Jump to content

mackie44

Registered
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

Community Reputation

15 Good

About mackie44

  • Rank
    Contributor

Personal Info

  • Relationship Status
    single male
  • Location
    Los Angeles
  1. I think a man can still be excited without an erection. Women shouldnt automatically interpret a lack of erection as a sign of rejection.
  2. Cerberus, I think that's interesting and encouraging. I believe that straight-identifying men should be able to touch each other without a huge issue being made of it. Some people tend to be very analytical of male sexuality, and are very determined to categorize or suggest a hidden motive behind any contact whatsoever.
  3. There's also the interesting swingers phenomenon of "semi-bi" wherein straight-identifying men will interact with each other in terms of touching each other or fondling each other without actually having sex with each other. The act of sexual penetration is reserved only for the woman/women but there is stimulation between the men. Have any of you encountered this in your swinging experiences?
  4. The bisexual double standard never ceases to amaze me. Female bisexuality OK, male not OK? Yeah, right. Why don't you just admit that swinging is another form of patriarchy - ie. where the sexual scenarios are controlled by strictly heterosexual men for the benefit of strictly heterosexual men. This includes catering to the girl-on-girl fetishes of many straight guys. Women go along with it because they want to please their husbands and boyfriends. Overall, it should be pointed out that the bisexual double standard is an important clue to the true nature of swinging. It isn't a truly open-minded pursuit.
  5. Comparing male bisexuality to kinks or fetishes is fallacious, as I have already pointed out on the other thread. Male bisexuality is an orientation, not a fetish. Drawing the line against male bisexuality by citing opposition to kinks or fetishes is an incorrect form of argument and does a disservice to gaining a proper perspective on the issue. At the end of the day, when a swing club bans male bisexuality, it is practicing prejudice. Contrast this with the open arms attitude to female bisexuality, and you have a clear case of hypocrisy.
  6. Why on earth should bi men have to go to a gay club? That's a form of direction. You're putting them in a freak box and saying "you belong elsewhere, not in the mainstream". Bi men should be able to go with their wives/girlfriends to any mainstream swing club and do what they do with other guys, just as women are allowed to do it with other women. As for the bondage analogy, that's a fallacious one. Bondage is a fetish, bisexuality is an orientation. If women can practice bisexual relations in a swing club then men should be able to as well.
  7. Keep in mind that many swing clubs don't ban just male-male sexual intercourse, they also ban male-male touching. I don't see how you can catch anything from male-male touching. Face it - using disease to demonize gay/bi men is just another pathetic attempt to maintain the status quo in swinging. Thankfully many people are waking up to it and realizing that swinging is for prudes. Swingers are no longer at the vanguard of the hip and tolerant.
  8. Puh-lease. Up to 7 years ago, syphilis was far more common in straights. Yet the swinging industry still had the same double standard in relation to homosexuality - ie. two hot chicks OK, two bi guys not OK. Face it - you supposedly open-minded guys are not so open-minded when it comes to male bisexuality. You have a HUGE hypocrisy problem. Besides, I wouldn't have unprotected sex with anybody (gay, straight, bi) whose health status I wasn't confident in. Using disease to demonize gay/bi men is a poor excuse to justify your prejudice towards male bisexuals.
  9. BCinIN, Where are your "significant" figures to support your statement that "the percentage of bi men that is disease-free is significantly smaller than the percentage of straight men that is disease-free"? I don't think you have any. Demonizing bi men through disease is the oldest trick in the book.
  10. A healthy bi man is no more or less risky than a healthy straight man. In both cases, the risk of catching a disease from them is zero. As for the notion that there is an extra dimension to the male-male interaction that repels some people, keep in mind that many bi men do not perform anal sex but simply keep the bi aspect at the level of touching etc.
  11. Would you similarly agree with a "no blacks" policy at a swing club if the majority of members didn't want blacks there?
  12. Ruff, If you are straight, be straight. If you are bi, be bi. There is no-one compelling you to do anything against your will. But when a swing club bans the male form of homosexuality (as opposed to the female form of homosexuality), it's a huge double standard. It's also discriminatory and un-American.
  13. Spoomonkey, The issue of racial discrimination is similar to sexuality discrimination. Both are discrimination based on prejudice, of "not liking" something.
  14. BCinTN, I don't see why individuals should curtail their same-sex activity because they are in your presence. That's a very regal attitude you have, I'm afraid. If you don't like it, don't do it and don't watch it. At the end of the day, I think swing clubs should allow both forms of homosexual activity, not just one. When only one is allowed, it reeks of hypocrisy.
  15. I find it interesting that women would go along with the bisexual double standard. It's not unusual to see women at swing clubs who totally agree with banning bi males but not bi females. It seems to me that women are exploiting the double standard and exploiting it as well. I'm increasingly of the view that women are helping to prop up the double standard because they see it as a privilege they want to hold on to. Anyone agree?
×
×
  • Create New...