Are Many/Most Bi's Really Just Closet Hedonists?

[Safe_Bet]

Got to say, I agree with you here. I mean thats the whole thing with being bi-sexual, sometimes a bi man and a bi woman will be in a relationship. Or maybe only one is bi, and the other supports GLBT rights, including the rights of his/her partner. Why shouldn't they be supportive? Furthermore, isn't it a good thing when straight people (which I assume its being inferred the bi-couple are really) support GLBT rights? Don't we want everyone to support GLBT rights? Like candicame says, gay rights are human rights, we are asking for everyone to be treated equally, as they should already be, as they should always have been. So how exactly do gay rights differ from straight rights?

Edit: Oops sorry stella I cross posted there, please ignore my comments on your post! I totally get what you are saying now.

They differ in that gays and lesbians aren't trying to prevent straights from having them.

You're right though. They should be considered to be universal human rights.

We also need the support and need to support our straight allies (which is the "A" in LGBTIA).

That said it seems to be pretty one way now days (pun intended). We've got fundies to the right of us, tea baggers to the left of us and a BUNCH of straight haters in front of us (and running for political office).

My question is becoming who the hell is behind me? It sure as hell ain't people like the quasi-Bi chick I read the other day on FaceBook who said she couldn't be bothered about supporting gay marriage cuz she had both full marital rights from being married to a man AND she could go out and play with the girls once a month.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I'll apologize up front, but I have to say that is the stupidest thing I've read in this entire thread.

Hetero rights? Gay rights? There should be ONE set of 'rights' that human beings view to treat each other with decency and respect. Period.

I guess you're gonna tell me another gem like it's a gay right to march in a pride parade.

Dude, I didn't have the legal right to be married in California. Every hetero who lived there did.

So, yeah... Hetero and gay/lesbian rights ARE different. WTF do you think we are fighting for???

 

[Stella_Omega]

It sure as hell ain't people like the quasi-Bi chick I read the other day on FaceBook who said she couldn't be bothered about supporting gay marriage cuz she had both full marital rights from being married to a man AND she could go out and play with the girls once a month.

Classic, and nauseating.

 

[blade_rocknut]

Most of the straight people I know are either indifferent about gay marriage or in favor of the right to do so......but then; I don't associate with bible thumpers & their kind. I quit believing in any sort of religion once I reached the age of reality and observed the evil that is oft done in the name of someone's god.

Politically, I am always torn with neither side offering a platform representative of the freedoms that I desire as a sexual being, a business owner, a family man,and an outdoorsman. As far as rights? Well, I don't believe ( in theory) of offering any group of people specific rights...in the perfect world- we shouldn't need to. I also recognize that world is not ours. It may step on toes to say so, but I believe incentives, quotas, and affirmative action type doctrines in the workplace have wrought far more harm than good.

Crap...this is a tangent, isn't it?

 

[girlsmiley]

Firstly, my connection to Lit has gotten very slow and unreliable AGAIN, so apologies if I am waay behind the discussion.
Secondly GOP = republican party??? Sorry we got a whole ocean between us...

thirdly: Stella I see, we are mis-understanding each other I think. What you are saying is, currently gay rights are few and being fought over, am I right? What I was meaning was, despite the current political situation regarding GLBT rights around the world, in reality gay rights are human rights, the GLBT community has the same rights as everyone else, although, yes, they are currently being denied to people worldwide. Like you said smiley they aren't legal rights currently. But humans should be standing up for their fellow human's rights. Does that make any sense? In other words - what deckard said (There should be ONE set of 'rights' that human beings view to treat each other with decency and respect. Period.) Sorry perhaps I should return to quiet observation (which is what I mainly do on these forums!), I seem to just be getting myself in a tangle.

I think it was Eleanor Roosevelt that chaired the committee that drafted and approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Human Rights go way back to Cyrus the Great and his cylinder.
Here's a vid for those that want to check out what human rights are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCQWwkERit4

Human rights are UNIVERSAL. This is ONE set of rights.
However, these rights do NOT equal legal rights.
Marriage although a human right, does not apply to me here in Australia.
Absolutely we should all treat each other with dignity and respect.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Politically, I am always torn with neither side offering a platform representative of the freedoms that I desire as a sexual being, a business owner, a family man,and an outdoorsman.

True enough, babe. But that doesn't mean that those interests are not being represented.

As far as rights? Well, I don't believe ( in theory) of offering any group of people specific rights...in the perfect world- we shouldn't need to.

it isn't a perfect world, and those in power have no desire to make it so.

GLBT are not trying to request specific rights, we are trying to claim the same rights everyone else has.

I also recognize that world is not ours. It may step on toes to say so, but I believe incentives, quotas, and affirmative action type doctrines in the workplace have wrought far more harm than good.

Crap...this is a tangent, isn't it?

it surely is. We are not talking about incentives, quotas, or affirmative action. We are talking about the right to choose whom you will marry, the right to keep a job regardless of one's sexual preferences, and the right to not be killed on account of gayness.

 

[PurpleJade]

They differ in that gays and lesbians aren't trying to prevent straights from having them.

You're right though. They should be considered to be universal human rights.

We also need the support and need to support our straight allies (which is the "A" in LGBTIA).

That said it seems to be pretty one way now days (pun intended). We've got fundies to the right of us, tea baggers to the left of us and a BUNCH of straight haters in front of us (and running for political office).

My question is becoming who the hell is behind me? It sure as hell ain't people like the quasi-Bi chick I read the other day on FaceBook who said she couldn't be bothered about supporting gay marriage cuz she had both full marital rights from being married to a man AND she could go out and play with the girls once a month.

Seriously??? she said that?? Thats crazy. I just see all people as equal no matter who they are. So, seeing as I don't count as GLBT, I am behind you It may also suprise you to note, that even here in ireland, I see many straight people talking on facebook about tv debate topics, saying they are pro gay rights and gay marriage (we have civil partnership at the moment, same as in the UK). With the Catholic church highly out of favour, people are thinking for themselves instead of repeating what they were taught to believe.

But as for all those 'fundies, tea baggers and straight haters' they need to go jump off a cliff or preferably, wake up to their own craziness.

Oh, and smiley, the declaration of human rights is currently under major attack in the UK by the right wing (the Conservative party, right wing newspapers like the Daily Mail and all of Murdochs rubbish) they keep trying to say we should do away with them, as all they do is give illegal immigrants and prisoners rights, its quite scary rhetoric.

 

[girlsmiley]

Oh, and smiley, the declaration of human rights is currently under major attack in the UK by the right wing (the Conservative party, right wing newspapers like the Daily Mail and all of Murdochs rubbish) they keep trying to say we should do away with them, as all they do is give illegal immigrants and prisoners rights, its quite scary rhetoric.

They should export Rude Rupert back here to Australia.
I'm sure the boys over in Coober Pedy would love to have him.
He could live in a dugout and mine for opals until he croaks it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

But as for all those 'fundies, tea baggers and straight haters' they need to go jump off a cliff or preferably, wake up to their own craziness.

they don't want to jump off cliffs, or wake up. Tea party folk believe that there is a finite limit to stuff. They really believe that giving a good life to one person means someone lese will have a less good life, and they don't want to giveup anything for the sake of anyone else.

They have a teensy bit more than some other people-- or anyway, they think they do-- and that means they are better off-- or anyway, they truly believe they are.

They are perfectly happy in their craziness.

 

[blade_rocknut]

True enough, babe. But that doesn't mean that those interests are not being represented.

it isn't a perfect world, and those in power have no desire to make it so.

GLBT are not trying to request specific rights, we are trying to claim the same rights everyone else has.

it surely is. We are not talking about incentives, quotas, or affirmative action. We are talking about the right to choose whom you will marry, the right to keep a job regardless of one's sexual preferences, and the right to not be killed on account of gayness.

Well, I reckon I didn't make my intentions clear amid all that. I don't mean to imply GLBT equality is congruent to the other (IMHO negative) things I mentioned. As you said; all people deserve the same rights. My issue is with groups getting additional perks- different sport; so to speak. I did recognize that the world is not perfect.

Oh, and back to thethread....I'm not sure that 18 year old straight males aren't the most hedonistic demographic out there..... ( yes, I remember what it was like!)

 

[deckardB26354]

Dude, I didn't have the legal right to be married in California. Every hetero who lived there did.

So, yeah... Hetero and gay/lesbian rights ARE different. WTF do you think we are fighting for???

Try re-reading my post that you quoted. I might sink in a bit if you do.

Yeah...California. Prop HATE (8), sponsored and funded by everyone's favorite "all are equal in God's eyes" religion, The Mormons. Go talk to them about it, because I sure as fuck voted against it. I believe it is EVERYONE'S right to be miserable and get married--no matter what your orientation.

One more time...for clarity. There should be no need for hetero or LGBT rights...only human rights. That's the main reason this world is as fucked up as it is now.

