Conservative is also very close to religion and even if yes, some women are part of religion, mostly men dominate. And the Bible is against the act of homosexuality. And the same can be said about abortion; but there too, women are more liberal.
I don't think aggresiveness has anything to do with it. Some people might find that attractive. Milena just doesn't as she's pointed out with her kitten example. And that's fine too.
One thing to be carefull about is not to mistake our own perceptions of the world to be the Holy Truth. But, when I say that men are more conservative and women are not, it is always a general comment, and only in Canada. The same might not be true in Macedonia 
In North America, female homosexuality is indeed better seen then men's homosexuality. And as it's not as bad, there is more display of it. If men's homosexuality was more accepted, we'd be seeing more of it. Gerenally, women don't hide it because it "pleases" everyone. Men, however, don't. And because of this, we see more bisexual women than we do men - because it's more accepted.
As a final thought, I find it sad to see that some people find it bad to even talk about this. For me, recognizing that some people are bisexual and homosexual, and that they where born that way is a step forward. Giving them rights is recognizing our differences and dealing with them. They will always exist and don't even affect the rest of us in any way. What does it matter if someone is homosexual - Really? When I introduce myself I don't say "Hi, I'm heterosexual Conan". If I was gay, you'd only know it after talking with me for reasons that pushed you to - reasons that have nothing to do with my sexual orientation. In fact, if I was gay, why would you even care? And I'd just mention it if asked, same as heterosexuals.
Anyways, keep the discussion coming, it's very interesting.
EDIT: spelling
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted February 24, 2005 06:57 PM |
|
|
on gendering politics
Socially conservative positions tend to either preserve the status quo or revert to a previous state of affairs. Those who have the advantage now, or who had an advantage then, tend to gravitate to conservative positions more than those who lack(ed) those advantages. In our society, power has traditionally rested with: men, whites, Christians, etc. In many eras, you had to be the right kind of white and the right kind of Christian as well (and the right kind of man, or at least pretend so). And then there's always money. I don't think there's anything inherently "conservative" about being male, white, Christian, heterosexual, rich, blah blah blah. It's just that the conservative values of our society offer an advantage to certain groups, and many individual members of those groups take it. But many of them don't, rejecting privileges to their own group in favor of equality for all. That's why I object to characterizing men or whites or whatever as conservatively-minded.
This may be what you're saying anyway, Conan. I'm just hung up on some of your wording.
I still think the answer to men-on-men vs. women-on-women is a simple matter of who the audience likes to look at. More porn is marketed to men.
*Footnote: It occurs to me that I might need to defend the dis-association of Christianity and conservatism. Religion is indeed often tied to the status quo. It is also, however, used as a tool for change. I submit the foundation, development, and history of early Christianity with regard to the Roman occupation of Palestine and the Roman Empire in general as an example. Many current interpretations of the New Testament revive the more radical elements. Therefore, I see Christianity as a whole to be a flexible force capable of being wielded by both sides of social conflict.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 24, 2005 07:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
*Footnote: It occurs to me that I might need to defend the dis-association of Christianity and conservatism. Religion is indeed often tied to the status quo. It is also, however, used as a tool for change. I submit the foundation, development, and history of early Christianity with regard to the Roman occupation of Palestine and the Roman Empire in general as an example. Many current interpretations of the New Testament revive the more radical elements. Therefore, I see Christianity as a whole to be a flexible force capable of being wielded by both sides of social conflict.
Can you go a little further? I have very little knowledge of early Christianity with regard to the Roman occupation of Palestine and the Roman Empire in general.
Is it possible that possible that the only thing they where willing to change was adding another branch of religion which is now called Christianity?
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted February 24, 2005 08:17 PM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 24 Feb 2005
|
Hmm, let's see how many details I can recall.
John the Baptist was likely to have been connected to a Jewish sect called the Essenes, who objected to the Roman occupation and the Sadducees' (=priests in power) cooperation with the Romans. They tended to run off into the desert in protest, using Jewish prophetic texts to demonize the Romans and the Sadducees. They were also highly apocalyptic. The end of the world means the end of earthly authority, so this was pretty subversive. In the Gospels, Jesus is linked with John the Baptist and apocalyptic ideas. He also broke social norms and heirarchies by freely associating with people whom society shunned. These themes pop up repeatedly through Christian history. In the first couple of centuries, Christians refused to sacrifice to the emperor, which constitued a form of political treason. Romans were worried about Christians setting up alternative communities and luring good Roman citizens out of their families, drawing them into this baffling cult. In early Christian literature, including the New Testament, there's a lot of tension between Christians trying to defend themselves to non-Christian critics, but also trying to separate themselves from a society which they viewed as corrupt and diabolical. Roman religion was very conservative and concerned with tradition. Christianity involved revoking all the rituals and rites which the Romans viewed as essential to the safety of the family and society.
There are all sorts of fun tensions, conflicts, compromises, and general richness in Biblical texts. To try and pull this ramble back on topic, the cliche "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a modern attempt to reconcile Jesus' breaking of heirarchy with the law code's enforcement of heirarchy. It's ultimately conservative, but it acknowledges a view which, if taken seriously, would effect very radical changes indeed.
Edit: wording, punctuation, yikes. By "Roman religion," I am referring to the state-sponsored cults and private practices based in ancestor worship.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 24, 2005 08:29 PM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 24 Feb 2005
|
In a great effort to read your post... , I noticed that yes, Christianism was willing to make radical changes, but towards people that had a different faith i.e. the Romans. Am I mistaken? If this is the case, then they only view change as a good thing when it benefits them.
I might be off-track here, but let me know because your knowlegde of this far exceeds mine!
But one thing, when you say:
" still think the answer to men-on-men vs. women-on-women is a simple matter of who the audience likes to look at. More porn is marketed to men."
You are right, but this is due to the fact that society made it this way. Men have learned that this is not acceptable and the same is not true for women (not to the same extent, anyways). So that's why I was mentionning what I did in my earlier post, mentionning the underlying reasons why society has made it this way.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted February 24, 2005 09:29 PM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 24 Feb 2005
|
Uh oh! My post is difficult? Sorry about that!
Quote:
I noticed that yes, Christianism was willing to make radical changes, but towards people that had a different faith i.e. the Romans. Am I mistaken?
You are correct. Once Christianity was established as a state religion in Rome/Constantinople, its practice became considerably less radical. There were still people running off into the desert, but society hailed them as heroes, and they fought spiritual foes rather than human ones. My historical interest is decidedly pre-Christian, so once the Church takes over, my expertice is limited. You have been warned. Here goes nothing...
Institutionalized religion is part of the status quo, almost by definition. So once Christianity reached this stage, it took a turn for the entrenched. When you want to use it for change, you have to pit the religion against itself. People do this: the Calvinist re-interpretation of predestination changed the perception of wealth and permitted capitalism to bloom (I think???). Abolitionists and pro-slavery people both tossed Bible verses at each other. Feminists find all sorts of woman-friendly actions on the part of Jesus. And now both those in favor of tolerance for gays and those in favor of "traditional family values" do the same thing. In this light, and knowing that Christianity began with rebellion, it's very hard for me to think of it as monolithically conservative.
And in response to the looking: I guess I was not assuming so much societal influence on preference. I'm coming from the position that gays are basically born gay. It makes sense to assume that straights are also born straight. Heterosexual men are hard-wired to like looking at women. Therefore, when making porn for straight men, one should include lots of women. Woman-woman is twice the women for your audience. Man-man leaves out the good stuff. Going back to the gay side: If you assume that cultural bounds on male affection are to blame for the dearth of man-man porn in hetero circles, it's hard to explain why (word has it) man-man porn is quite popular in gay circles. Gay men have been taught the same things as straight men, that male intimacy is not acceptable, etc. But they still like looking at man-man. The difference between gay men and straight men is the wiring, not the society.
Unless you're talking about why most porn is aimed at men in the first place, as opposed to porn aimed at women? I have no answer for that.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted February 24, 2005 10:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Please tell me your a female Vladd because I dont think I know many countries & especially not america when guys always hug constantly & TAP & well yea Italians do the kiss thang but heh they do it mob style so it's cool .
Would you tap me Vladd ?
It's Vlaad, not Vladd.
No, I am not a female. I am a 28-year-old heterosexual married male.
I didn't write that men in my country "ALWAYS hug CONSTANTLY". I would have explained it further if the rest of your post had not been ignorant crap.
And no, I wouldn't tap you. You are not my type. Sorry.
____________
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 24, 2005 11:46 PM |
|
|
So since Christianism was willing to make radical changes, but towards people that had a different faith i.e. the Romans, then change is only done for they're empowerment, not for bettering society. That was the point I was trying to bring forward
Yes, sexuality, in my mind also, is predetermined. (Although not everyone agrees ) But to what extent it will become concrete is moderated by the society in which we live. Indeed homosexual porn (men on men) is produced and used by homosexual men, but homosexual female porn is more widly used because society accepts it more. It is not only used by homosexual females, but by heterosexual males aswell. On the other hand, *almost* no heterosexual women will like to watch 2 gay guys in action. The demand is bigger for lesbianism because it also attracks the opposite sex, because in that case it is heterosexuality.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 25, 2005 04:01 AM |
|
|
Vlaad,
You seem angry in much of the posts I read of yours. I don't understand why.
