Jump to content

BiCoupleNJ

Registered
  • Content Count

    255
  • Joined

Community Reputation

15 Good

About BiCoupleNJ

  • Rank
    Swingers Board Addict
  • Birthday 05/07/1961

Personal Info

  • Relationship Status
    Couple
  • Location
    Central NJ Shore
  • Interests
    We like BBQs, NASCAR, flea markets, movies, just hanging with friends :-)
  • Occupation
    Home Business

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That is one gorgeous woman!!! Sure, there is a cock between her (his?) legs, but Miriam lives as a woman... looks like a woman... probably acts, smells and feels like a woman... so she MUST be a woman!!! Although I can see the point the men on the show made about being decieved, they have no one to blame but themselves - if you can't tell that a girl isn't really a boy, then you should only be ashamed at yourself for being shallow and letting your cock drive your actions for you instead of using your brain!!! Don't be to anyone else if you can't help but act on a girl's looks and not the whole package! Besides... when a boy looks like Miriam... and is as beautiful as Miriam is, well, maybe it's time to start playing for the other team... or at least for both teams! Jerry
  2. JC, No, we wouldn't look upon that as being kinky, especially if you consider how we define the two types of men you mention. There is a huge difference between a transsexual and a transvestite (what you call a male disguised as a female). A transsexual is a male that is undergoing treatment to reassign his body to that of a feminine state, so there could be, as you say, a much more feminine body and actions that he/she has. A transvestite is a male that simply dresses in feminine clothing and make-up, so there is still, without a doubt, a male under that dress and make-up. If you take it a step further, there are also transgendered people to deal with. These are the transsexuals that have not only begun hormone treatment and had implants, but they have also completed the sexual reassignment surgery and are now women in a physical sense, having a pussy but not a cock. Interesting point? Yes. Kinky? Not necessarily Jerry
  3. Living in the heavily alt lifestyle central Jersey Shore, one can see all sorts of things, including some of the most incredibly delicious women on earth. Well... they LOOK like women!!!! Normally, it is so easy to tell a TG/TV/TS because there are only so many ways to hide large hands, a bulge in your crotch or an Adam's Apple. But I have seen some TG/TV/TS online and locally that would make me think twice about ever kissing a woman without first asking what was between 'her' legs. LOL! Jerry
  4. Mr Leftcoast... First, no, it is NEVER too late to jump into a conversation such as this one... attitudes and people change, so there is always a need to revisit old threads like this one on occasion. Thanks for offering your point of view Second, congratulations ( ) on taking what is an incredible step forward for anyone, especially a man in this day & age - admitting to people other than loved ones that you have a sexual response to bisexual activities! You and I are much more alike than we are different. Although I am curious about anal, I don't really know if I would ever go through with it. But I'll readily (or, perhaps, greedily??) suck a guy's cock, but kissing or intimacy with a guy just doesn't do it for me. It is like that beer commercial for Bud Light (I think!!!) from a couple years ago... Man #1: "I love you man!" Man #2: "You still aren't getting my bud Light." If I want any intimacy with another guy, I'll just pull up the anchor & spend 6 or 8 hours on the ocean fishing... that's intimate enough for my tastes! Oh... ionsawmill... thanks for that article on the sexual labels. It was a good read, both pleasant and funny at times. It also reminded me that, when that girlfriend and I spoke about the gender mixes when it came to jobs around the house, I had come up with poly-sexual - one that is simultaneously open to sex with both women and men. I suppose that, based on the info in that article, I might also have to add transgenders to that list Jerry
  5. You are so right, yawanna! The world has become one of excessive competitiveness & comparison and minimal trust. If that weren't so, we could all 'just get along'. Your point about transsexual and transgender issues are far worse than this bit of discussion on what constitutes bisexuality in a man. I am sure that, given time, we could come up with dozens and maybe even hundreds of 'groups' such as these in which harassment, bias and other issues exist. I don't think humans will ever attain a level of acceptance of all people before being wiped off the face of the earth. But I guess we can all make small steps towards meeting that goal... towards accepting people for what they are, not what we think they are... and maybe come close to that Nirvana! Jerry
