perfectly natural, i reckon. I'm sure we'll all eventually be the same. (Not literally us, and in our lifetime, but humans)
When did I say this?
Is it impossible to defend something without sympathising completely with it?
what's there to debate?
she's the one who suggested it.
My arguement is:
Saying your for bisexuality is the equivalent of being 'in favor of Father Christmas''...it doesn't exist.
It's a contived state of mind. It's psychosomatic...and it's a mental disorder.
why though?
Because if the brain structure serves as evidence...
there is no differentiation between the INAH 3 nucleus in a heterosexual and a supposed 'bisexuals'' brain. They just have an overactive sex drive.
They would probably try shagging a marble, if they could.
so why make a real distinction
between hetero, homo and bi-sexuality anyway
it's slightly arbitrary outside of an ideological context
Because heterosexuals and homsexuals...
...not only have a cultural divide, but a very real biological difference. Neuroscience suggests the anterior hypothalamus of homosexual men is smaller than that of heterosexual men and the size of heterosexual women.
Placing relevance on the supposed genetic differences of homosexuals is very, very dangerous
No, because it's no longer shaky confirmation.
It's conclusive. It was announced a couple of weeks ago.
Link please.
And if that's true,then why is either one or the other?Are there only short or tall people?
Stupid comment
Your genes do determine your height to a great extent.
That's not the point though, there are infiniate possible heights, but we only name three possible sexualities; gaylord, straight and daring. I'm sure you have some people who are 90% straight but a little bit gay, but maybe not enough to class themselves as bi......
......
I think I just got your point, you are asking why bi doesn't exist in this research.
who has decided there are only 3 possible sexualities?
It is general consensus
unless you start bringing animals and stuff into it.
In terms of men and women you can fancy either or both = 3. In the same way, instead of measuring peoples height to the cm or mm, you could just say petit, normal, giant.
I was going to go on to say sexuality may be less simple than that, for example if 0 were straight and 10,000 gaylord, you could be any number in between. But I stopped because I realised that I had mis-interpreted doodthatkicksarse's post.
yeah but
bisexual can mean a lot of different things, two people could be on almost opposite ends of that scale and still both be classified as bisexuals, when in fact they might be closer to one of the extremes (ie. hetero/homosexual)
I'm not argueing with you
the same way somebody who is 6'2 might be called tall but so would somebody who is 7'8. Or two people might both be average height, but one is 5'5 and one is 5'9
The fact is, for sexuality, there are only three broad names we use.
That doesn't mean it's relevant, at all.
Eugenics, anyone?
Fucking post-positivists trying to deny fact, yet again....
Because their quaint little PC assumptions are under threat.
What are you on about?
Is it a fact that homosexuals are genetically different from heterosexuals: yes, possibly. Is it in any way relevant or helpful to dwell on it: no, not at all.
People have equated science with fact for decades in order to exploit people. It is NOT helpful.
^
:D
PC may be quaint,but the foundations that all that is built on are not.
^ this is true
i've seen a documentary about it
It's fine
gaylords have inapropriate genes.
yeah, but they fit better
I'll set em up,
you put them away.
And women?
Well...
lesbians anterior hypothalamus is much larger then heterosexual women, and has more in common with a straight man's brain.
And bisexuals of either sex?
And how attractive do heterosexual women and men find people of the same sex? I mean some people do. A LITTLE BIT.
Also yeah. Link plz.
surely a bisexual person doesn't have
more sex necessarily.
a person who is straight can have an overactive sex drive and not find the opposite sex attractive. i don't understand your point.
My point was...
Bisexuals are hetero or homo sexuals with an impulsive sex drive that congests their train of thought, and cajoles them into shagging either sex. Though their true affection only lies in one camp.
Says you
And how do you define "true" affection?
GET OVER YOURSELF MR OMNISCIENT
Slipping in words that you've knicked from a thesaurus every now and then...
...doesn't mean you have a cogent arguement. Instead of posting petulent remarks in Caps Lock, how about you formulate an intelligent opposition.
She did.
As have yes_ and myself,along with most other people on this thread.Now if you wouldn't mind,answer each and every one
1."Freud's theory is like astrology to a physicist".Bullshit,untill someone backs that up with an extensive essay outlining why it's not bullshit,I consider it bullshit.
2."While men tend to be either heterosexual or homosexual, with little evidence for true bisexuality, women show more mixed preferences."
Does that not refute your claim,without having to get any deeper?
No...becuase girls can be attracted to other women...
but their not TRUE bisexuals.
How are they not TRUE bisexuals?
what the fuck is a TRUE bisexual anyway?
freud is not respected by a lot of phsychologists these days.
Ok,
never mind
Again...simply not true.
Theres a thriving sector of the psychologist coummunity who still take Freuds essays as gospel.
not really.
it's common knowledge i would say.
But alot of common knowledge lacks validity
Henry the Eighth didn't actually have 7 wives...another fallacy dispelled by QI.
.
"An example is Freud's notion that women suffer from a lack of self esteem or self worth all their lives because of penis envy. Freud's assumption could have been a product of the times he lived in. It was a time when women were treated as second class citizens. Today, the idea of penis envy has lost its worth. Freud's assumption that sex is the driving force behind everything could also be a product of his times. Sexual feelings were often repressed. The problem with paradigmatic assumptions is that each person grows up in a different culture and some theories don't apply to everyone. The problem with psychology remains that it is not an exact science."
i studied freud, but have forgotten most of the important details. this is more or less what conclusion i came to though.
This is stupid
First it's commonly believed he had 6 wives. Second, it is bascially true that he did have 6 wives unless you start looking into the technicalities of 500 years ago.
Nice link
now is that a typo or is that two week old "research" actually 3 years old?
"impulsive sex drive"
so you have to stop and think and consider it before concluding that you're straight?
bumbler is againt bisexuality
hence: WAR
AARGGGHH
IT IS NOT SOMETHING TO BE FOR OR AGAINST
IT IS NOT SOME THEORETICAL IDEA
IT IS FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS AND PHYSICAL DESIRE
AND THAT'S IT
i don't know why everyone can't just stick to the opposite sex
rebellious teens. it's just a phase. also, why can't they stick to the same colour? its silly to mix and match
These threads are so lame,
they're just so obvious.
You lose Bumbler.
whiterussian suggested it sonny.
It aint my doing.
Yeah, but you actually started the thread.
You lose.
*sigh*
I know, petal.
I know.
^ same person.
