bi just for sex?

[mrbimystery]

i was recently talking to a girl friend of mine and she told me that i wasnt really bi because i could not see myself having a relationship wit another man and im only attracted to a few men. she said the only reason i seek to have sex with men as well is because i have a strong sex drive and sometimes women r just not readily available so ill do men.

so wat do u guys think? do u think that sum bi men only hav sex wit other men because they cant always get women? or do u think theres more?

 

[cjm4264]

Bi Just for Sex

Yes, I definately agree with that. I think that is where bi-curious starts...don't you?

 

[mrbimystery]

i guess i do.

 

[mga]

i was recently talking to a girl friend of mine and she told me that i wasnt really bi because i could not see myself having a relationship wit another man and im only attracted to a few men. she said the only reason i seek to have sex with men as well is because i have a strong sex drive and sometimes women r just not readily available so ill do men.

so wat do u guys think? do u think that sum bi men only hav sex wit other men because they cant always get women? or do u think theres more?

If you follow your friends logic a person, regardless of sexual orientation, should be willing to have sex with anyone and not be particular as to who. Human nature is for people to be selective and only be interested in certain physical and personality types. A strong sex drive is irrelevent...if one is sexually frustrated and are lacking a partner most of us will masturbate. oes your friend ever have sex with other women? If so what does that make her? Both my husband and I are bi and we have sex with other male and female partners but we are selective, we don't go out seeking strangers. Does this mean we aren't bi?

 

[lagunabi]

Men are less complicated

My wife decided about 4 years ago that she was no longer interested in sex. I had had some bi experimentation as a teen and strapon play with a previous wife so I decided to explore the bi route instead of having an affair with another woman. Turns out I love a hard cock in my ass and mouth. In some cases I think guys turn to other guys because it is less complicated. I will suck them off and take their cocks in my ass which may be something thier wives or girlfriends won't do for them. I am happy to accomodate them. Especially in my ass.

 

[Hitchiker69]

If women had always been sexually available I never would have let a man suck me off, or fucked his ass. Same for the men who hit on me. If they could have found a woman, they would have gone with them. But women aren't always available, and men usually are willing to get a blowjob wherever they can, as long as noone knows.

A hard cock doesn't care who sucks it, so when I was propositioned by a guy who wanted to satisfy my needs, I went for it. And later, after I was comfortable with the concept of man to man sex, I would seek it out for a quickie, just to get a load off.

Besides, you don't have to buy a guy flowers, tell him you love him, or any of that. It's simple sex, raw, plain and satisfying.
I've never felt emotionally drawn to a man, just sexually.

 

[CordonOff]

Sex with men... no emotional involvement. Just sex. I don't want to kiss another man, cuddle with him, etc. I want his cock, his balls and mostly, his sperm.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think you are bi sexual.

 

[Ike_The_Spike]

the way i think about it there are three scales, not one (i read this somewhere, i didn't come up with it). instead of just homosexual-bisexual-heterosexual, there's a sexual scale (who you sleep with), a platonic scale (who you're friends with), and a romantic scale (who you fall in love with). so i'm bisexual, biplatonic, heteroromantic, for example. just my two cents

I think you are bi sexual.

I think these 2 hit the nail on the head, one more succinct the other with a bit more detail, but both accurate. IMHO

 

[steffy]

I don't like having to use labels. If society were to label me, then I would be considered bi. I have had a girl friend (the same one) since I was 16. We are both 34. However, we both date, and have sex with, men. These are not random men, they are guys we have known for years, who prefer not to be in the dating scene, nor have they found their respective committed partners. We all know each other, and we know we are all clean and safe.

I prefer to think of my self and others who would be considered bi, as just plain ol' lovers of sex. I know who I am and I know what I like and I'm going to do it, in spite of the label. So, with that said, if a guy wants to suck a cock just for fun or curiosity or just to get a load off, so what! It doesn't need a label. Just do it and enjoy it. No one should be judging!