  6. T.H., Now you are getting into the realm of argument that is most commonly fought over in predominantly gay communities, at least based on what my brother, who is, as I mentioned, gay, suggests. He has lived here in the central NJ area where there are several large gay communities as well as in San Francisco, San Diego and South Beach, FL. In predominantly gay communities, gay & lesbian people argue that women that call themselves bisexual are really straight and only performing a sexual act against their norm to please their man. These same groups suggest that a man that calls himself bisexual is really gay and only holds on to a hetero relationship to hide that fact. Keep in mind that these are only generalizations and are not indicative of all gay/lesbian people. Based on those comments, both you and I would be considered closet gay males, although I am sure that is hardly the truth with either of us. In fact, I know that I cannot have an emotional bond with another man that is even remotely close to that which I hold with Liz or even girls that I call dear & close friends. My initial comments, as broad as they are, are based on the closest conclusion that one can come to in today's day of labelling every person, no matter what they do. And that is a key word - label. For whatever reason, we have become a race of labellers - one cannot be simply 'man' or 'woman'... one must have a label - white, rich, black, asian, jew, gay, etc. Therein lies the problem - and the confusion - in our subject of this thread. About a year ago, a very dear girlfriend came to visit. I have known and loved her for more than 20 years. And, by love, I mean a love that transcends simple friendships and is as strong as that which Liz and I have in marriage. Perhaps stronger. During her visit, we got on the subject of bisexuality as she is a very sexual and emotional being, one that can truly love anyone, be they man or woman. Not necessarily in a sexual sense, but certainly in a heart-felt, emotional sense. She was concerned that her husband wasn't happy about doing the 'womanly' chores around the house - dishes, cooking, etc. I happen to be THE cook in my family, berating Liz if she so much as enters my kitchen when I am preparing dinner The end result of this conversation was that the trouble with the world in general is labels - at the most basic level, humankind feels there is a need to label everything as being a male or female activity. This results in a significant breakdown in humanity insofar as sharing and living peacefully is concerned. How many times have you heard a guy bitch that the dishes were piling up because his wife wasn't doing 'her job'? Or how often have you heard the wife complaining that the husband wasn't doing 'his job', cutting the lawn? The list of arguments are endless. SOOOO.... how does all this tie into this thread? I fell into the same trap - feeling a need to define what is and what is not bisexual/gay. By defining, in my terms, those words, I generalized and assumed... coming to a conclusion that does not fit you at all. That's not really a bad thing, but it is the norm for all of us these days - we ALL have to pigeonhole someone and label them, thereby reducing a human with a variety of choices... that might alter their choices from time to time... down to a definition of something they may not actually be at all. TH - you are different than I am by nature of your ability to have an emotional, loving and sexual relationship with another man. I congratulate you for that ability. But we are the same in that we are both sexual beings that have an ability to appreciate sexual activity with others, be they men or women. We are not heterosexual... we are not bisexual... we are not homosexual... we are simply sexual beings. Thank you for pointing out the error in my ways... and letting me ramble on like this... I DO so like to talk (so you can see) on subjects like this!!! :-) Jerry
  7. Very good advice, GnS. But it does certainly paint a sad picture of society that we would have to consider retaining an attorney at all for simply exercising our right to enjoy ourselves in the company of other consenting adults that have gathered for the same reasons we have. Sad indeed!
  8. Chris, According to the local gay community, this is absolutely true - my brother is gay and he is one of the first to tell you that he wishes he wasn't, primarily because he can't find a guy to 'settle down' with, so to speak. But... and this is a REALLY BIG BUT.... you missed the point entirely: the suggestion that gay men might be the worst whores, as per your co-worker, has nothing at all to do with emotional bonding. Commitment and bonding are two entirely different animals. To put this into your own perspective (that being a hetero male), just because you are married and show love and affection - an emotional bond - to your wife, it does not guarantee that you would not cheat on her with other women. Not that you would, but maybe that clarifies my position a little better for you. Better yet, let's use a term that hasn't been used in many a year (except where Warren Beatty is concerned) - womanizer. A man might show love and affection to a woman in public or elsewhere, but that has nothing to do with commitment or monogamy. A gay male might show love and affection to another man, but that has nothing to do with commitment or monogamy. A bisexual male typically will not show love nor affection to another male. Therein lies the difference. Again, just my own opinion here, but my opinion is based on nearly 20 years in the lifestyle in which I have run a swing club with over 3000 members and published a swingers contact newsletter with nearly 1000 subscribers. Jerry