 

[girlsmiley]

It makes PERFECT sense Amy. I really don't understand those posters.
They say they don't want the man, they only want his cock.
That right there... Well, I don't know what that is.
What it says to me is: "I don't him love or even like him as a person, a man. I just want a penis because I'm selfish and horny and I don't care how you feel about it or what anyone thinks."

That said wang slash man is about as significant as a dildo.
Almost ZERO significance.
It is feral. No denying that.

I asked my very gay neighbour about this. (He is the best).
He said, "These older men that say they only want cock are looking looking for a male prostitute.
They go out and fuck drugged up or homeless guys because they have wives and kids and are too fucking weak to be honest about being gay.
Next thing you know the wife is HIV+."

:O

 

[Etoile]

Just want to mention that I have examined the many reports that were sent about posts in this thread. Rules #9 and #11 have not been violated. Threads get hijacked all the time. If you don't like it, put the people on ignore and continue with your on-topic conversation. If you can't do that, maybe Lit isn't the place for you. And - as always - if you disagree with my actions as moderator, take it up with Laurel. That's all I'm going to say here.

 

[deckardB26354]

I asked my very gay neighbour about this. (He is the best).
He said, "These older men that say they only want cock are looking looking for a male prostitute.
They go out and fuck drugged up or homeless guys because they have wives and kids and are too fucking weak to be honest about being gay.
Next thing you know the wife is HIV+."

:O

OMG...that's totally it.

:-|

 

[girlsmiley]

OMG...that's totally it.

:-|

The what, what?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, I reckon I didn't make my intentions clear amid all that. I don't mean to imply GLBT equality is congruent to the other (IMHO negative) things I mentioned. As you said; all people deserve the same rights. My issue is with groups getting additional perks- different sport; so to speak. I did recognize that the world is not perfect.

What additional perks are you thinking of? I'm always curious when people start talking about this.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Just want to mention that I have examined the many reports that were sent about posts in this thread. Rules #9 and #11 have not been violated. Threads get hijacked all the time. If you don't like it, put the people on ignore and continue with your on-topic conversation. If you can't do that, maybe Lit isn't the place for you. And - as always - if you disagree with my actions as moderator, take it up with Laurel. That's all I'm going to say here.

Maybe lit isn't the place for anybody who doesn't kowtow to Queen Stella and her Bi Boy Trolls.

Meh. I'm staying JUST because it pisses her off. Turn about is fair play, right?

You just make sure the rules are applied / ignored equally.

 

[blade_rocknut]

What additional perks are you thinking of? I'm always curious when people start talking about this.

What I'm talking about is TOTALLY off topic for this thread, but anyway...the proliferation of programs touted as helping women & various minorities. Low or no interest government loans for minority or female owned businesses, for one. Payroll subsidies for companies to hire minority employees. Diversity hiring qoutas for companies above a certain size ( I disrember the minimum; I think it's 100 employees?). Basically; big brother telling you that you WILL hire and maintain a certain percentage of this, that, and the other. I'm a little rusty...it's been almost 15 years since I needed to study the Fair Labor Standards Act and related goodies. My business is small enough it doesn't matter; except that it'd be eligible for all kinds of help if I were female and a minority race. Total B.S., IMHO.

My wife works for a company ripe with incompetent and oversecure employees, whose jobs are safe because the company is a "minority owned" business and as such must maintain a ridiculous quota in order to receive grant funding. I have a ready for anyone who pulls the racist card on me for daring to say that, too. It's the real deal; government subsidized......reverse discrimination.

Some of these things may have sunset by now, I'm sure there are many more I've not mentioned...but anyway- this has nothing to do with GLBT. It does, however have something to do with "Joe the Plumber's" perception of groups fighting for rights. Folks who have no personal connection to GLBT causes may not pay enough attention to what exactly is being struggled for. A distinction must be made and touted here; GLBT folk are not after preferential treatment. THAT'S what many moderate minded people ( and conservatives) fear and despise. The word equality has been tainted- not in definition, but by association with this type of.......INequality.

 

[Stella_Omega]

was it better back in the day when good employees were passed over because they were black, or female?

Who was it better for?

Was it better when women were making forty percent of what men made for the same job? Who was it better for?

Was there less incompetence back when white business owners hired their nephews as a matter of routine?

Is it better when a company can count on support from the old white boy network that guaranteed business and floated loans, or when a company can count on support from the government that does essentially the same thing?

Who is it better for?

 

[blade_rocknut]

was it better back in the day when good employees were passed over because they were black, or female?

Who was it better for?