I have wondered this
on occassions
Irony
your threads- try and get people to argue about politics, and when you cant answer, you dont, then claim you just do it to wind people up.
i know your game
^ jack is so clever.
watch out TDB.
i was talking to CG actually
fail!
okay... watch out CG.
ahem
sorry
as much as id like to help you out, ive got loyalties with TDB too.
didn't you hear?
we made up! kinda.
well, not that i think anyone would talk about my inane business,
but y'know...
apologies!
I've known fucktherave since year 7
he told me.
*sexd
aww, look at you defending me <3
^ this was to guevara
What exactly is the dbate?
The existence of bisexuality?
Surely that can be solved by a simple exercise in empiricism.
whiterussian is bi?
that's like, 100% more people to be jealous of
I'd be interested in the evidence about this
I've definitely read claims that it doesn't really exist in the sense that few people who classify themselves as bi are anywhere near equally attracted to both. Not that bi implies being equally attracted to both, but there should be significant numbers of people who this is true of. They are usually basically straight and end up displaying that in the long-run.
So assuming this is correct, on the supposed spectrum of sexuality there aren't many gay people who ever have many opposite-sex partners (out of choice) whereas there are lots of straight people who have the odd same-sex partner but end up in more straight relationships. I have no idea if that is true.
But that would show
That people are capable of having sexual relationships with and being sexually attracted to both sexes
yes
and I don't think that is arguable. It's just if you want to categorise (which a lot of people do for a multitude of reasons, I personally don't really see the point), whether there is predominantly clustering around the heterosexual and homosexual ends of the spectrum becomes a significant issue.
^ Now this is what we should be focusing on.
Are straight people natural showboaters? or do they find polygamous, metrosexual attitudes more acceptable the gay folk?
Is this because gay people have been combating adversity all their lives, they feel they need closure by gaining assurance of their identity?
it's hard to discuss this
now that 'homsexuality' has won 'scientific support'.
its sad that the gay lobby went down this route...i understand why it was done, but it is sad, instead of challenging the the feasibility of 'empirical' research into sexuality, it encouraged the public's blind trust in its methods.
It is in main ideological, and fucking the odd person of the same doesn't make you bisexual in terms of praxis/practice.
But wanting to fuck them
in the first place does
bixesuality as an identity
is different.
you can be attracted to members of the opposite sex and not be bisexual.
or even dick them.
bisexuality is a label attributed to a number of thoughts,actions, feelings that we have all felt but certain of these thoughts and feelings have been amplified and codified into a culture.
Hold on,
I'm working off of wildly different definitions than you,and good point.
I'm not saying that bixesuality is part of a persons identity.I'm saying that feeling the urge to sex someone of the same sex,whether under regular circumstances or not,and this applies to your post as well bumbler,shows that a latent bisexulaity is present,but not manifested.
Bringing us back to the definitions front,I've never said being bi is an identity,more a sexual attraction.
Also,I'm not saying that you need be equalt attracted to both sexs to be bi,as everyone has preferences.
*equally
i guess we are
then that makes the label meaningless
well eh 'bi' bit.
sexuality can be directed at anything or anyone..surrounding culture guides that sexuality
was it kevin spacey who said when he got caught cottaging "i am neither homosexual nor bisexual..simply sexual" or something
That is a damn good quote.
I think I agree with you.I mean,where does bestialty and paedoism fit into the bi debate
they are simply
sexual desires..
and so many psychological and cultural factors are involved in what defines our 'public' sexuality its hard to say
No it doesn't
Even though I've never felt these impulses, prisons are breeding grounds for the this manner of against-type attraction. Men, who are 100% straight, may get an urge to shag an effeminate male due to years of isolation from female contact. It doesn't make them 'bi''.
How do you know
if they are 100% straight?
"They are usually basically straight and end up displaying that in the long-run."
What does this mean, that they settle down with one person in the end? So basically they are faithful and thus heterosexual?
I don't know what the arguement is
but I'd like to just say that all females are bisexual to a certain extent
is that a fact ora wish?
How can you be bisexual "to a certain extent"?
On weekends,
and when drunk...
Either very bisexual
or just a bit curious. Girls: like 'dial' in gayness (1,2,3,4,5). Guys: like a 'switch' in gayness (gay/not gay). GENERALIZATIONS I KNOW
this must be true, just watch the pornos, guys
Everyone should just man up and join The Gays.
i'll be all over this thread in about 20 minutes
you're welcome to start a countdown
oh, lady...
I've already won.
i'm excited!! ha.
ALEC!
man this is exciting
ALEC!
IRON MAN?
Just a reminder...
I'm already 40 posts ahead of her...and she isn't really an acute thinker.
She's going to have to do alot of internet browsing to gather speed.
She's a cute thinker
*swoons*
oh alex <3
you counted?
no...
it's a rough estimate.
you're building up a lot of expectation here...
this better be good, guys
i hope i didn't disappoint you too much x
Argh,
I have to go,but I think countzero already won
IRON MAN?
Bisexuality:
Greedy.
you can't have it all
the "any hole's a goal" train of thought is greedy.
pick a hole, stick (with) the hole.
pink or brown.
also
how many people do you know that have been bisexual for over 10 years?
it's such a phase thing. they get a bit flustered and confused for a while, then realise which gender they genuinely like.
Why is it greedy?
Heterosexual and homosexual people do that anyway.
I don't think anyone is really either of these, I think they are pretty much just categorical identifiers for something that is more gradual and changeable
So, you're basically saying it's all about sex.
In other words, by that logic, bisexuals don't fall in love?
unless it completely bypassed everyone
my first post was a joke.
the 2nd one wasn't, retort to that pls.
ok.
First question: Don't know, I don't really ask people about their sexuality on a regular basis, they can do whatever they want, I don't care.
but these are my basic views on bisexuality (warning, it's all very idealistic and stuff) :
I don't believe everyone is attracted to only one of the sexes. I believe that most people are attracted to a PERSON rather than that person's gender. But of course we all have different preferences, and some like men more than they like women, and vice versa.
I do not believe that this is a static thing that never changes or that you are only ever at one point of that "scale" of straight/gay at all times.
Most people who disagree with this are straight men, because it is still less acceptable (in their eyes, and i am generalising here obviously) for men to be attracted to other men then it is for women to be attracted to other women.
Mention women having sex and a lot of straight men will be like "OH THAT'S SO HOT" (and even if women call themselves lesbians, the man will think that he can get them interested in him regardless, because he's the man, he's got the cock, and surely the poor women wouldn't want to be without him, but that's quite a different discussion). Present them with the idea of two men having sex and the reaction will in most cases be a quite different one. Why? There could be so many reasons for this, but a lot of it is probably (whether or not he will admit it or is even consciously aware of it) down to prejudices that are still rooted deeply in most of us.
