>you're not really bi, you're just confused!!!!! you'll settle down with a nice girl eventually
>you're just fake-bi for attention you fake fuck!!!
>so....you're gay? no? you're straight?? no? i..i don't understand
>you don't belong in the queer community fucking biscum
Got outted to a religious-to-roots kid from class a while back. What happened was not offensive, but more like disturbingly weird
>going on the same road a few days after
>see him trying to start speaking but being unable to start up
>"Dude, I know he told you. That was the thing you tried to say right?"
[insert basic coming out here, just to put shit in place]
>"You know... I understand that it's better to look at, say, an athlete or someone who is built, but that's not the same as attraction"
(Yes, you read that right. Literally started schooling me on what is attraction.)
>"I don't really like built guys. I'm into people who are just average or a bit chubby"
>"But... like, are you sure?"
And this went on and on.
>"You are in your teens, it's just hormones."
>"You will grow out of it"
And what really made my blood boil:
>"The you can be simply straight, right? Just don't care about it and then marry a woman"
Not really, that meme is just part of the general misogynistic attitude that anything a woman does, any interest they have can't ever be legitimate, they're just doing it for attention.
the meme is true though
any interest is usually always for attention
the actual autistic girls with interest in X are the ones all other girls keep making fun of constantly for being 'like a man'
>OMG GUIZE I'M BISEXUAL BISEXUAL BISEXUAL!!!!!!!!!!!
>WATCH ME BECOME FLAMING QUEER/SUPER BUTCH OVERNIGHT BECAUSE OF THIS TOOOOTALLY STARTLING REVELATION!!!!!!!
>I want everyone to meet my partner of the opposite sex and we're getting married. Also we're pregnant."
>Now I'm going to lurk on gay dating sites and bathhouses looking for a cheap thrill for the rest of my days keeping my sexuality is heavily guarded secret, but expect to be taken seriously by the gay community.
Every single fucking time.
>the meme is true though
>any interest is usually always for attention
Do you have a source on that?
Probably more desu (given the "gold star lesbian" thing), but I don't think it has to do with thinking they're "doing it for attention", it's just this general assumption that bisexuals are promiscuous are unfaithful, and some people try to use them as "evidence" that homosexuality is a choice.
Also, even if true, that does not imply that everything they do is to get attention. Humans can't survive without oxygen, but that doesn't mean everything we do is a way of getting oxygen.
so as a guy I'm obligated to marry a guy just because I'm not straight? I'd have no problem with marrying a guy but statistically there are so many more women into men than men into men that the odds of meeting the right person and having them be male aren't favored
> how dare bi people not be gay
>find women attractive
>find men attractive
>will never date a women
>only desire to be with men
>act completely normally
>don't tell anyone my sexual preferences
>hate most gay culture/community
>my identity isn't based on my sexuality
am I biscum you guys?
The fact that there is a miniscule amount of great female writers, philosophers, inventors, and scientists. Besides, most of these "bisexuals" are just teenage tumblr retards going through a phase.
Yeah Its the patriarchys fault which is why even today when women make up the majority of college campuses, and have every opportunity in the world, they spend their time on useless shit like gender studies and end up working in starbucks or some useless hr crap. Women have nothing holding them back and yet they're still totally outclassed. Bitches are either lazy, incompetent, or maybe both
It is statistically shown that bisexuals are more prone to cheating across gender lines. It's not hate, it's just recognizing the odds. Does that mean you should scorn every bisexual as dating material? No, that's a retarded overplay of the situation. But it does mean that you shouldn't be surprised when monogamy doesn't work out, and feel blessed when it does.
>tfw gays like you more if you identify as straight than as bi
you sound like half of all the bi posters on this website
I masturbate to lesbian and gay stuff almost exclusively but I can only see myself with a man at this moment in my life. Maybe I just don't put myself in a situation to meet women
Reminder that bisexuals outnumber strictly gays by several times.
Reminder that they settle for straight relationship/family since it's socially acceptable and the only way to have your own offsprings.
Reminder that it was the same even in ancient Greece/Rome where homosexuality was accepted as normal.
Homosexuality wasn't accepted then fucktard, it was acceptable to be the top/penetrator but being the bottom/penetrated was seen as lowering yourself to a woman's level. Lesbians were considered base and savage animals. Kill this meme.
>Because he'll never love you ;-;
Why must you hurt me in this way?