  9. In my own opinion, I think that the most important difference between bi & gay was made by the last two posters (Dee_Lee & bser): gay males have an emotional bond to each other, which is often manifested in a kiss or a loving touch. Bisexual males, as odd as this might sound, are open to oral and, perhaps, anal sex with other men, but do not have an emotional, loving bond with that other man, thereby usually not engaging in kissing and other forms of intimacy that would be shared with the opposite sex and/or a loved one. Yeah, I know it sounds weird... you'll let a guy stick his cock down your throat and you might even swallow his load... but you won't kiss him. But to me, that seems to be the one differentiator between a bisexual and a gay male. Any thoughts? Jerry
  10. Hopefully this isn't too long an absence in this thread... and it can be started up again. As a bisexual male in a bisexual couple, I often contemplate why Liz is openly accepted as being bi while I am not offered the same acceptance. As a bisexual that engages only in oral sex with other men (at this time anyway!! ), I do not let too many people know of my sexual choice, simply to steer clear of any labels that others might give me as a result. OK... time to open up a HUGE can of worms.... To answer why bisexual males are not accepted, I can accept many of the possible causes that have been discussed, but EternallySingle hit the nail on the head, although I am not sure he meant to do so! It is organized religion that has forced male-male sex into the closets and dark booths at adult book stores. There are a number of entries in the bible that mention male-male sex. In nearly all instances, the act of male-male sex is looked upon in a negative light. Does this mean I am agnostic and find religion a blight on humanity? No. Many people need religion. I am a Catholic, albeit non-practicing. And I do believe in some form of a higher power or god that looks over us and has a master plan for us. In medieval times and prior, male-male sex was acceptable. As man interpreted the teachings of the bible, the basic tenets were changed to more accurately mirror what the person or group interpreting them felt was appropriate. At a point in history, someone got it into their head that male-male sex was unacceptable and, with hellfire and brimstone, convinced others into believing the same. Soon, enough people were convinced and, lo & behold, male-male sex was now a no-no. Somehow, no one ever took it upon themselves to argue against the point until very recently, for example the same sex marriages that have been performed across the US. But that fight still has a long way to go. AND... as most gay or lesbian people will tell you, it does not address bisexuality - bi people tend to be ostracized by both heterosexual and gay/lesbian people. Sigh Anyway... one more point - if one looks at any indigenous race that has lived without outside influence (i.e., the Aborigines in the 1950s), you'd see that male-male sex is not frowned upon and, in some instances, it is highly acceptable. I am not necessarily suggesting a man having anal intercourse with another is accepted, but oral sex, masturbation... things of that nature have been very accepted in many cultures for centuries. Oh... that's right... right up until... organized religion showed up! OK... those who wish to stone me... line up on the right, but make sure to take a number!
  11. Accepting donations at the door is NOT illegal. It is only construed to be illegal by authorities to further their moral pursuits. The issue with accepting a donation, as mentioned earlier in this thread, is that it can be construed as a payment for sex, which CAN result in a prostitution or pandering charge. But it is not, in it's most basic sense, illegal. My ex and I used that to our advantage - when someone that came into the club showed an interest in either me or my ex, if we were not interested, we'd simply explain it away as being considered prostitution because we took their entrance fee which, twisted in our favor, meant we would be receiving money for sex. We didn't use it often, but it was handy when we did This issue does, however, play directly into your comment about cops - although MANY... nay MOST... cops are not corrupt, there are some out there that, as you mention, can and will do almost anything to arrest someone like your friend John. I have seen it many times in the past. And knowing that John accepted money to allow members entry, they could construe that as a payment for sexual services, no matter how outlandish and untrue that really might be. Something that was odd about Hawaii - when I ran my swing club in Honolulu, the police never once bothered us. We called them several times for various reasons, one being a hit & run accident that left a club member's car totaled. Although no one was in a sexual way when the police arrived, they could plainly see that we were not your normal, mainstream club as people were milling about in slinky clothing - some even topless or nude - and they ignored it completely. I don't know why, but they did. If only all police across the US were as open-minded and acceptable of swingers like the Hawaii force was back then, we'd never be having this discussion. One more comment - you said that the party was private. Privacy is one of those terms that can be interpreted in many ways by authorities when it comes to a desire to arrest someone. In fact, I'd go so far as to say there is no such thing as privacy if law enforcement is on a mission with moral underpinnings!