But I digress.
The most common thing people have to say "against" bisexuality (as if it's some kind of political idea that you can vote over) is what the Bumbler has indeed said several times tonight: "Make up your mind. It's just greed. Overactive sex drive", etc etc etc. These kinds of statements are based on the idea that everyone is in complete control of their own sexuality and that we can all make a conscious choice as to whether we are one thing or another, or a third or a tenth for that matter.
I find this idea laughable. If I'm attracted to someone, it's not because I stop and think "hey, this person fits the theoretical criteria that I have set for a potential love interest". Does anyone think like this? And if they do, would it really be attraction anyway, or just some kind of interest or fascination if you will?
If you consider yourself straight, can you honestly say you have never in your life seen a member of your own gender and thought to yourself "hey, (s)he's well hot"? If you have, I'm sure you'd also be able to see that by definition, someone who is ENTIRELY heterosexual would never have that kind of reaction to someone of their own gender? Basically, all I'm asking of you is that you try to not be so horribly narrowminded and maybe even realise that everything isn't always black and white. I'm not saying that we should all go be hippies and live in a field and sleep with everyone regardless of their gender (not that this is only about sex anyway, did you even consider that?), I'm just saying that you should accept the fact that some people manage to see beyond the conventions of traditional gender politics and actually think about how they feel rather what what they think they should feel.
Now, with all that PC stuff out the way, I see you've labelled me a bisexual and would like to say that I'm not some kind of raging lesbian, I prefer men by far.
Fucking hippie bullshit
I couldn't care less about social taboo's (exactly the reason I openly discuss scatology, self mutilation, bestiality, child molestation etc.) but I can honestly say I have never felt a sexual allure to another man. There is hero worship and idolisation, but this veneer is never put in place due to any cock-jerking sensation. Your assertion that our interests can never lie in a specific gender is absolutely ludicrous.
Don't band round this pseudo-liberalism and socio-political mentality to make your own sordid interests seem more normal. Massive fail.
^
the lady doth protest too much
I don't subscribe to any flaunting of machismo
and I sometimes am in awe of the exaggerated sense of manliness of others...but claiming that no one is really straight?! come on now...stop playing silly buggers.
(or silly buggery for that matter)
there are people
who would claim that there is no such thing as straight at all. i'm not saying i agree with this, but i just thought i'd put it out there, see if you can possibly grasp it?
what about sex dreams though?
i know heterosexual men who have had dreams about other men. that isn't a conscious decision now is it?
you never answered this.
ello bumblebee
you've got it all ticking again aint you?
little scamp. i just convinced a taxi driver to quit his job to focus on his music career.
eek. his kids tummies are on my conscience.
p.s. whats with all the bi hate? i thought you loved a bit of this and that
you know what we say...
willy in the mouth?/ no harm done/ fanny in the mouth?/ no harm done/ both together?/ that's just silly
you really are a creepy, dangerous cunt arn't you?
still holding a grudge, are we?
Here's a Panda Pop, little scruffy. Off you pop.
Would'ave been funnier if you hadn't repeated the word "pop".
That's comedy, dear. It's why i'm the funny, endearing, interesting and clever one, whilst you're the creepy sociopathic nutter that people on here are not really all that sure about.
lol
your a terrific character.
The whole point was to use 'pop'' as a verb...a verb to show that your 'popping'' with your 'pop''.
Should have left it to you, though...comedy is clearly you're fortay.
*forte
I'm also good at french.
*swoon*
^These are the guys I do it for
I'm all about the fans.
This victory's for you, fans.
cheers.
You = all men?
?
I'd say most straight men.
It's not the gays I'm lambasting either...it's the ones in the grey area.
AHA!
so you admit there is a grey area?
You are a childish bore
Hopefully when you grow up you will realise you don't know everything.
lol
"sordid interests"
live and let live, mr omniscient
Your really drilling that one to death, arn't you?
i don't know
You tell me, Mr Omniscient
first of all
i'm not a fucking hippie you wannabe fascist. great for you that you're comfortable talking about like, totally controversial stuff. well done.
of course you can prefer one gender, but you can say what you want, i simply don't believe that "most people" never feel even the slightest attraction to someone of their own gender. i just don't. i would never call myself bi, i identify as a straight person just as much as most other straights (someone tried to turn this into a debate about identity earlier). Why is it ludicrous? Are you honestly going to go up to someone who is openly bisexual and say "NO, YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE NOT BISEXUAL, NO ONE IS, JOKE'S ON YOU" and completely discredit all of their experiences and feelings? because you refuse to accept that everything isn't as fucking black and white as you would like it to be to feel comfortable with your surroundings?
And my own sordid interests? That's a fucking good one. It doesn't really work that well to make it "personal" when you don't know anything at all about the other person you know.
firstly, stop swearing please
It discredits your argument. Secondly, I would happily give that response to someone who categorizes themselves as bisexual. Sure - people might have momentary lapses, urges, twinges...but no deep desires for a member of a group that bodes against your orientation.
I don't think anyone could strike up a deep, meaty, bone-bonding relationship with either sex.
Now, I'm bored of playing the adversarial figure...in my mind I've won, and there is nothing anyone can say to make that subside. Sorry for being pig-headed.
it's ok, we're used to it
and in my mind, i've won.
and can i just point out
that there are still QUITE a few of my posts and questions you have not answered, and i think that really speaks for itself, i mean you basically abandoned the thread once i actually started arguing with you.
I think the reason we are butting heads...
Is your adhering to a philosophical, spiritualistic doctrine...whereas I'm taking a more stoic, logical stance.
Consider this a peace offering.
We are just at different ends of the spectrum.
peace offering? this was quite peaceful all along, no?
Not really.
and thats at both sides of the fence.
Don't you deny it.
Yeah, I'll keep denying it thanks
By saying that taking a sociological approach to the issue of sexuality is "hippy bullshit"
i'm pretty sure you distanced yourself from "logic" a long time ago.
<3
You've been tailgating me with these smarmy little quips...
but have yet to put in a cognitive perspective?
Keep to your endearing jokes, boyo. Then you'll be saved.
I made a very "cognitive" point at the start of the thread, that you failed to respond to.
Here it is again, just incase you missed it: In the scheme of people considering themselves or being considered "bisexual", "genetics" is a completely irrelevant issue. Discuss.
I also made points about why "science", the little ditch you seem to be firing your mortars from, shouldn't be equated with logic and truth.
