On bisexuality.

[Hellboy]

I read some Plato back in college and was a little shocked by his description of a meeting of all male scholars being peppered with a "who's screwing who" gossip. For those that believe, there is referance to it in the Bible and while all else can be argued on semantics, homosexuality is forbidden....of course so is eating bacon, meaning Denny's will burn right along with the local swing club on Judgement day.

I guess I am fortunate that I do not have the attraction and therfore have to consider the issue with my ingrained morality. The bottom line for me is that I do not care to infringe on the rights of consenting adults to do as they wish in private or in public displays consistant with accepted norms for hetero people. And I don't care to participate.

[puneswings]

...the rights of consenting adults to do as they wish in private or in public displays consistant with accepted norms for hetero people

Surely you mean "accepted norms for society at large" or similar, and are not suggested that publicly acceptable norms should/would be established by the hetero folks?

[Hellboy]

Norms established by society as a whole, not just "normal folks" What is normal anyhow? It should be no more acceptable for a gay couple to have sex at a bus stop in mid afternoon than for a hetero couple and vise versa. There must be, however, and over riding urge to put on display lifestyles outside conventional definitions because we see it all the time, often under the guise of expression and pride. There is nothing wrong with pride in a chosen lifestyle, but it is cheapened by those who would pander to the stereotypes.

This coincides with a discussion I had with a friend on another message board. Does a person want to be known as a gay man, or a man who is gay? It seems like a matter of minor semantics, but its at the heart of the discussion.

[imsnowman]

Originally Posted by Hellboy

Norms established by society as a whole, not just "normal folks" What is normal anyhow? It should be no more acceptable for a gay couple to have sex at a bus stop in mid afternoon than for a hetero couple and vise versa. There must be, however, and over riding urge to put on display lifestyles outside conventional definitions because we see it all the time, often under the guise of expression and pride. There is nothing wrong with pride in a chosen lifestyle, but it is cheapened by those who would pander to the stereotypes.

This coincides with a discussion I had with a friend on another message board. Does a person want to be known as a gay man, or a man who is gay? It seems like a matter of minor semantics, but its at the heart of the discussion.

Why do you derisively say, "under the guise of expression and pride"? Is this expression any different that the folks around here who've never set foot in a barn but walk around in their fancy cowboy clothes. Or rabid football fans wearing their favorite teams uniforms? Are they, to use your loaded term, pandering to a stereotype or are they enjoying themselves?

Basically, you seem to just not like gay men who are feminine and you're trying to cover-up that prejudice with a lot of high talk. Interesting that your examples all seem to be about gay/bi men and not lesbian/bi butch women.

[OpenVA]

Originally Posted by puneswings

I see the beauty of bisexuality not merely at the physical level; it is even more so at the mental and emotional level. To be able to admire a fellow human being belonging to the same gender as you and enjoy it is, I believe, a sign of an evolved personality; one who's inner eye has opened and can see true beauty in all humans without the limitations of social conditioning.
Universal Lover

Finally I see the social beauty of bisexuality: How can there ever be true equality until that day comes when a man can feel free to bring out the woman in him without worry, and woman can be man without fearing the wounded masculine ego?

These 2 paragraphs in particular strike a cord with me. In my younger days I experimented with bisexuality. How ever I found that I enjoyed women much more then men. Men no longer have a sexual charge for me unless engaged in the sex act with a women, but it is the act it self that the charge is centered on. At the same time I can admire and enjoy observing the male form (this is not some hidden refrence to a mans package ).

I also agree with the statment about equality. But I think that it goes deeper then that. For true equality to be a reality the double standards need to be removed as well. There can not be one set of standards for men in a chosen field or profession and a seperate one for women. The playing field needs to be level. The requirements the same for all. The physical requirements for a particular field of endevour do not change just because the gender of the aspirents is diffrent. A realistic evaluation of what the minium requirements for a particular endevour are needs to be made and those are the standards that all should be held to.

Unfortunetly this is easier said then done as ego tends to get in the way.

[OpenVA]

Originally Posted by Hellboy

This coincides with a discussion I had with a friend on another message board. Does a person want to be known as a gay man, or a man who is gay? It seems like a matter of minor semantics, but its at the heart of the discussion.

I have found that this differs with the individual. I have had many homosexual friends that acknowledged a diffrence between the two and just as many who swear there is no diffrence. From some of our discussions, those that acknowledged a diffrence seemed to refer to the more effemanit (pretty sure I spelled that wrong) as gay men and the more masculine as those who were men that were gay.

[EternallySingle]

Basically, we are taught what is considered normal sexual behavior. I believe that you are attracted to who you are attracted to, but you act on that attraction based on what you were taught is right or acceptable. That is why it is more acceptable for a woman to be bisexual and a man to be gay than it is for a man to be bisexual or a woman gay. For men its always all or nothing, but women are supposed to be flexible.

[imsnowman]

Originally Posted by EternallySingle

For men its always all or nothing, but women are supposed to be flexible.

Interesting point, at least for this society and this time. Too bad.