My personal preference is this: If I want tender intimacy and all-day foreplay, my gf Jan is it. She can give me orgasms like no other. BUT, if I want a good old fashioned hard fuck, I'm calling one of my guy friends. I love the taste of pussy, but sometimes there's nothing like having a nice set of balls slapping your chin!

Don't worry about the label! If it turns you on, do it!

kisses steffy

 

[human_male]

Well is it the case that you only want an experience with a guy because you can't get women? You'd know if that's the case wouldn't you?

If you do want to shag men then you're not completely straight. You're also not completely gay. The only other word we have is bi. You might not fit her definition of it, but it's the closest word we have. If you're into labels that is.

 

[A_Kefka]

I think that there is a whole lot of space in the area between being totally straight and totally gay. Yes you fit in there somewhere, but there are probably as many different versions of being bi as there are bi people.

 

[sparkzzz]

Labels are for cans. You are who you are and you don't need to have other people tell you what you are.

 

[steffy]

Labels are for cans. You are who you are and you don't need to have other people tell you what you are.

well said!

 

[banes27]

We came up with a term tom describe a friend of mine "pansexual" (not sure if that's an official term though, we never checked) which basically means that as long as someone was willing to have sex with him, no matter how physically (un)attractive they were to him, he'd still have sex with them. Sex for the sex of sex with anyone up for sex basically. "Pansexuals" only condition in a purely sexual partner is thus whether they're in the mood

Not sure if that fits but I like ncdude280's three-part scheme. I think on top of that you could probably add who you find attractive but wouldn't be willing to sleep with.

 

[Stella_Omega]

We came up with a term tom describe a friend of mine "pansexual" (not sure if that's an official term though, we never checked) which basically means that as long as someone was willing to have sex with him, no matter how physically (un)attractive they were to him, he'd still have sex with them. Sex for the sex of sex with anyone up for sex basically. "Pansexuals" only condition in a purely sexual partner is thus whether they're in the mood

I think that's "slut."

Although that usually means "A woman who has slept with one more person than me" so let's go with "pansexual."

Not sure if that fits but I like ncdude280's three-part scheme. I think on top of that you could probably add who you find attractive but wouldn't be willing to sleep with.

That's the Platonic part.

 

[raffi_sandoval]

the way i think about it there are three scales, not one (i read this somewhere, i didn't come up with it). instead of just homosexual-bisexual-heterosexual, there's a sexual scale (who you sleep with), a platonic scale (who you're friends with), and a romantic scale (who you fall in love with). so i'm bisexual, biplatonic, heteroromantic, for example. just my two cents

I like this!

 

[banes27]

I think that's "slut."

Although that usually means "A woman who has slept with one more person than me" so let's go with "pansexual."

It was used as a term applied to a guy "slut" has too many negative connotations to it, especially when you consider he hasn't actually slept with too many people, 9 women 3 men I think, which is a hell of a lot less than one of my female friends who's up to 33 men 0 women. He said that he didn't find any of the guys and like 3 of the women physically or mentally attractive in any way but slept with them because they were up for it

That's the Platonic part.

See, now to me (and in the definition) "platonic" was used as a description of who you'll be friends with, not who you'd be physically attracted to but not up for sexual encounters with. I guess the scheme would be:

Romantic: Who you fall in love with
Sexual Attraction: Who you sleep with
Physical Attraction: Who you find physically attractive but not sexually attractive
Platonic: Who you're friends with (not necessarily including physical attraction)

For example, I might only fall in love with women and only find women sexual attractive and I might be friends with both women and men with no physical/sexual attraction to them at all but I might be physically attracted to both men and women yet have no sexual or platonic attraction to them, i.e. I neither want to sleep with them or be friends with them but merely admire their looks. It's a bit of a limited thing seeing as how it's often predictable based on sexual attraction but there are odd occassions where they're slightly different.

 

[squarejohn]

so wat do u guys think? do u think that sum bi men only hav sex wit other men because they cant always get women? or do u think theres more?