I'm sorry, you just said science is not equal to truth?
Yes I did.
The fact that the whole objective of science is to prove itself wrong is justification for this.
That doesn't make sense
The objective is to prove theories otherwise wrong yes, but if no objection can be found then it is pretty safe to say it's factual. The pursuit of truth this way does not somehow negate everything.
It's not "pretty safe to say it's factual"
quite the opposite. Experimental science is always conducted by humans, and humans always have motives. It was "pretty safe to say" that the model of the atom was "fact" at one point, then Bohr came along and changed it. And it's undergone numerous changes since then. And half of the scientific community wouldn't accept Einsteins quantum theory when it was proposed, many still don't.
I recommend "the meaning of it all" by Richard Feynman for more information on objective truth, "fact" and how it relates to scientific discovery.
Yes science is always changing
A few years ago we though this, a few years later we think that. That doesn't mean you can just throw it out the window though. I'd much rather my source of proof was science, the thing that's been keeping you alive successfully and explaining the universe for a long time. Haha man, I don't need a lecture on science, I'm a 3rd year student of neuroscience. I will check out that book though, Richard Feynman has a funny face
Yes I'm sure your degree is very difficult and you are a total boffin
but you havn't displayed any interest or understanding in the philosophy of science.
You didn't adress anything I said
cool man
I felt I already dealt with it.
Just leave it
what we know today does not equal "the truth".
Whilst it may be true for todays rules, it may change tomorrow.
ps We have explained nothing of the universe, we have a couple of hunches.
even science
must be seen in light of its times and surroundings, who did the research and why they did it.
Yes, if you're talking about psychology or sociology as a science
But for actual concrete science 2 + 2 is always 4.
I'm not bashing sociology or psychology mind
just saying, yes there's a lot that can be messed up in their findings so they're not really comparable with hard science.
There's no such thing as "hard science"!
2+2 is only 4 if you're working in base 10, remember.
i actually love you
i suppose
but look at the "actual concrete science" that has been researched (on humans, mostly) during wars and such. obviously the selection of people they've researched on will not have been actually representative and thus the results are not valid or transferrable to the "real" world. the same thing's happened with research on homosexuality: research has been carried out for example on people who are admittedly gay but want to be "cured", etc. so the results aren't really going to be WRONG as such, but that doesn't necessarily make them right.
But science is the foundation of all logic and truth!
Sure, there are major flaws in it...but everything is imperfect.
Look...I don't want to keep up this little charade with you. I've been winding you up, you’ve given as good as you’ve got...let’s tie it up, ay?
I'm happy to call our mutually "hilarious" little ripostes equal
but I'm really not prepared to submit when you're making really quite dangerously wrong arguments.
Hilarity? It must have been very, very watered down.
But I stand by my opinions. You can clearly see I'm stubborn about this...this would go back and forth indefinitely.
As for 'dangerously wrong arguments''...there is no need to resort to melodramatic phrasing to spice up a bickering match that has been failing from the start. It's not dangerous...there are no repercussions. It's a ridiculous internet squabble...billions are sprinkled across cyberspace. Now, I'm ending it here.
Argue amongst yourself.
If you want to play football you'll have to find some other way
because it's MY ball and i'm taking it HOME.
what the fuck
science is not the foundation of logic. That is so fucking obvious I am astounded. Are you insane?
what is then?
Beanie Babies?
yes.
the scientific method is based on assumptions in logic.
SCIENCE RELIES ON LOGIC. IT IS NOT ITS FOUNDATION.
to TDB
obvs
go to bed now, gertie.
The rest of us are retiring.
Good work, though.
as if "philosophical" and "stoic and logical" are somehow mutually exclusive
yeah
but i don't want to touch their willy
no one's forcing you to
but there are those that want to touch their willy, and i think they should be allowed to. yeah? yeah.
who cares?
132 posts
gay, straight, bi, whatever...
i don't see what impact it has on anything. at all. anywhere. it's a non-issue.
Of course it's not
Courtship and sexual relations dominate everything.
Reason: because courtship and sexual relations dominate everything.
Do we have do go through this again?
'creepy dangerous cunt'
thats my friend the bumbler
cue cheers theme
'where everybody knows your name...de dee...'
Can we make it the 'Grandstand'' theme?
More opportunity for air-punching.
This is an interesting thread
IRON MAN?
i am beowulf
ALEC
SOUR PATCH?
BUM BAG?
That one never really took off, did it?
I forgot about that one lol
I trust you to use it wisely.
BUM BAG?
ALEC
ALEC :'D
SAN-WICH
if people don't believe in bisexuality
cabaret is on bbc1, watch that. you stand corrected
WHAT USE IS SITTING ALONE IN YOUR ROOM?
COME WHERE THE MUSIC PLAAAAYS
LIFE IS A CABARET OLD CHUM
COME TO THE CABARET!!!
(no homo)
Attempting to reply to this
has actually convinced me I'm straight. This is why the internet is good, it makes you think about things you'd otherwise not waste your time thinking about. yeah, so I'm straight, come and get me boys, and all that. You would have got a different answer a couple of years ago, along the lines of some of the other comments.
^^^
You still going?
You are pretty childish
we've use that one a couple of time, havn't we.
I've used it twice
I don't think you've used it at all.
You seem to be getting more confused, probably bed time now little one.
oh...but I've definately used that one.
It's well-worn. Put it back in the closet.
something about dildos
Oh no.
I've just realised...I heard Mumsa saying that to Daddy-dumps the other night.
very confused
I can't see you've said that anywhere.
Goodnight, sleep tight
xx
Think you'll find I applied the same tactics in a PM to you,
you little-sausage.
If you are going to bring up the PM, why don't I just post it
'You are a childish bore''
Let's not resort to stock-phrase punditry, ay?
You were never involved in the debate...don't fire these weak rounds of ammunition from the sidelines. Ok, naughty lad?
ps I like your attitude, I think I fancy you.
From TheDailyBumbler | 09 Jul '08, 00:35 | Reply
You are aware I'm a man aren't you?
and I still can't see where you used it.
xx
tee-hee, tee-hee
You devlish scamp you.
so the bumbler fixed you?
:D
Not only am I the resident prick...I'm also a healer!
i didn't know either of you were bi.
I aint.
She is.
amazing.
perfectly natural, i reckon. I'm sure we'll all eventually be the same. (Not literally us, and in our lifetime, but humans)
When did I say this?
Is it impossible to defend something without sympathising completely with it?
what's there to debate?
she's the one who suggested it.
