It *IS* harder to be bi than "straight" in either direction. I don't understand why. I'm just attracted to who I'm attracted to, and gender isn't one of the critical variables. (There ARE a lot of critical variables- I'm not attracted to a good 95% of the population in anything more than a passing observe the supple breasts don't they bounce nicely - wouldn't he look good covered in sweat, with his muscles straining because he's suspended from something sort of way. If you take the 30% of the population I have a physical attraction to and let them open their mouth to speak, it cuts the numbers down FAST.) And yet, it seems to be the ONLY critical variable to a lot of people
( ... )
Yeah, a lot of people go way down on the attractiveness meter because I come to learn that their brain is missing.
Gender's more a variable for me now, only because I've decided most boys are too stupid to play with. So I'll briefly lust for the completely unapproachable men--the cute little gay boys, the little hair-in-the-eyes completely oblivious boys, the male model types on TV--the ones I have no chance in hell of ever getting, in other words. Girls? Well, I'm more selective, but I'm more open. And I'll flirt with just about anything on principle, I just mostly flirt with the women. And most of the women I flirt with don't have a clue. :)
It's just...weird, and occasionally brain-hurting: the fact that I get more acceptance now, as an avowed dyke, than I got as an avowed bi girl. Who makes up these rules?
Wait...so...based on the below thread...if you BECOME an avowed dyke and you USED to be a avowed bi girl, does that cleanse you of the man seed? Or do you have to do some sort of ritual cleaning?
Seriously, what if you were raised in some type of "orthodox religious" background and lead to believe that you could not be gay, and married off to a man, but then escaped to a better lesbian life? Would you still be polluted, or do you need to CHOOSE the man seed covering?
There's so much that's fucked up in general about the lesbian community. They're more class-conscious, more appearance-conscious, than either straight women or gay men in a lot of ways. And I've never been able to figure out why that is.
You sit down and talk with rational lesbians, they'll tell you it doesn't matter--who you love is who you love, and that's what makes you whatever you are. But there's about an 80/20 split between the rational lesbians and the raving loons. And all of the raving loons are terrified, on some level, of men. There's something in their heads that says men will always be bigger and better and stronger and have easier lives, and they get really bitter and resentful.
The sick thing is, if they'd just relax, and realize as individual people, everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses, they'd be better off. But they're so determined to prove that men are not superior to them--while believing on some level that they are--they get crazed on the topic
( ... )
So essentially, it boils down to the "true believer" axiom:
It doesn't matter what the belief is, beware the "true believer."
(true believer being defined as someone who is so afraid of loosing their truth that they can accept no conversation, discourse, discussion, or thought about their believe, and can not interact with those who hold a different belief)
Yeah. Bill Maher got into an argument with people on one of his Real Time shows over this--first he said that people of faith are stupid, and half his panel protested, and then he retracted that, saying that people of faith have a mental block. In other words, all people of faith have, at some point, that steadfast refusal to admit anything that contradicts with what they believe, and that's their mental block.
Me, I consider myself a person of faith who's also a skeptic--so yes, I know that my beliefs create that mental block, but I'm also aware of it, and I know that the rational world does what it does in spite of what I may believe.
And yeah, you can apply that to any strongly-held belief. Like the commonly-understood clauses of lesbian culture, that refuse to believe that their view of the world may be incorrect.
Having faith and being a true believer are...worlds apart.
I am a Christian by birth, and now by convenience of mental construct.
I'm also a scientist.
I don't find the two to be a contradiction because I can see where religion is using concrete stories about concepts- and the concepts hold, even where the stories are more applicable in the abstract.
I can also interweave the two, find the common truths, yadda yadda.
Yeah, we are, and we're in pretty good tune, too. :)
I just wish the rest of the world could catch up. Even more, I wish the rest of the world held our view--my faith holds true for me, your faith holds true for you, and that doesn't make either of us "wrong", and more than that, it doesn't mean our faith holds every single answer about the structure of the universe.