Was it better when women were making forty percent of what men made for the same job? Who was it better for?

Was there less incompetence back when white business owners hired their nephews as a matter of routine?

Is it better when a company can count on support from the old white boy network that guaranteed business and floated loans, or when a company can count on support from the government that does essentially the same thing?

Who is it better for?

One extreme to the other.

Oh, except it was/ is a lot tougher for the incompetent nephew to sue...and win....when you finally got sick of his lazy ass and fired him. Fire a minority employee now- even with documented cause, and you'd better damn well have your "i's dotted and t's crossed".
And...as for point number three...yes. Your example is far better- for the taxpaying public whose dollars are at stake on those floated loans. If the government feels it needs to be a bank for business owners, the financial statements and business plan should be the deciding factors; not gender or race. The premise is ludicrous from an equality standpoint.Your reference to wage disparity is, well...not really relevant. Although wage disparity is wrong and horrible, you can't right that wrong with another.

Hell, if you wanna get right down to it, why do some jobs pay a different wage for different levels of education? Literally, if a person is competent and hirable with a 2 year degree ( for instance), why an automatic increase for ( excessive and irrelevant) additional education? Florida public schools are this way regarding teacher pay...oh, wait- Florida's in the college business, too....Hmmmmmmmm. Almost sounds like a reacharound!

Again....I know I have some unpopular opinions that may appear narrow minded or butthurt on the surface; hence my aforementioned conundrum when politics arise. I'll not decry your disagreeing with me on these things; we've had different life experiences that shape what we find most important to us. I think we agree on at least one thing- people are people and must be treated the same.

 

[timetotry]

Maybe lit isn't the place for anybody who doesn't kowtow to Queen Stella and her Bi Boy Trolls.

Meh. I'm staying JUST because it pisses her off. Turn about is fair play, right?

You just make sure the rules are applied / ignored equally.

Bet it doesn't take you long to fill out all of your christmas cards huh ms happy?

 

[deckardB26354]

Someone call the thread police! Report this train as DERAILED.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Someone call the thread police! Report this train as DERAILED.

The thread police are on their way. They just want to finish their donuts and coffee first.

And stop by the strip joint to say hi to the girls.

And check their email.

And wash their hair.

And wash the dog.

 

[girlsmiley]

Bet it doesn't take you long to fill out all of your christmas cards huh ms happy?

Hahahahaha! Oh fuck that's funny. Speshly since I was just going here...



Take this bi curious man for eg. timetotry. I'll let his quotes do the talking.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=36161610&postcount=1​

Bi curious man wants well hung and firm man to make me beg for his big cock. I have fantasized for so long and want so badly to be treated like a sissy and personal cumslut.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=36225367&postcount=6​

mmmm that would be sooo nice. I have a fetish of being used and made to beg like a whore for a big cock to abuse me.

And when this bloke Missouribiguy said in this thread that he felt GUILTY because some bisexual men out there weren't being honest with their wives, this is how timetotry replied:

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=36779599&postcount=28​

Lookit, been over three months and you are still getting pissed that the men you are cybering with won't tell their wives. If it still bothers you (and it must or you would've stopped dwelling on it) just stop playing with married men. Are you the morality police? If so I would ask why are you on an erotic chat forum in the first place. If your cyber playmate agreed to be exclusive to you I could maybe see why you would feel insulted but still, it's cyber and the fact that you are acknowledging they are married men means you know going in that they have someone that ranks higher on their list of priorities than you. Let it go or stop playing with married men. We aren't going to tell our wives. Got it? Get over it.

timetotry, that is fucked up

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=38264449&postcount=1​

needing a stud to make me beg for it.

Mhmm. It certainly looks to me like this bicurious fucktard timetotry would throw himself at Any Ol' Cock. Wife be blown.

I'd like to apologise to Missouribiguy, and to all the nice bi guys out there who haven't already surmised that timetotry is slightly fucked in the head...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Welcome to page 6 of the Thread of Moral Indignation.


I have combed the forums a few times before myself-- looking for hate speech that some dickface named Jamesbjohnson had posted in the past. I wanted to PAH-ROOOVE that he was scum beyond all scumminess.

Nobody was impressed with me for doing it. Yeah, they said, he's pretty scummy, but so what? It's still a free speech forum. Laurel won't shut him up, no one will.

Personally, i think GS and Amy both need to learn the difference between a fantasy as expressed on the internet, and what someone might do in real life.

Someone expresses a fantasy wish. Big deal. And if the cybering dude can't get over the guys not telling their wives, why is he still cybering with them?