[DBL D]

I never say that someone should be flexible in the sex area. I just ask that they be open minded. I try to take folks as they are.

Who was it who said if you always give a man enough rope, then he can hang himself.

That is what makes a real connection between partners special. When both of you end up truly loving what you both like to do. facelick

Male D

[Hellboy]

As hard as you were fishing for something to attack on, I'm surprised it took you so long. You don't need me or anyone else to validate your lifestyle, but when you seek to open a discussion on a topic and then turn on a comment you don't like with vitriol, I have to wonder what you were expecting. If you want total acceptance of your lifestyle, then you have to accept points of view that are different from your own. Your position seems to me to be people should be free to express themselves and act, think and feel how they wish, yet you attack my comment because they don't agree with your point of view...

HYPOCRISY!

I just don't think its right and proper for people, be they gay, straight, or whatever, to parade down the street naked and call it "expression" There has to be a line of what sexual behavior is A.) fit for public forum and B.) fit for behind closed doors. Even in privacy, there are some things that cannot be accepted by this society (ie, sex with children or sex with a German Sheppard) Is there something biological that causes a gay man to be more effeminate? To quote a great American, "I don't know" So there is to the outside observer, no way tell who is driven that way by their internal chemestry and who is acting baecasue they have assumed an identity.....But who gives a damn?!?!? Indecent exposure is indecent exposure and the standards should be universal.

[DBL D]

Not sure whom you are responding to...I hope it's not me! Surrender

Male D

[TNT]

Originally Posted by Hellboy

Indecent exposure is indecent exposure and the standards should be universal.

Huh? Nothing is universal...especially indecent exposure. You are obviously applying Judeo-Christian morals which are not universal. In some cultures nudity is common and accepted. But in Islam the glimps of an ankle is frowned upon.

Should you have to conform to their morals? They hold them to be universal.

Originally Posted by JustAskJulie

It really only takes a look back through the history of the world to see that this separation is through social conditioning. Look back at ancient Rome and other civilizations and we see bisexuality (especially among men) as a much more common thing.

People today are making a huge deal about the movie Alexander coming out and how dare Oliver Stone put in a scene with Alexander kissing another man. He was bisexual, as were most men in that day, it was not a big deal. He had male and female lovers. The fact that we feel the need to make a big deal out of it, is the sad thing.

We agree.

TNT

[EternallySingle]

Sexual morality is about what the leaders of the society believe are needed to keep the society strong. For that reason, those of us brought up under the laws of morality started by Judism believe certain things are wrong and certain things are right. In other cultures, there is nothing wrong with having sex with 13 or 14 year olds, because they are TAUGHT different things about sex, love, religion, morality, and responsibility. Just 100 years ago it was not uncommon for a 20 year old man to have a 13 or 14 year old wife, or for her to have a child at 14 or 15. Then again, she knew she was now going to be a mother, was prepared for those responsibilities, and more or less grew to be a content mother and grandmother. When it became more important to have more education to get by in the world, it became more important for children to stay in school longer. How was this enforced? By making it more difficult for young children to be married off, then by making it illegal to have sex with anyone under a certain age.

In short, nothing is universal, especially morality. It all depends on what you are TAUGHT is needed for the society to be strong. Why not beastiality? In a real sense, its to keep people from turning to animals instead of humans for companionship. Again, it will keep the race going by making sure men and women make the effort to do the deed with each other instead of taking the short cut of finding a suitable animal and training it. And again, there are probably examples that are easy to find in ancient history. It may even be where the legends of centaurs, the sphynx, mermaids, and other half human creatures come from...what happens when humans mate outside their own.

If you take the emotion out of discussions of morality, its easy to see what its really about: The perceptions of a few on what it takes for the many to survive, and those few having the power to convince others to do as they say. The question is...

Do you want to be considered "normal" by the heads of our society or risk censure for doing what they say is wrong? For things that without a doubt cause pain, injury, suffering, hardship, or death to others, morality is not necessary. For the rest of human behavior, morality is the only thing that separates one group from another.

[warkman]

Originally Posted by EternallySingle

Do you want to be considered "normal" by the heads of our society or risk censure for doing what they say is wrong? For things that without a doubt cause pain, injury, suffering, hardship, or death to others, morality is not necessary. For the rest of human behavior, morality is the only thing that separates one group from another.

I'm not sure what you're saying here ES. I don't quite understand the second sentence. I guess it could beg the question, "What is morality?" but to my mind's eye causing pain, injury, suffering, hardship, or death to others is exactly where my kind of morality comes into play. That's wrong- or at least in a non self defense capacity. Of course opinions will vary as to what's acceptable or not. Or are you saying that many people use morality to justify hurtful actions? By the way, I really enjoy your posts.

[imsnowman]

Originally Posted by EternallySingle

Sexual morality is about what the leaders of the society believe are needed to keep the society strong.
SNIP

If you take the emotion out of discussions of morality, its easy to see what its really about: The perceptions of a few on what it takes for the many to survive, and those few having the power to convince others to do as they say.

Another reason may be to keep the society not necessarily strong but under the control of the few.