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

[twister947]

" the only group that really vehemently opposes gay rights are above the age of 55. They tend to be ultra conservative, and to vote in disproportionately high numbers. They also won't live much longer."

Dammit, Candi.

 

[PurpleJade]

Aw twister, don't get too upset. I'm (only) 33, but I also thought 'ouch!' too to that comment, but Candi is REALLY young from what I can gather (very early 20s i think) and you know what its like at that age, 30 is old then, so you have to take such comments with a pinch of salt x

 

[jackstud]

Over 55. Welcomes with open arms and a Stiffy

 

[girlsmiley]

Over 55. Welcomes with open arms and a Stiffy

ew yuck.

 

[PurpleJade]

Hi smiley i think this thread is DEAD don't u??

 

[girlsmiley]

Hi smiley i think this thread is DEAD don't u??

Yeah I'm thinking so.

I've been great hon!

Australia won the tri nations last night. (That's rugby for all you Americans )
Went to the pub and had a gay ol' time

 

[CandiCame]

Over 55. Welcomes with open arms and a Stiffy

You know I love you Jack.

I don't plan to make it to 55.

 

[CandiCame]

Aw twister, don't get too upset. I'm (only) 33, but I also thought 'ouch!' too to that comment, but Candi is REALLY young from what I can gather (very early 20s i think) and you know what its like at that age, 30 is old then, so you have to take such comments with a pinch of salt x

Agist!

OK, yeah- I am pretty little. I'm still trying to get by on the cute for when I stick my foot in my mouth.

*smiles sheepishly, big eyes*

 

[girlsmiley]

Oi, Candicame!

What do you reckon about starting up a GLBT isolated blurt thread?
All the other forums have one.

*shrugs*

 

[HottieMama]

Oi, Candicame!

What do you reckon about starting up a GLBT isolated blurt thread?
All the other forums have one.

*shrugs*

Probably would be a great idea. It's quite the successful thread no matter where it is...

 

[girlsmiley]

Probably would be a great idea. It's quite the successful thread no matter where it is...

Yup.

I dunno HottieMama you reckon I should start one?

 

[haurni]

What I gather from Amy's posts is that she's asking if a lot of people who call themselves bi are really just straights (pretty sure she means straights) who are calling themselves bi to justify having sex with as many people as possible - presumably for their own gratification. The implication is that this particular subgroup isn't 'really' bi and so can't be counted on to support LGBT rights. By extension, are their behaviours actually harming the quest for LGBT equality?

PurpleJade & LunaWolf have posted some very good replies, well thought out and serious attempts to discuss the issue and keep the thread on track, and I applaud their efforts.

Mention has been made of 'Allies', and I think that anyone - straight or otherwise - who supports LGBT rights should be welcomed by the community as long as they're not raving whacko for some other reason. The community needs positive support and positive role models to show the 'rest of the world' that they are normal people and are deserving of the same rights as everyone else. Now, people who 'walk the walk' are of course more likely to call attention to themselves and be taken as exemplars of the community (for good or ill). On the other hand, the more 'more-or-less-straight' people who identify themselves as bi, the more likely it is that people will see relating sexually to one's own gender as being a normal thing. I think, therefore, that the concern shouldn't be with people who aren't 'really' bi - rather, the concern should be with anyone who affiliates themselves ('legitimately' or not) with the LGBT community and whose actions negatively affect people's perceptions of the community.

As such, anyone who is a positive social role model in general should be welcomed. Hypothetically, if the president of the local PTA is a happily married woman but likes to lick pussy once in a while, then as long as she's not against gays and lesbians, she's at the very least supporting them implicitly by her behaviour. If she votes for a pro-gay law, great. If she votes against it, that's not good and she's a hypocrite. But even if she abstains while associating herself with the LGBT community (implicitly or explicitly) that is still a tiny iota in favour of the LGBT side because she is at least contributing, however slightly, toward a perception of LGBT people as normal.

I'm not saying 'take what you can get and be grateful' by any means. I guess I'm trying to say that every little bit helps, and the most concern (and the most effort) should be directed toward those who are campaigning against LGBT or otherwise casting gays & 'real' bis in a negative light. The people who are out fighting for gay rights are the ones to be applauded for their efforts, but those who are simply 'along for the ride' shouldn't be pilloried unless their activities are harming the cause because, in this case (IMO, naturally), 'neutral but associated' is better than 'just plain neutral'.