Women seem to want the romance first; candlelight dinners, walks along the beach etc,. blah, blah, blah.

All a man requires is for the other guy to unzip his pants. It is just for the sex. After they get their rocks off, they go their separate ways.

I don't think it's anything to wring your hands about.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It isn't about the numbers, though!

It was used as a term applied to a guy "slut" has too many negative connotations to it, especially when you consider he hasn't actually slept with too many people, 9 women 3 men I think, which is a hell of a lot less than one of my female friends who's up to 33 men 0 women. He said that he didn't find any of the guys and like 3 of the women physically or mentally attractive in any way but slept with them because they were up for it

That's a slut. If he'd slept with one hundred people because they all turned him on-- that would imply some kind of thought process, and therefore, less sluttiness.

See, now to me (and in the definition) "platonic" was used as a description of who you'll be friends with, not who you'd be physically attracted to but not up for sexual encounters with. I guess the scheme would be:

Romantic: Who you fall in love with
Sexual Attraction: Who you sleep with
Physical Attraction: Who you find physically attractive but not sexually attractive
Platonic: Who you're friends with (not necessarily including physical attraction)

For example, I might only fall in love with women and only find women sexual attractive and I might be friends with both women and men with no physical/sexual attraction to them at all but I might be physically attracted to both men and women yet have no sexual or platonic attraction to them, i.e. I neither want to sleep with them or be friends with them but merely admire their looks. It's a bit of a limited thing seeing as how it's often predictable based on sexual attraction but there are odd occassions where they're slightly different.

Like statues? I know what you mean, though!

 

[mrbimystery]

i think im a bit of a romantic so i just feel odd saying that i feel absolutly no attraction to sum men who giv me orgasms. but it makes sense since there are times that i just wanna get out of there after cumming in his mouth.

 

[AmyJack]

so wat do u guys think? do u think that sum bi men only hav sex wit other men because they cant always get women? or do u think theres more?

Do I think some bi guys do this? Seems like a safe bet to me. For me, though, it's never been about that at all. I've been married nearly 25 years and love sex with my wife. Before marriage I had sex with guys while dating and having sex with women. Over the last couple of years my wife and I have had threesomes with a bi man. I love sucking cock and being fucked. I love eating vaginas, suckling breasts and putting my mouth on any part of a female. I don't care for putting my dick in a guy but love putting it in a woman. I prefer females in every way but the most erotically intense experiences I've had involved another man's cock in some way. All of these things can be true. I wish people didn't attempt to fit all of the complexity of human behavior into a tiny box they can easily label. To me, bisexual implies a person enjoys sex with both genders, usually prefering one gender to another if only a tiny bit.

 

[kingkhan1]

I am attracted to both genders but, my experiences with a guy are making me lean towards a guy. At first I thought it was only about sex but, the time I cuddled with my former fuckbud was amazing I wish I could do it again.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I am attracted to both genders but, my experiences with a guy are making me lean towards a guy. At first I thought it was only about sex but, the time I cuddled with my former fuckbud was amazing I wish I could do it again.

A lot of men are like that, more than you think. More than they think, even...

Mostly, we buy into the current bullshit of how real men don't cuddle and should never touch each other. But about a hundred fifty years ago, men walked arm-in-arm with each other all the time, and no one thought anything about it-- the taboos against gayness were just as strong then, too, but it was okay to cuddle.

 

[banes27]

It isn't about the numbers, though!That's a slut. If he'd slept with one hundred people because they all turned him on-- that would imply some kind of thought process, and therefore, less sluttiness.

Yeah, I suppose it could go either way really. I mean, he the fact they wanted to sleep with him was a turn on for him so if we're basing in on sexual arousal and "slut" being the lack of it then sith him being turned on by the thought of sex with that person would it classify him as a "slut"? If he was just having sex for the sake of sex then I'd agree, especially if he wasn't turned on by the idea, so it's a bit bleh.