  12. Makes sense... all things in moderation seems to be the appropriate key, whether or not one is a smoker or drinker. But we have one question - is it just us... or does it seem like awful close to 100% of swingers are smokers? We know that's a bit of an exaggeration, but the few times we have visited swinger socials, it seemed that many more people smoked than not. Interesting... no?
  13. We agree with bugaboos: We are both non-smokers, but we are OK with those that are smokers, so long as they are considerate of our desire to steer clear of smokey environments. We had a long term relationship with a couple that both smoked, yet it worked out well because they would, as ms bugaboos' husband would, excuse themselves, take a walk outside & have a smoke. They knew we were both allergic to smoke, so it worked very well for all of us, resulting in being friends & more for 10+ years. As for drinkers, we are both social drinkers, but seldom, if ever, get out of hand (hey... we ALL tend toss our limits aside once in a while & drink until we're drunk). A couple of drinks is fine to take off the edge, especially if it is a relatively new experience - either the other couple is new to swinging or we are meeting for the first time. But we do draw the line at those that overindulge. That brings up a somewhat funny experience - years ago, when I first got Liz into swinging, we met with a couple. the 1st couple of social meetings went well and we decided to meet for more intimate pleasures. It was a 1st meeting for all 3 others, with only me having previous lifestyle experience. Unbeknownst to us, the girl had nearly 2 6-packs on their drive to meet with us. At the house, she had 5 or 6 more beers, which had both of us concerned, but we shrugged it off at the time. When we did get down to the intimate part of the evening, the girl couldn't hold her bladder... while I was eating her out, she let go, just nearly missing me, but getting the bed rather wet. I smacked her in the ass & told her to go to the bathroom, which she did. A while later, while doing her anally in the missionary position, she let loose again. This time, her stream hit me & splashed all over her. NOT a fun experience! Looking back on it a couple days later, I said to Liz that I don't mind watersports, but jeez... at least let me know about it before you begin to indulge!!! Jerry & Liz
  14. Brit_Pair, Yes, you are right - a law doesn't necessarily need to be enforced simply because it exists. However, laws of this nature exist simply as an alternate way of catching someone that is otherwise not breaking the law. That is why the states - and the US government... and most likely many other goverments - keep laws like these enacted. In the 30s, it was a law that wasn't enforced for many years that finally brought down Al Capone. Why? Because the authorities could never tie him directly to bootlegging, murder or the dozens of other crimes that he actually committed. In that particular case, a law that was seldom enforced stopped one of the most dangerous men in US history. And in the last week, the US government charged Greenpeace with a law that has been unenforced since the late 1800s. It is a logging-related law that I am unfamiliar with, but the point is the same - when someone cannot be apprehended and charged under an existing, more openly accepted law, law enforcement tends to dig into the books to find something, no matter how trivial, to catch their target. And when that doesn't work, they pass laws that are quietly pushed through, most often attached to bills that are much more widely accepted (money for schools, money for seniors, tax cuts, etc.), in an effort to put additional controls on people they wish to target. That is probably how this law passed in the first place. Of course, I am not suggesting that this woman even comes close to approaching the crimes that Capone committed. It is simply an analogy to show how the law tends to work in many instances, and especially in instances like this one.
  15. What lots of folks might be forgetting when it comes to these rather inane laws is that, once a law is passed, it is considered a valid, enforceable law until a time that it is either rescinded or superseded by a newer law on the same subject. As a result, some of the laws that are currently on the books are from the 1800s, often written to disallow a specific act. For example, in Texas, it is illegal for one to shoot a buffalo from the second story of a hotel. Uh... mind telling me where in TX you'll find a buffalo that is trotting around a hotel? LOL.
×
×
  • Create New...