Put in Christian terms...I flatly refuse to believe that God created the universe in seven days. Flatly refuse. But, in terms of godlike perception of time...seven days on God's schedule...yeah. That, I can get behind.
I have the same reaction to the crowd that tells me the Bible is inerrant--when I know several mistranslations that are commonly accepted--and that the world is only 2000+ years old--because they're dating from that seven-day figure, which makes no sense. Expand the myths into scientific structure--any creation myths, from any world belief system--and generally, you can hold the concepts, lift them free of the concretization of belief around them
( ... )
Reply
Gender's more a variable for me now, only because I've decided most boys are too stupid to play with. So I'll briefly lust for the completely unapproachable men--the cute little gay boys, the little hair-in-the-eyes completely oblivious boys, the male model types on TV--the ones I have no chance in hell of ever getting, in other words. Girls? Well, I'm more selective, but I'm more open. And I'll flirt with just about anything on principle, I just mostly flirt with the women. And most of the women I flirt with don't have a clue. :)
It's just...weird, and occasionally brain-hurting: the fact that I get more acceptance now, as an avowed dyke, than I got as an avowed bi girl. Who makes up these rules?
Reply
Seriously, what if you were raised in some type of "orthodox religious" background and lead to believe that you could not be gay, and married off to a man, but then escaped to a better lesbian life? Would you still be polluted, or do you need to CHOOSE the man seed covering?
Reply
You sit down and talk with rational lesbians, they'll tell you it doesn't matter--who you love is who you love, and that's what makes you whatever you are. But there's about an 80/20 split between the rational lesbians and the raving loons. And all of the raving loons are terrified, on some level, of men. There's something in their heads that says men will always be bigger and better and stronger and have easier lives, and they get really bitter and resentful.
The sick thing is, if they'd just relax, and realize as individual people, everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses, they'd be better off. But they're so determined to prove that men are not superior to them--while believing on some level that they are--they get crazed on the topic ( ... )
Reply
*gape*
So essentially, it boils down to the "true believer" axiom:
It doesn't matter what the belief is, beware the "true believer."
(true believer being defined as someone who is so afraid of loosing their truth that they can accept no conversation, discourse, discussion, or thought about their believe, and can not interact with those who hold a different belief)
Reply
Me, I consider myself a person of faith who's also a skeptic--so yes, I know that my beliefs create that mental block, but I'm also aware of it, and I know that the rational world does what it does in spite of what I may believe.
And yeah, you can apply that to any strongly-held belief. Like the commonly-understood clauses of lesbian culture, that refuse to believe that their view of the world may be incorrect.
Reply
I am a Christian by birth, and now by convenience of mental construct.
I'm also a scientist.
I don't find the two to be a contradiction because I can see where religion is using concrete stories about concepts- and the concepts hold, even where the stories are more applicable in the abstract.
I can also interweave the two, find the common truths, yadda yadda.
I don't see true belivers doing that.
(Wait...are we the choir, singing to each other?)
Reply
I just wish the rest of the world could catch up. Even more, I wish the rest of the world held our view--my faith holds true for me, your faith holds true for you, and that doesn't make either of us "wrong", and more than that, it doesn't mean our faith holds every single answer about the structure of the universe.
Put in Christian terms...I flatly refuse to believe that God created the universe in seven days. Flatly refuse. But, in terms of godlike perception of time...seven days on God's schedule...yeah. That, I can get behind.
I have the same reaction to the crowd that tells me the Bible is inerrant--when I know several mistranslations that are commonly accepted--and that the world is only 2000+ years old--because they're dating from that seven-day figure, which makes no sense. Expand the myths into scientific structure--any creation myths, from any world belief system--and generally, you can hold the concepts, lift them free of the concretization of belief around them ( ... )
Reply
Awwww... You think so? I was just hoping they were young and perky, plus the whole confining factor doing the scrunch and bunch...
wouldn't know bisexual if it hit them in the ass with a strapon
Oh I love that... I know one of those girls.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment