Anyone in the swingng lifestyle here? Riddle me this...

[help_me_Rhonda]

Or they would be if they had more same-sex experiences while forming their own sexuality. I believe that is the root of the Classical World's general attitude that, as Pilot puts it, sex is sex is sex. The attitude seems to have managed to last fairly well for the next couple of thousand years until the XIV Century. For some reason, though, in the 1300's homophobia sort of 'swept' Western Europe. No one has put a good explanation of this in print, to my knowledge, but the same Church that in earlier centuries had official rites for blessing the union of same sex couples turned downright violently against the very thought of such. Unfortunately, the Vatican's gerontocracy is still living that nonsense.

Anyway, if little boys were freer to grow up cuddling and fondling with other little boys before they started in on girls, I suspect (with absolutely no evidence to back me up) that it would be less of an issue than it is today.

At least today's younger folk are a lot more tolerant of GLBT people than their forebears. Prop 8 and DOMA will die. How long that will take remains to be seen.

And it takes about two generations to change biases in society.

Back in my Grandma's generation (60's), girl on girl (but not gay) was not widely accepted. By the time I grew up, it seemed almost like a cliche.

But still today, guy on guy (but not gay) is still not widely accepted. Maybe in another 50 years...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Or they would be if they had more same-sex experiences while forming their own sexuality.

yeah, I went back and added a couple of crucial words to that thought of mine...

I believe that is the root of the Classical World's general attitude that, as Pilot puts it, sex is sex is sex. The attitude seems to have managed to last fairly well for the next couple of thousand years until the XIV Century. For some reason, though, in the 1300's homophobia sort of 'swept' Western Europe. No one has put a good explanation of this in print, to my knowledge, but the same Church that in earlier centuries had official rites for blessing the union of same sex couples turned downright violently against the very thought of such. Unfortunately, the Vatican's gerontocracy is still living that nonsense.

Anyway, if little boys were freer to grow up cuddling and fondling with other little boys before they started in on girls, I suspect (with absolutely no evidence to back me up) that it would be less of an issue than it is today.

At least today's younger folk are a lot more tolerant of GLBT people than their forebears. Prop 8 and DOMA will die. How long that will take remains to be seen.

A lot of us crazy hippies are now Old Farts. so who knows...

 

[jomar]

I have to wonder how squeashy the foundation is for your premise. Who told you this, based on what?

Not at all squeasy. It's based on the reality within the swinging lifestyle.

Although, I can't help but think a guy who enjoys full couple hard swap and who isn't squeamish about seeing and being really close to a hard dick has a different take on sexuality than an athlete who showers with the guys and tells dick and chick jokes...and stuff about the game. So close, yet so far...

It seems like the author of this thread is simply trying to call someone out on their hypocritical life style. Well played.

Thanks. That may be the result, but not necessarily then intent. It struck me not so much as hypocritical as men needing to be discreet on the surface, which I found odd. Maybe not hypocritical for individuals, but probably for the overall lifestyle, though...it seems weird to me.



Okay, so dudes are straight on the profile and want it up the ass in private. Then what happens? It gets known in the community that all these guys are bi. Is it a big deal? Or is it simply a matter of "Hey, don't suck my dick in front of the others at the lifestyle party tonight" and all is well?

 

[sr71plt]

On the other hand, If a man professes disdain for male to male activity, there's a reason behind it--why he both professes on it and professes disdain when he professes. For him to actually profess disdain, what is you think is behind that reason? If there's nothing behind it that's prejudicial, why is he (A) professing and (B) doing so with disdain?

So, Saxon_Hart, are you still mulling what the reasoning is behind a man professing disdain for male to male activity that isn't a prejudice of some sort? Like in the homophobic sort? Maybe we're going to fall back on religion here--"the Bible told me so, and I blindly follow everything the Bible says"?

 

[BuckyDuckman]

It has come to my attention that many males males identify themselves as straight on their online profiles whether individually or as part of a couple. Behind the scenes however, they want bi sex and cite a bias against bi men in the swinging world.

Can anybody shed light on this? It fascinates me that there is this phenomenon in a such a sexually liberal world.