My arguement is:
Saying your for bisexuality is the equivalent of being 'in favor of Father Christmas''...it doesn't exist.
It's a contived state of mind. It's psychosomatic...and it's a mental disorder.
why though?
Because if the brain structure serves as evidence...
there is no differentiation between the INAH 3 nucleus in a heterosexual and a supposed 'bisexuals'' brain. They just have an overactive sex drive.
They would probably try shagging a marble, if they could.
so why make a real distinction
between hetero, homo and bi-sexuality anyway
it's slightly arbitrary outside of an ideological context
Because heterosexuals and homsexuals...
...not only have a cultural divide, but a very real biological difference. Neuroscience suggests the anterior hypothalamus of homosexual men is smaller than that of heterosexual men and the size of heterosexual women.
Placing relevance on the supposed genetic differences of homosexuals is very, very dangerous
No, because it's no longer shaky confirmation.
It's conclusive. It was announced a couple of weeks ago.
Link please.
And if that's true,then why is either one or the other?Are there only short or tall people?
Stupid comment
Your genes do determine your height to a great extent.
That's not the point though, there are infiniate possible heights, but we only name three possible sexualities; gaylord, straight and daring. I'm sure you have some people who are 90% straight but a little bit gay, but maybe not enough to class themselves as bi......
......
I think I just got your point, you are asking why bi doesn't exist in this research.
who has decided there are only 3 possible sexualities?
It is general consensus
unless you start bringing animals and stuff into it.
In terms of men and women you can fancy either or both = 3. In the same way, instead of measuring peoples height to the cm or mm, you could just say petit, normal, giant.
I was going to go on to say sexuality may be less simple than that, for example if 0 were straight and 10,000 gaylord, you could be any number in between. But I stopped because I realised that I had mis-interpreted doodthatkicksarse's post.
yeah but
bisexual can mean a lot of different things, two people could be on almost opposite ends of that scale and still both be classified as bisexuals, when in fact they might be closer to one of the extremes (ie. hetero/homosexual)
I'm not argueing with you
the same way somebody who is 6'2 might be called tall but so would somebody who is 7'8. Or two people might both be average height, but one is 5'5 and one is 5'9
The fact is, for sexuality, there are only three broad names we use.
That doesn't mean it's relevant, at all.
Eugenics, anyone?
Fucking post-positivists trying to deny fact, yet again....
Because their quaint little PC assumptions are under threat.
What are you on about?
Is it a fact that homosexuals are genetically different from heterosexuals: yes, possibly. Is it in any way relevant or helpful to dwell on it: no, not at all.
People have equated science with fact for decades in order to exploit people. It is NOT helpful.
^
:D
PC may be quaint,but the foundations that all that is built on are not.
^ this is true
i've seen a documentary about it
It's fine
gaylords have inapropriate genes.
yeah, but they fit better
I'll set em up,
you put them away.
And women?
Well...
lesbians anterior hypothalamus is much larger then heterosexual women, and has more in common with a straight man's brain.
And bisexuals of either sex?
And how attractive do heterosexual women and men find people of the same sex? I mean some people do. A LITTLE BIT.
Also yeah. Link plz.
surely a bisexual person doesn't have
more sex necessarily.
a person who is straight can have an overactive sex drive and not find the opposite sex attractive. i don't understand your point.
My point was...
Bisexuals are hetero or homo sexuals with an impulsive sex drive that congests their train of thought, and cajoles them into shagging either sex. Though their true affection only lies in one camp.
Says you
And how do you define "true" affection?
GET OVER YOURSELF MR OMNISCIENT
Slipping in words that you've knicked from a thesaurus every now and then...
...doesn't mean you have a cogent arguement. Instead of posting petulent remarks in Caps Lock, how about you formulate an intelligent opposition.
She did.
As have yes_ and myself,along with most other people on this thread.Now if you wouldn't mind,answer each and every one
There is the link:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1508092,00.html
Thanks,and 2 things
1."Freud's theory is like astrology to a physicist".Bullshit,untill someone backs that up with an extensive essay outlining why it's not bullshit,I consider it bullshit.
2."While men tend to be either heterosexual or homosexual, with little evidence for true bisexuality, women show more mixed preferences."
Does that not refute your claim,without having to get any deeper?
No...becuase girls can be attracted to other women...
but their not TRUE bisexuals.
How are they not TRUE bisexuals?
what the fuck is a TRUE bisexual anyway?
freud is not respected by a lot of phsychologists these days.
Ok,
never mind
Again...simply not true.
Theres a thriving sector of the psychologist coummunity who still take Freuds essays as gospel.
not really.
it's common knowledge i would say.
But alot of common knowledge lacks validity
Henry the Eighth didn't actually have 7 wives...another fallacy dispelled by QI.
.
"An example is Freud's notion that women suffer from a lack of self esteem or self worth all their lives because of penis envy. Freud's assumption could have been a product of the times he lived in. It was a time when women were treated as second class citizens. Today, the idea of penis envy has lost its worth. Freud's assumption that sex is the driving force behind everything could also be a product of his times. Sexual feelings were often repressed. The problem with paradigmatic assumptions is that each person grows up in a different culture and some theories don't apply to everyone. The problem with psychology remains that it is not an exact science."
source?
You have to cite your references.
google it?
http://justfreepapers.com/paper.aspx?ID=11883
i studied freud, but have forgotten most of the important details. this is more or less what conclusion i came to though.
This is stupid
First it's commonly believed he had 6 wives. Second, it is bascially true that he did have 6 wives unless you start looking into the technicalities of 500 years ago.
Nice link
now is that a typo or is that two week old "research" actually 3 years old?
"impulsive sex drive"
so you have to stop and think and consider it before concluding that you're straight?
bumbler is againt bisexuality
hence: WAR
AARGGGHH
IT IS NOT SOMETHING TO BE FOR OR AGAINST
IT IS NOT SOME THEORETICAL IDEA
IT IS FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS AND PHYSICAL DESIRE
AND THAT'S IT
i don't know why everyone can't just stick to the opposite sex
rebellious teens. it's just a phase. also, why can't they stick to the same colour? its silly to mix and match
These threads are so lame,
they're just so obvious.
You lose Bumbler.
whiterussian suggested it sonny.
It aint my doing.
Yeah, but you actually started the thread.
You lose.
*sigh*
I know, petal.
I know.
^ same person.
I have wondered this
on occassions
Irony
your threads- try and get people to argue about politics, and when you cant answer, you dont, then claim you just do it to wind people up.
i know your game
^ jack is so clever.
watch out TDB.
i was talking to CG actually
fail!
okay... watch out CG.
ahem
sorry
as much as id like to help you out, ive got loyalties with TDB too.
didn't you hear?
we made up! kinda.
well, not that i think anyone would talk about my inane business,
but y'know...
apologies!