I have yet to see a woman majoring in gender studies outside of strawman arguments on 4chan or reddit.
It's wrong because in >>5665562 you started to come upon a more or less correct answer yourself ("the patriarchy" as a metaphor for the fact that women have been discouraged or even disallowed from entering "serious" careers for most of human history) but then immediately rejected it using UNSUPPORTED claims that women have "every opportunity in the world" and generally enter pointless careers, and use these same unsupported claims to arrive at your conclusion. And as should be obvious, you cannot arrive at a legitimate conclusion unless it's logically based on supported claims.
In my experience, it's usually men who use the whole "doing it for attention" meme, which is really what I was talking about in that post. Lesbians may hate bisexuals, but if they do so for other reasons and don't use the "doing it for attention" meme, that doesn't fall under the "general misogynistic attitude" I was referring to. And in any case, it's not the case that women can't be misogynistic, misogyny is basically about hating women and femininity or viewing them as inferior, and there's no reason why a woman couldn't hold those attitudes.
Actually, in the ancient world, it was bisexuality that was seen as normal.
I suspect that "across gender lines" meant it was true of both male and female bisexuals.
1 Supposition: bi = gay; gay = homo; homo=1; bi=2 (Source: your post)
2 Then 2=gay
3 then 2=1
4 Then 1+(-1) = 2+(-1) (addative Identity)
5 Then 0=1 (addition)
6 But 0 doesn't equal 1
7 Therefore, I'm not bi or straight and this doesn't apply to me. I should be doing homework and not browsing fore chin.
>you'll settle down with a nice girl eventually
Well, personally, as a big guy, I can't say that's wrong. I'd much rather settle down with a woman than with a man, for obvious reasons.
> UNSUPPORTED claims that women have "every opportunity in the world
Yeah i forgot that women, despite being the dominant gender on campus, are not given the opportunity to write down and enroll in certain studies. What, exactly, is unsupported? Its a matter of fact that women, far more then men, tend to go for more useless, and "soft" areas of study, and areas of study that are severely oversaturated which overwhelmingly pay less than the studies men lean towards. Your assertion that this is the result of external forces and the mean ol patriarchy making women feel insecure is such a bogus cop out, it derives from you making wishful thinking conclusions and scrambling for any explanation to support your predetermined conclusion. And by that I mean, you along with many others, have come to the conclusion that men and women are exactly the same, and anything that deviates and disproves that can and should be rationalized away. Thats not a logical method of viewing the world. Honestly, I can't say for sure that its a result of female incompetence or inability, im just being a bit tsundere, but i know for a fact that this blaming and victim complex femfags pull isnt the solution to having gender equity, which imo isn't that important. Equal opportunity is what's important, and women already have that, and then some.
>Its a matter of fact that women, far more then men, tend to go for more useless, and "soft" areas of study
THIS is insupported. I need a source that  women do indeed predominantly go for these areas of studies and  that these areas of studies are "useless".
> Your assertion that this is the result of external forces and the mean ol patriarchy making women feel insecure is such a bogus cop out, it derives from you making wishful thinking conclusions and scrambling for any explanation to support your predetermined conclusion
The same could be said of yours, considering YOU have yet to post any actual source.
> And by that I mean, you along with many others, have come to the conclusion that men and women are exactly the same, and anything that deviates and disproves that can and should be rationalized away.
No, I'm saying we should not jump to the conclusion that any difference in the accomplishments is due to the inherent inferiority of women, either. You're committing the same error you accuse me of committing: seeing an effect, and a POTENTIAL cause, and jumping to the conclusion that they go together. It's the equivalent of hearing that someone was murdered with a gun, and claiming that your neighbor did it because you know he owns a gun. It fits the fact, but does not follow from them. At best it's a lead, not conclusive evidence.
Pic related. Whether or not the degrees tend to go towards are useless is a matter of opinion, but they defintely tend to be oversaturated, making their degreed, in effect, useless. We need psychologists, we don't need millions and millions of them. They defintely provide their own valuable contributions, but they're defintely not the same types of contributions. Is this the result of women being stupid and uncapable? Honestly, no clue. But i know for a fact its not because evil men are holding them down. Women are free to make their own choices, and if that happens to be stuff like nursing and and social services, what's the fucking problem?
Any generalizations I made there, I acknowledged that it was based on my own experience. Thus I implicitly sourced the statements, although obviously the source is not a very good one.