I think I can speak from some firsthand experiences on this topic with a few anecdotes from RL. When my wife and I were interested in opening up our marriage, we joined a popular adult dating site as a couple. We listed her as "straight," since that's her preference and myself as "bi," since that's MY preference. I would say no fewer than 95% of the men who contacted us listed themselves as "straight."

When we began to investigate the lifestyle and expressed interest in several clubs, we were "advised" to remove my "bisexual" status from our online profile. Different reasons were offered, depending on the person. One said "People are too afraid of HIV/AIDS." Another said, "Lots of guys go both ways, but its very discreet." They never offered a reason for it. One more advised, "No one wants a swing night to turn into a sausage fest."

We did find a bi-friendly group in our area and the parties consistently turned into sausage fests. There were easily ten guys for every woman.

I've said it before and I stand by it, I believe male bisexuality is one of the more difficult sexual preferences. Straight people label you gay and gay people label you as a poser. Go figure.

It's part of the reason why so many of my stories feature male bisexuality - in my own effort to help mainstream the concept.

 

[slyc_willie]

Okay, so dudes are straight on the profile and want it up the ass in private. Then what happens? It gets known in the community that all these guys are bi. Is it a big deal? Or is it simply a matter of "Hey, don't suck my dick in front of the others at the lifestyle party tonight" and all is well?

I can imagine three reasons why a man would public display a profile in which he claims to be straight but is, in fact, willing to have sex with both men and women.

1) He's afraid of any and all prejudices against bi or gay men that may actually exist in his circle of acquaintances, or which he perceives to exist.

2) He fears the supposed onslaught of propositions from gay men since, "according to everybody," gay men will fuck any other man in existence (note the sarcasm there).

3) He fears turning off women who assume that a bisexual man is just a gay man in waiting.

I have never done research on any of this, so I am basing these assumptions purely on my own experiences. But I hardly think my experiences are atypical.

As far as what would happen if the man became "outed" as being bi? Perhaps any or all or none at all of the above fears would come true. From his point of view, why take the chance? What he's dealing with, basically, is a fear of some kind, and we all know they ain't rational.

 

[Saxon_Hart]

So, Saxon_Hart, are you still mulling what the reasoning is behind a man professing disdain for male to male activity that isn't a prejudice of some sort? Like in the homophobic sort? Maybe we're going to fall back on religion here--"the Bible told me so, and I blindly follow everything the Bible says"?

I think my choice of words was a tad off. When I said express disdain, I didn't mean someone saying "Those fags are sickening for what they do." I meant a guy saying merely that the thought of sex with another did not turn him on in the slightest(his exact words). He was called a hater and a homophobe by most on that board. A few who defended his position were labeled as well.
Personally I give a fuck less what anyone does. I've just been amused by people attacking people because they see things differently. Prime example; during the last election, quite a few people were labeled as racist because they wanted obama out of office. As far as what the bible says, it's not man's place to judge nor mine. My personal beliefs are irrelevant here so I refrain from airing them.

 

[Dyslexicea]

Here's a Great Truth: When a man and a woman are equal the man is perceived as inferior to the woman.

Bullshit!

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think my choice of words was a tad off. When I said express disdain, I didn't mean someone saying "Those fags are sickening for what they do." I meant a guy saying merely that the thought of sex with another did not turn him on in the slightest(his exact words). He was called a hater and a homophobe by most on that board. A few who defended his position were labeled as well.

Ah well, some people were assholes-- and very likely because they had been exposed to assholes before they encountered your guy. It does take some real effort to assume good will all the time, and easy to read into words the thing you are most used to reading. Men tend to go from "I am not interested" to "fucking faggot" pretty quickly.

@Dyslexica; In some ways, Jimmy kinda has the right of it. The key word there is "perceived," remember... in society's eyes.
My own mother, Pioneer of the Second Wave, talks about couples she Once knew; "well, she was dean of (x) studies at USC, and he was a librarian..." and her voice will trail off while she thinks about this couple where the woman held a higher-status job. "I always thought she was kind of castrating, really." she will conclude. "I think she kept him down."

At her age, I just nod.

 

[sr71plt]

I meant a guy saying merely that the thought of sex with another did not turn him on in the slightest(his exact words).