I've known fucktherave since year 7
he told me.
*sexd
aww, look at you defending me <3
^ this was to guevara
What exactly is the dbate?
The existence of bisexuality?
Surely that can be solved by a simple exercise in empiricism.
whiterussian is bi?
that's like, 100% more people to be jealous of
I'd be interested in the evidence about this
I've definitely read claims that it doesn't really exist in the sense that few people who classify themselves as bi are anywhere near equally attracted to both. Not that bi implies being equally attracted to both, but there should be significant numbers of people who this is true of. They are usually basically straight and end up displaying that in the long-run.
So assuming this is correct, on the supposed spectrum of sexuality there aren't many gay people who ever have many opposite-sex partners (out of choice) whereas there are lots of straight people who have the odd same-sex partner but end up in more straight relationships. I have no idea if that is true.
But that would show
That people are capable of having sexual relationships with and being sexually attracted to both sexes
yes
and I don't think that is arguable. It's just if you want to categorise (which a lot of people do for a multitude of reasons, I personally don't really see the point), whether there is predominantly clustering around the heterosexual and homosexual ends of the spectrum becomes a significant issue.
^ Now this is what we should be focusing on.
Are straight people natural showboaters? or do they find polygamous, metrosexual attitudes more acceptable the gay folk?
Is this because gay people have been combating adversity all their lives, they feel they need closure by gaining assurance of their identity?
it's hard to discuss this
now that 'homsexuality' has won 'scientific support'.
its sad that the gay lobby went down this route...i understand why it was done, but it is sad, instead of challenging the the feasibility of 'empirical' research into sexuality, it encouraged the public's blind trust in its methods.
It is in main ideological, and fucking the odd person of the same doesn't make you bisexual in terms of praxis/practice.
But wanting to fuck them
in the first place does
bixesuality as an identity
is different.
you can be attracted to members of the opposite sex and not be bisexual.
or even dick them.
bisexuality is a label attributed to a number of thoughts,actions, feelings that we have all felt but certain of these thoughts and feelings have been amplified and codified into a culture.
Hold on,
I'm working off of wildly different definitions than you,and good point.
I'm not saying that bixesuality is part of a persons identity.I'm saying that feeling the urge to sex someone of the same sex,whether under regular circumstances or not,and this applies to your post as well bumbler,shows that a latent bisexulaity is present,but not manifested.
Bringing us back to the definitions front,I've never said being bi is an identity,more a sexual attraction.
Also,I'm not saying that you need be equalt attracted to both sexs to be bi,as everyone has preferences.
*equally
i guess we are
then that makes the label meaningless
well eh 'bi' bit.
sexuality can be directed at anything or anyone..surrounding culture guides that sexuality
was it kevin spacey who said when he got caught cottaging "i am neither homosexual nor bisexual..simply sexual" or something
That is a damn good quote.
I think I agree with you.I mean,where does bestialty and paedoism fit into the bi debate
they are simply
sexual desires..
and so many psychological and cultural factors are involved in what defines our 'public' sexuality its hard to say
No it doesn't
Even though I've never felt these impulses, prisons are breeding grounds for the this manner of against-type attraction. Men, who are 100% straight, may get an urge to shag an effeminate male due to years of isolation from female contact. It doesn't make them 'bi''.
How do you know
if they are 100% straight?
"They are usually basically straight and end up displaying that in the long-run."
What does this mean, that they settle down with one person in the end? So basically they are faithful and thus heterosexual?
I don't know what the arguement is
but I'd like to just say that all females are bisexual to a certain extent
is that a fact ora wish?
How can you be bisexual "to a certain extent"?
On weekends,
and when drunk...
Either very bisexual
or just a bit curious. Girls: like 'dial' in gayness (1,2,3,4,5). Guys: like a 'switch' in gayness (gay/not gay). GENERALIZATIONS I KNOW
this must be true, just watch the pornos, guys
Everyone should just man up and join The Gays.
i'll be all over this thread in about 20 minutes
you're welcome to start a countdown
oh, lady...
I've already won.
i'm excited!! ha.
ALEC!
man this is exciting
ALEC!
IRON MAN?
Just a reminder...
I'm already 40 posts ahead of her...and she isn't really an acute thinker.
She's going to have to do alot of internet browsing to gather speed.
She's a cute thinker
*swoons*
oh alex <3
you counted?
no...
it's a rough estimate.
you're building up a lot of expectation here...
this better be good, guys
i hope i didn't disappoint you too much x
Argh,
I have to go,but I think countzero already won
IRON MAN?
Bisexuality:
Greedy.
you can't have it all
the "any hole's a goal" train of thought is greedy.
pick a hole, stick (with) the hole.
pink or brown.
also
how many people do you know that have been bisexual for over 10 years?
it's such a phase thing. they get a bit flustered and confused for a while, then realise which gender they genuinely like.
Why is it greedy?
Heterosexual and homosexual people do that anyway.
I don't think anyone is really either of these, I think they are pretty much just categorical identifiers for something that is more gradual and changeable
So, you're basically saying it's all about sex.
In other words, by that logic, bisexuals don't fall in love?
unless it completely bypassed everyone
my first post was a joke.
the 2nd one wasn't, retort to that pls.
ok.
First question: Don't know, I don't really ask people about their sexuality on a regular basis, they can do whatever they want, I don't care.
Rest of post, see this: http://www.drownedinsound.com/articles/3615777
FAIL
this: http://www.drownedinsound.com/articles/3615777#r3616622
ok, i've not read through the thread yet
but these are my basic views on bisexuality (warning, it's all very idealistic and stuff) :
I don't believe everyone is attracted to only one of the sexes. I believe that most people are attracted to a PERSON rather than that person's gender. But of course we all have different preferences, and some like men more than they like women, and vice versa.
I do not believe that this is a static thing that never changes or that you are only ever at one point of that "scale" of straight/gay at all times.
Most people who disagree with this are straight men, because it is still less acceptable (in their eyes, and i am generalising here obviously) for men to be attracted to other men then it is for women to be attracted to other women.
Mention women having sex and a lot of straight men will be like "OH THAT'S SO HOT" (and even if women call themselves lesbians, the man will think that he can get them interested in him regardless, because he's the man, he's got the cock, and surely the poor women wouldn't want to be without him, but that's quite a different discussion). Present them with the idea of two men having sex and the reaction will in most cases be a quite different one. Why? There could be so many reasons for this, but a lot of it is probably (whether or not he will admit it or is even consciously aware of it) down to prejudices that are still rooted deeply in most of us.