>Whether or not the degrees tend to go towards are useless is a matter of opinion, but they defintely tend to be oversaturated, making their degreed, in effect, useless. We need psychologists, we don't need millions and millions of them.
Are you familiar with game theory, and specifically the game of "chicken"? I think that's what's going on here. If everyone makes the "optimal" decision, everyone loses. And that's what's going on with these over-saturated fields. Every individual going into them considers them a good field - but when everyone else thinks the same thing, they all lose. As for the reason why this occurs more with women than with men, I suspect it may be the fields social norms push people towards, with women having fewer "encouraged fields" then men. Saying "it's the patriarchy keeping them down" is misleading, it implies that there is something actually preventing women who really want to go into male-dominated fields from doing so. That isn't the case, however people growing up are influenced by society's ideas of what's acceptable and appropriate for their gender, and these social norms are especially influential on those who are relatively indifferent or undecided with regards to their major, who I suspect may be a significant percentage of college students. Additionally, humans are for the most part homosocial, preferring to socialize with others of the same sex/gender (except for things like flirting, but that's obviously in a separate category). Which means, generally speaking, people will have a preference for entering majors with others of the same gender, since most don't want to be the only boy or girl in the room. Free will exists, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum, these "soft" social factors can still influence behavior, even if people aren't actually being told they can't do things.
Biscum here. Had a straight college roommate who was a psychology major, and actually fairly bright and serious about the subject (unlike many psych majors), to the point that he completed a master's and has been doing some form of actual practicing psych work involved with both queers and drug using/addicted people. I don't know the details but he /actually/ "does stuff" in psychology/psychiatry, and unless someone corrects me, it sounded like he could write certain scrip last I heard.
Anyway the point is that this a guy I've lived with and he's personally close to these issues. Interestingly, I heard through a mutual friend that the above knowledgeable person, one step shy of a Ph. D, had the private opinion that bisexuality is (in as many words) not real; according to the mutual friend, it's just "something that the person hasn't sorted out yet".
I like the guy but I'd be lying if I said I didn't experience some schadenfreude a bit later, when I learned he'd been divorced.
Too fuckin right. They weren't bi, just a hole is a hole. But any Greek man who was thought to have been penetrated was scorned and shunned; being a bottom is for women, weaklings and slaves.
Sorry for Tumblr-rocking but I think honest conversation on the subject of bisexual erasure (among fellows) involves going in that linguistic direction: <tumblr>
One The One Hand, we (bisexuals) do have things on easy mode: most of us do end up with opposite sex partners in the end. We.... have... (privilege). Or, women naturally don't want to get pozzed up for no good reason at all. I can just imagine the horror stories that are reality for a few.
On the other hand, I know what you're talking about and it's frustrating. We are mutually inconvenient and hazardous to gay and straight people.
Now, some people won't appreciate this, but I happen to like gay man Dan Savage's historic party line to bisexuals (though I haven't read him in about five years): Savage's traditional (presumably personal-experience informed) advice to bisexuals is: you can date gays, and you can date straights, okay, fine, whatever. But why not date amongst yourselves as a matter of first resort? Why not seek each other other out as a logical first course of action?
I know that the pushback on this is that we're geographically spread out like the other queers, not everyone can fuck off to the city, that's not a realistic strategy. /But ideally, it just makes too much sense/. Trans people find each other regularly enough to hear about it in a news article once every so often (and make qt FtM/MtF couples when they're lucky!) Maybe the bis are just too fat or something.
> Free will exists, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum, these "soft" social factors can still influence behavior, even if people aren't actually being told they can't do things.
So you're saying that people are being oppressed and forced into these fields to some degree?
But to be fair, attempting to encourage woman to go into certain fields isnt any more neutral, thats still providing a social influence, just maybe the other way. I really do believe these disparities are a result of innate differences between the sexes. That's not to say that no woman is capable of being a chemical engineer, of course there are, but there are differences in behavioral traits that contribute to this. I believe its more of a difference in personality, more than subtle societal pressures that causes this disparity. And yes, culture influences behavior, but but behavior also influences culture. Men and women have different brain chemistry and hormone, why wouldn't they tend to be inclined towards and adept at different things.