Khaelo,
I have nothing good to say....so this is me keeping my mouth shut.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted February 25, 2005 10:14 AM |
|
|
WHo cares about explaining the reasons of religion etc.
I dont even read what Khaelo or Conan been reading at all because just full of unrealistic baloni.
This is real life not the rich & the religion.
Fact is men that are straight have self respect & pride.
Yea alot guys like women on women as much as some women do.
BUT.....
Women dont like watching men on men just like we defanately dont.
So this is short & simple not 5 paragraphs on religious nonsense.
PEOPLE LIKE IT ONE WAY & RARELY THE OTHER BEING STRAIGHT.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Lich
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted February 25, 2005 12:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Fact is men that are straight have self respect & pride.
I'm sorry, Acu, but here you are totally 100 % wrong.
The high self esteem and pride comes from a person, no matter he is gay or straight, it has nothing to do with the sexual orientation. You can be straight, but you can be like a garbadge, or you can be gay or bi and be proud of it... That was quite homophobic and stupid thing to say...
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted February 25, 2005 01:18 PM |
|
|
I know that but this is a Bi Thread & we are talking about the sexuality not the person.
Does watching two men turn you on Lich?
See what i mean.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 25, 2005 01:48 PM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 25 Feb 2005
|
Quote:
WHo cares about explaining the reasons of religion etc.
I dont even read what Khaelo or Conan been reading at all because just full of unrealistic baloni.
Thank you, I appreciate your enthusiasm. History cannot be "unrealistic baloni", it is what has happened.
She was only giving out an example that religion was not always a conservative "don't change anything" mind. But I challenged her idea. We had a great exchange.
You are entitled to think what you want about our thoughts, but if what you think is negative and you can't express yourself better that this, then I would greatly appreciate you keeping it to yourself. No one benefits from your negativism (if that's even a word); not me, Khaelo or the thread itself.
I wanted to go ahead and thank you Khaelo, for giving me some food for thought and for giving this great info on some history and the facts of religion.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Lich
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted February 25, 2005 02:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I know that but this is a Bi Thread & we are talking about the sexuality not the person.
Does watching two men turn you on Lich?
See what i mean.
No, It's not turning me on, but still I think that self esteem point is not the right place to put it. I have liberal views and in fact nor gays nor bi people are not angering me unless they are trying to use their sexual orientation for the sake of excuse for something, or as a reason to get something more, or be "better" as the others.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted February 26, 2005 06:48 AM |
|
|
It has nothing to do with the history,
sometimes I dont even believe everythang history tells us
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted February 26, 2005 07:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It has nothing to do with the history,
sometimes I dont even believe everythang history tells us
Yes Acu, I applaud this statement.
History has lots to teach us, but it also lied to us about a lot of things.
About the early Christian church right up until 325 AD we have only scant facts and much is speculation - for example, why didn;t the Gospel of Mary or of Thomas make it into the Bible.
I'd have thought that someone who doubted Christ and then re affirmed his belief would have a prominent place in Canon.
The same for an ex-sinner who was shunned intil Jesus came into her life. Probably wasn't included because she was a woman (whaddya think about that Peacemaker /Khaelo etc?)
And about this issue, we're never gonna separate the church from it. We're always gonna get the church go-ers that will spout platitudes at us before they will look at he real issues at hand.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted February 26, 2005 10:15 AM |
|
|
Heres one Question,Have any of you seen or heard god or really felt his presence.
If he loves us so much, how come we can never feel him or see him or hear him?
Nough said.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted February 26, 2005 10:20 AM |
|
|
Well, in my country (quite conservative, by the way) men hug, tap, push and generally touch each others. Heck, it's a national custom to kiss cheeks three times.
Not to mention what men do when playing football. And it is never considered to be homosexual behaviour
I didn't write that men in my country "ALWAYS hug CONSTANTLY". I would have explained it further if the rest of your post had not been ignorant crap.
If it is a custom, then a constant reminder is an understatement
Want to give me a hug Vlaad?
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Lich
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted February 26, 2005 11:53 AM |
|
|
|
Yes, I remeber when I went there and these customs of touching, grabing and hugging were abit shoking to me, since myself I am not a fan of touching other males nor that they would touch me... But still it is intersting expression of friendship...
|
| |
|
|