But I digress.
The most common thing people have to say "against" bisexuality (as if it's some kind of political idea that you can vote over) is what the Bumbler has indeed said several times tonight: "Make up your mind. It's just greed. Overactive sex drive", etc etc etc. These kinds of statements are based on the idea that everyone is in complete control of their own sexuality and that we can all make a conscious choice as to whether we are one thing or another, or a third or a tenth for that matter.
I find this idea laughable. If I'm attracted to someone, it's not because I stop and think "hey, this person fits the theoretical criteria that I have set for a potential love interest". Does anyone think like this? And if they do, would it really be attraction anyway, or just some kind of interest or fascination if you will?
If you consider yourself straight, can you honestly say you have never in your life seen a member of your own gender and thought to yourself "hey, (s)he's well hot"? If you have, I'm sure you'd also be able to see that by definition, someone who is ENTIRELY heterosexual would never have that kind of reaction to someone of their own gender? Basically, all I'm asking of you is that you try to not be so horribly narrowminded and maybe even realise that everything isn't always black and white. I'm not saying that we should all go be hippies and live in a field and sleep with everyone regardless of their gender (not that this is only about sex anyway, did you even consider that?), I'm just saying that you should accept the fact that some people manage to see beyond the conventions of traditional gender politics and actually think about how they feel rather what what they think they should feel.
Now, with all that PC stuff out the way, I see you've labelled me a bisexual and would like to say that I'm not some kind of raging lesbian, I prefer men by far.
Fucking hippie bullshit
I couldn't care less about social taboo's (exactly the reason I openly discuss scatology, self mutilation, bestiality, child molestation etc.) but I can honestly say I have never felt a sexual allure to another man. There is hero worship and idolisation, but this veneer is never put in place due to any cock-jerking sensation. Your assertion that our interests can never lie in a specific gender is absolutely ludicrous.
Don't band round this pseudo-liberalism and socio-political mentality to make your own sordid interests seem more normal. Massive fail.
^
the lady doth protest too much
I don't subscribe to any flaunting of machismo
and I sometimes am in awe of the exaggerated sense of manliness of others...but claiming that no one is really straight?! come on now...stop playing silly buggers.
(or silly buggery for that matter)
there are people
who would claim that there is no such thing as straight at all. i'm not saying i agree with this, but i just thought i'd put it out there, see if you can possibly grasp it?
what about sex dreams though?
i know heterosexual men who have had dreams about other men. that isn't a conscious decision now is it?
you never answered this.
ello bumblebee
you've got it all ticking again aint you?
little scamp. i just convinced a taxi driver to quit his job to focus on his music career.
eek. his kids tummies are on my conscience.
p.s. whats with all the bi hate? i thought you loved a bit of this and that
you know what we say...
willy in the mouth?/ no harm done/ fanny in the mouth?/ no harm done/ both together?/ that's just silly
you really are a creepy, dangerous cunt arn't you?
still holding a grudge, are we?
Here's a Panda Pop, little scruffy. Off you pop.
Would'ave been funnier if you hadn't repeated the word "pop".
That's comedy, dear. It's why i'm the funny, endearing, interesting and clever one, whilst you're the creepy sociopathic nutter that people on here are not really all that sure about.
lol
your a terrific character.
The whole point was to use 'pop'' as a verb...a verb to show that your 'popping'' with your 'pop''.
Should have left it to you, though...comedy is clearly you're fortay.
*forte
I'm also good at french.
*swoon*
^These are the guys I do it for
I'm all about the fans.
This victory's for you, fans.
cheers.
You = all men?
?
I'd say most straight men.
It's not the gays I'm lambasting either...it's the ones in the grey area.
AHA!
so you admit there is a grey area?
You are a childish bore
Hopefully when you grow up you will realise you don't know everything.
lol
"sordid interests"
live and let live, mr omniscient
Your really drilling that one to death, arn't you?
i don't know
You tell me, Mr Omniscient
first of all
i'm not a fucking hippie you wannabe fascist. great for you that you're comfortable talking about like, totally controversial stuff. well done.
of course you can prefer one gender, but you can say what you want, i simply don't believe that "most people" never feel even the slightest attraction to someone of their own gender. i just don't. i would never call myself bi, i identify as a straight person just as much as most other straights (someone tried to turn this into a debate about identity earlier). Why is it ludicrous? Are you honestly going to go up to someone who is openly bisexual and say "NO, YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE NOT BISEXUAL, NO ONE IS, JOKE'S ON YOU" and completely discredit all of their experiences and feelings? because you refuse to accept that everything isn't as fucking black and white as you would like it to be to feel comfortable with your surroundings?
And my own sordid interests? That's a fucking good one. It doesn't really work that well to make it "personal" when you don't know anything at all about the other person you know.
firstly, stop swearing please
It discredits your argument. Secondly, I would happily give that response to someone who categorizes themselves as bisexual. Sure - people might have momentary lapses, urges, twinges...but no deep desires for a member of a group that bodes against your orientation.
I don't think anyone could strike up a deep, meaty, bone-bonding relationship with either sex.
Now, I'm bored of playing the adversarial figure...in my mind I've won, and there is nothing anyone can say to make that subside. Sorry for being pig-headed.
it's ok, we're used to it
and in my mind, i've won.
and can i just point out
that there are still QUITE a few of my posts and questions you have not answered, and i think that really speaks for itself, i mean you basically abandoned the thread once i actually started arguing with you.
I think the reason we are butting heads...
Is your adhering to a philosophical, spiritualistic doctrine...whereas I'm taking a more stoic, logical stance.
Consider this a peace offering.
We are just at different ends of the spectrum.
peace offering? this was quite peaceful all along, no?
Not really.
and thats at both sides of the fence.
Don't you deny it.
Yeah, I'll keep denying it thanks
By saying that taking a sociological approach to the issue of sexuality is "hippy bullshit"
i'm pretty sure you distanced yourself from "logic" a long time ago.
<3
You've been tailgating me with these smarmy little quips...
but have yet to put in a cognitive perspective?
Keep to your endearing jokes, boyo. Then you'll be saved.
I made a very "cognitive" point at the start of the thread, that you failed to respond to.
Here it is again, just incase you missed it: In the scheme of people considering themselves or being considered "bisexual", "genetics" is a completely irrelevant issue. Discuss.
I also made points about why "science", the little ditch you seem to be firing your mortars from, shouldn't be equated with logic and truth.