I have no trouble with this as long as that's as far as it goes. The "turnon," is, I think, the key issue. If a guy doesn't get and maintain an erection in the presence of another man in sexual situations then there's just no attraction. That's just a neutral "what is." If he does, I think he's kidding himself. I think a guy can have sex with anything that gets him erect and keeps him erect. I also don't think it takes a guy in his sexually active years much to get erect. I think that most guys are bi if they sweep away all of the societal conditioning--that, once erect and as long as they can stay erect, they could have sex with a fence post. Sex is sex is sex.

 

[3113]

I think my choice of words was a tad off. When I said express disdain, I didn't mean someone saying "Those fags are sickening for what they do." I meant a guy saying merely that the thought of sex with another did not turn him on in the slightest(his exact words). He was called a hater and a homophobe by most on that board.

Not so on this board--we've had many discussions of bi-sexuality and many men who say they're straight and not turned on at all by sex with other men. We haven't jumped on them for being homophobes. But you did go on to say:

I mean scat doesn't turn a lot of people on...

I don't think comparing gay male sex to being shit on makes anyone think that you're just "not turned on" by it. As a straight male, I'll assume that the idea of two women going at it would turn you on--yes? If so, what would you think of a woman who viewed such sex as equal to scat in her dislike of it? Would you see that as just "she's not into it"? Or "she has a real problem with it"?

If you don't get erect when you see another male then I'm not going to take issue with it and neither are any other guys or women here. Whatever turns you on and all that--and also, whatever doesn't turn you on it all right, too. But you do have to watch your metaphors when it comes to gay sex. Such metaphors are sensitive things when it comes to homosexuality because many homophobes compare gay sex to beastiality. In doing so, they are saying quite loudly and emphatically not just that this turns them off, but that it's unnatural. That gays are unnatural.

So when you compare gay sex to some other type of "turn-off" sex, you're not just saying it "turns you off." You're implying--intentionally or not--how you see gays. Do you see?

 

[Dyslexicea]

I think another fear arises from the assumption of many that there's no such thing as a bisexual man. Sure, women can go both ways, and that's considered hot, if not damn near required of the modern, sexually liberated woman. But a man willing to touch another man sexually is considered by many other men to be on the road to coming out of the closet. .

Hon, you did come out of the closet, so many bi women and men won't, you doing so does makes a difference. Just being open about your sexuality is going to influence others.

As you might suspect I at times have some problem with my feeling for men, rather negative, but if there is such a thing as a Manly man, it's someone like you who is willing to say "This is me, I'm Bi, if you don't like it just go fuck yourself."

 

[Dyslexicea]

So, Saxon_Hart, are you still mulling what the reasoning is behind a man professing disdain for male to male activity that isn't a prejudice of some sort? Like in the homophobic sort? Maybe we're going to fall back on religion here--"the Bible told me so, and I blindly follow everything the Bible says"?

You have to skip the book of Ruth! It's about two women in love and I don't mean platonic love.

 

[slyc_willie]

Hon, you did come out of the closet, so many bi women and men won't, you doing so does make a difference. Just being open about your sexuality is going to influence others.

As you might suspect I at times have some problem with my feeling for men, rather negative, but if there is such a thing as a Manly man, it's someone like you who is willing to say "This is me, I'm Bi, if you don't like it just go fuck yourself."

I never would have guessed you may have problems with your feelings for men.

Whatever reactions people may have regarding my sexuality are their own concern, not mine. When I was younger, I struggled with it and only indulged my "true nature" with very close friends whom I figured would accept it. Some did, some didn't. I lost a few friends. At the time, I was angry at myself for "inflicting" my bisexual self upon them. These days . . . eh. Take it or leave it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

At the time, I was angry at myself for "inflicting" my bisexual self upon them.

yeah... I remember that one.

 

[Dyslexicea]

I never would have guessed you may have problems with your feelings for men.

That's twice today someone has made me smile.

 

[Saxon_Hart]

So when you compare gay sex to some other type of "turn-off" sex, you're not just saying it "turns you off." You're implying--intentionally or not--how you see gays. Do you see?

Wasn't comparing gay sex to scat dude. Was making a point more that people want to label others. I care less what flavor of sex people have or don't.....I get pissed when someone disagrees they get a hater label. If someone's not into a scene, be it gay sex, animal sex or sticking their cocks into pineapples, no one needs to label them a hater because they don't like it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Wasn't comparing gay sex to scat dude. Was making a point more that people want to label others. I care less what flavor of sex people have or don't.....I get pissed when someone disagrees they get a hater label. If someone's not into a scene, be it gay sex, animal sex or sticking their cocks into pineapples, no one needs to label them a hater because they don't like it.

Please though, use some tact and awareness when making those comparisons. We are so used to hearing hate speech that it's a big surprise when it isn't present.

... in fact you did it again; listing animal sex next to gay sex is the exact tactic of the right wing fundie movement.

You might not have intended to insult, but you did, for all practical purposes. This may have a bearing on the original topic. Also on your original question.

 

[Saxon_Hart]

Please though, use some tact and awareness when making those comparisons. We are so used to hearing hate speech that it's a big surprise when it isn't present.

... in fact you did it again; listing animal sex next to gay sex is the exact tactic of the right wing fundie movement.

You might not have intended to insult, but you did, for all practical purposes. This may have a bearing on the original topic. Also on your original question.

Point taken. Although I'm lead to believe that no one is defending pineapple sex. <imagine winking face here>

 

[slyc_willie]

yeah... I remember that one.

I figure that's a fairly common thought process among anyone who has ever come out in one way or another. Just goes to show how much of an impact the society around us has on not only our actions, but our thoughts behind them.

That's twice today someone has made me smile.

Then my work here is done.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Point taken. Although I'm lead to believe that no one is defending pineapple sex. <imagine winking face here>

A resounding silence on that one. };-)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I figure that's a fairly common thought process among anyone who has ever come out in one way or another. Just goes to show how much of an impact the society around us has on not only our actions, but our thoughts behind them.



Then my work here is done.

Paul Fussell wrote CLASS IN AMERICA, and it explains plenty of how values are shaped in America. Its the Middle Class that has the big problem with change. Fussell defined the middle class as America's self employed NOT your income level. Wage slaves are proletariat regardless of pay, and elites get dividends, clip bond coupons, and have trusts.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Paul Fussell wrote CLASS IN AMERICA, and it explains plenty of how values are shaped in America. Its the Middle Class that has the big problem with change. Fussell defined the middle class as America's self employed NOT your income level. Wage slaves are proletariat regardless of pay, and elites get dividends, clip bond coupons, and have trusts.

Academics and their fancy definitions so silly!

I looked that book up. It was published in 1983? I wonder what he would have to say about how values are being shaped nowadays.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

I have no trouble with this as long as that's as far as it goes. The "turnon," is, I think, the key issue. If a guy doesn't get and maintain an erection in the presence of another man in sexual situations then there's just no attraction. That's just a neutral "what is." If he does, I think he's kidding himself. I think a guy can have sex with anything that gets him erect and keeps him erect. I also don't think it takes a guy in his sexually active years much to get erect. I think that most guys are bi if they sweep away all of the societal conditioning--that, once erect and as long as they can stay erect, they could have sex with a fence post. Sex is sex is sex.

For once, I kinda agree with you.

I have heard two arguments about why there are more openly bi women than men. One is that women are allowed to be more comfortable and physical with each other as friends (I hug and touch and cuddle my female friends all of the time) And the other is that our media and ads objectify women so much that we are all trained to see a woman's body as a sum of parts, where men are seen as a whole.

Both of these arguments (if true, I'm a bit sketchy about the advertisement one) actually make it seem plausible that all women can be (to some degree) bisexual. We've been trained our whole lives to be comfortable and aroused by the same sex.

I have never seen my male friends be nearly as physical or tactile with each other as I have been with my female friends.

 

[jomar]

And another thing...

A couple is contacted by another couple on AFF for full on bi swap only to rescind the meeting after noting in the profile that the female occasionally smokes weed. Then the anti-drug couple blocks the other couple from contacting them. Weird.

To me, an odd mix of liberal and conservative.