"Oppressed and forced" is really putting it too strongly, there aren't really any gender-specific barriers to a woman who really wants to become an engineer for example, whereas the idea of a woman becoming an engineer would have seemed nearly absurd a hundred years ago. However, social norms do influence people over their entire life, and what I'm describing is more along the lines of a girl growing up being subtly discouraged from taking an interest in engineering because of the attitude that it's not really an appropriate interest for girls. What field one wants to go into isn't something determined 100% by genetics, it's influenced by life experiences, and those certainly can be affected by gender norms.
Yes, of course encouraging women to go into male-dominated fields would also be a social influence. Social influences are not neccessarily a bad thing, and I don't think we can ever really get rid of them, but I think it's important to recognize they can influence human behavior. And I don't deny that there are innate differences between the sexes, at least on average, and I suspect that in many cases these differences give rise to social norms and double standards between the genders. However, that's not the same as saying innate differences and social norms are one and the same - rather, the social norms can tend to discourage deviation from the average, because people don't want to stand out or be seen as a freak. It's definitely clear that some things are influenced by social norms, take clothing for instance. Most girls I know wear pants far more often than they wear dresses or skirts. Yet, for hundreds of years, women generally didn't wear pants in western civilization. I don't think there's some kind of change in their brain chemistry that explains this, it's rather due to a change in social norms. And social norms are influenced by biology, but also by things like technology and economics - the industrial revolution for example changed our culture, but there wasn't really a change in our biology to explain that.
>As for the reason why this occurs more with women than with men, I suspect it may be the fields social norms push people towards,
pls, STEM, the male-dominated fields, is oversaturated out the ass. Programming jobs in the first world are projected to drop 12% this year. Good luck getting into engineering school with a GPA below 3.8.
>with women having fewer "encouraged fields" then men.
Go Google "women fields" and tell me what you see. People are falling hand over foot to push women to go into STEM more than anything else, the already oversatured-by-men field. aka Everyone is going to lose doubly.
>people growing up are influenced by society's ideas of what's acceptable and appropriate for their gender
>The problem with this “blank slate” interpretation of gender differences is that it doesn’t jibe with results of developmental studies. Newborn girls prefer to look at faces while newborn boys prefer to look at mechanical stimuli (such as mobiles).
>people will have a preference for entering majors with others of the same gender,
This is your best argument as I have nothing to retort with to it. I don't know who's dumb enough to pick a major based on their peers but I'm sure there's many who will.
>pls, STEM, the male-dominated fields, is oversaturated out the ass. Programming jobs in the first world are projected to drop 12% this year. Good luck getting into engineering school with a GPA below 3.8.
Okay, so male fields are oversaturated too? Then it's not a gender issue, it's really an education/employment issue.
>Go Google "women fields" and tell me what you see. People are falling hand over foot to push women to go into STEM more than anything else, the already oversatured-by-men field. aka Everyone is going to lose doubly.
Well that anon seemed to be of the opinion that women tend to go into non-STEM fields, and that's why they earn less then men.
>>The problem with this “blank slate” interpretation of gender differences is that it doesn’t jibe with results of developmental studies. Newborn girls prefer to look at faces while newborn boys prefer to look at mechanical stimuli (such as mobiles).
Most fields really require both kinds of thinking, something that abstract doesn't really seem like the deciding factor on what fields people go into. On it's own, it might explain a 60%/40% split, not an 80%/20% split. The interests and hobbies one has while growing up (which are influenced BOTH by personal initiative and being encouraged/discouraged by others) is also a very significant factor in career determination.
>This is your best argument as I have nothing to retort with to it. I don't know who's dumb enough to pick a major based on their peers but I'm sure there's many who will.
That's not the ONLY consideration, and won't stop someone who's set on going into a field. However, it can be significant if you're really indifferent or divided between multiple fields. Most people don't want to be the one who stands out as unusual.
>Mostly Attracted to Women
>Slightly attracted to other men
>Willing to have sex with men once in awhile
>See this thread
>Realize why not fully homo
Despite hating women, gay men are just as annoying, petty, and conniving without the benefit of nice tits and a warm, soft pussy.
As a gay dude I have to agree with you that way too many gays are sadly like that. I even spent way too many years acting like a little bitch because I just wanted to fit in. Luckilly, I realized how stupid that was and I'm trying to change now. I don't want to make it sound like I'm better than the other gays though. I've found out that there's actually some pressure to be like that if you want to be accepted, and some of us have been rejected our whole lives, so we fall for that.