I'm sorry, you just said science is not equal to truth?
Yes I did.
The fact that the whole objective of science is to prove itself wrong is justification for this.
That doesn't make sense
The objective is to prove theories otherwise wrong yes, but if no objection can be found then it is pretty safe to say it's factual. The pursuit of truth this way does not somehow negate everything.
It's not "pretty safe to say it's factual"
quite the opposite. Experimental science is always conducted by humans, and humans always have motives. It was "pretty safe to say" that the model of the atom was "fact" at one point, then Bohr came along and changed it. And it's undergone numerous changes since then. And half of the scientific community wouldn't accept Einsteins quantum theory when it was proposed, many still don't.
I recommend "the meaning of it all" by Richard Feynman for more information on objective truth, "fact" and how it relates to scientific discovery.
Yes science is always changing
A few years ago we though this, a few years later we think that. That doesn't mean you can just throw it out the window though. I'd much rather my source of proof was science, the thing that's been keeping you alive successfully and explaining the universe for a long time. Haha man, I don't need a lecture on science, I'm a 3rd year student of neuroscience. I will check out that book though, Richard Feynman has a funny face
Yes I'm sure your degree is very difficult and you are a total boffin
but you havn't displayed any interest or understanding in the philosophy of science.
You didn't adress anything I said
cool man
I felt I already dealt with it.
Just leave it
what we know today does not equal "the truth".
Whilst it may be true for todays rules, it may change tomorrow.
ps We have explained nothing of the universe, we have a couple of hunches.
even science
must be seen in light of its times and surroundings, who did the research and why they did it.
Yes, if you're talking about psychology or sociology as a science
But for actual concrete science 2 + 2 is always 4.
I'm not bashing sociology or psychology mind
just saying, yes there's a lot that can be messed up in their findings so they're not really comparable with hard science.
There's no such thing as "hard science"!
2+2 is only 4 if you're working in base 10, remember.
i actually love you
i suppose
but look at the "actual concrete science" that has been researched (on humans, mostly) during wars and such. obviously the selection of people they've researched on will not have been actually representative and thus the results are not valid or transferrable to the "real" world. the same thing's happened with research on homosexuality: research has been carried out for example on people who are admittedly gay but want to be "cured", etc. so the results aren't really going to be WRONG as such, but that doesn't necessarily make them right.
But science is the foundation of all logic and truth!
Sure, there are major flaws in it...but everything is imperfect.
Look...I don't want to keep up this little charade with you. I've been winding you up, you’ve given as good as you’ve got...let’s tie it up, ay?
I'm happy to call our mutually "hilarious" little ripostes equal
but I'm really not prepared to submit when you're making really quite dangerously wrong arguments.
Hilarity? It must have been very, very watered down.
But I stand by my opinions. You can clearly see I'm stubborn about this...this would go back and forth indefinitely.
As for 'dangerously wrong arguments''...there is no need to resort to melodramatic phrasing to spice up a bickering match that has been failing from the start. It's not dangerous...there are no repercussions. It's a ridiculous internet squabble...billions are sprinkled across cyberspace. Now, I'm ending it here.
Argue amongst yourself.
If you want to play football you'll have to find some other way
because it's MY ball and i'm taking it HOME.
what the fuck
science is not the foundation of logic. That is so fucking obvious I am astounded. Are you insane?
what is then?
Beanie Babies?
yes.
the scientific method is based on assumptions in logic.
SCIENCE RELIES ON LOGIC. IT IS NOT ITS FOUNDATION.
to TDB
obvs
go to bed now, gertie.
The rest of us are retiring.
Good work, though.
as if "philosophical" and "stoic and logical" are somehow mutually exclusive
yeah
but i don't want to touch their willy
no one's forcing you to
but there are those that want to touch their willy, and i think they should be allowed to. yeah? yeah.
who cares?
132 posts
gay, straight, bi, whatever...
i don't see what impact it has on anything. at all. anywhere. it's a non-issue.
Of course it's not
Courtship and sexual relations dominate everything.
so what's your point?
^ just won the thread
.
http://www.ayesha.thalassemia.com.pk/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/been-waiting-3-hourz-for-a-high-five.jpg
<3
It's worth discussing.
what is?
*sigh*
The subject of bisexuality.
Reason: because courtship and sexual relations dominate everything.
Do we have do go through this again?
'creepy dangerous cunt'
thats my friend the bumbler
cue cheers theme
'where everybody knows your name...de dee...'
Can we make it the 'Grandstand'' theme?
More opportunity for air-punching.
This is an interesting thread
IRON MAN?
i am beowulf
ALEC
SOUR PATCH?
BUM BAG?
That one never really took off, did it?
I forgot about that one lol
I trust you to use it wisely.
BUM BAG?
ALEC
ALEC :'D
SAN-WICH
if people don't believe in bisexuality
cabaret is on bbc1, watch that. you stand corrected
WHAT USE IS SITTING ALONE IN YOUR ROOM?
COME WHERE THE MUSIC PLAAAAYS
LIFE IS A CABARET OLD CHUM
COME TO THE CABARET!!!
(no homo)
Attempting to reply to this
has actually convinced me I'm straight. This is why the internet is good, it makes you think about things you'd otherwise not waste your time thinking about. yeah, so I'm straight, come and get me boys, and all that. You would have got a different answer a couple of years ago, along the lines of some of the other comments.
^^^
You still going?
You are pretty childish
we've use that one a couple of time, havn't we.
I've used it twice
I don't think you've used it at all.
You seem to be getting more confused, probably bed time now little one.
oh...but I've definately used that one.
It's well-worn. Put it back in the closet.
something about dildos
Oh no.
I've just realised...I heard Mumsa saying that to Daddy-dumps the other night.
very confused
I can't see you've said that anywhere.
Goodnight, sleep tight
xx
Think you'll find I applied the same tactics in a PM to you,
you little-sausage.
If you are going to bring up the PM, why don't I just post it
'You are a childish bore''
Let's not resort to stock-phrase punditry, ay?
You were never involved in the debate...don't fire these weak rounds of ammunition from the sidelines. Ok, naughty lad?
ps I like your attitude, I think I fancy you.
From TheDailyBumbler | 09 Jul '08, 00:35 | Reply
You are aware I'm a man aren't you?
and I still can't see where you used it.
xx
tee-hee, tee-hee
You devlish scamp you.
so the bumbler fixed you?
:D
Not only am I the resident prick...I'm also a healer!
you're not the resident prick
Too boring for that am I?
Predictable.