Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Scotland |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Many single females won’t play with bi guys because they often don’t play safe. I know that’s a sweeping statement but it’s the mindset of many single women. Guys will often put ‘straight’ on their profile but have verifications from couples, TVs, etc that show they’re bi. Personally I really like meeting bi guys. " There was a thread about this a wee while ago in The Lounge too and some bi men were agreeing with the sentiment that a lot of bi guys don't "play safe". I have no experience of this myself so no real opinion either way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Many single females won’t play with bi guys because they often don’t play safe. I know that’s a sweeping statement but it’s the mindset of many single women. Guys will often put ‘straight’ on their profile but have verifications from couples, TVs, etc that show they’re bi. Didnt really answer the question there lol Personally I really like meeting bi guys. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Many single females won’t play with bi guys because they often don’t play safe. I know that’s a sweeping statement but it’s the mindset of many single women. Guys will often put ‘straight’ on their profile but have verifications from couples, TVs, etc that show they’re bi. So basically bi guys are liars is that what your all saying? Feels like thats the opinion not only do they lie about safety but also lie that there straight? So why is the reason? Is it a stigma between fab and the lgbtq community? Personally I really like meeting bi guys. There was a thread about this a wee while ago in The Lounge too and some bi men were agreeing with the sentiment that a lot of bi guys don't "play safe". I have no experience of this myself so no real opinion either way. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are also lots of straight men and women who don’t “play safe” but unfortunately despite the fact that HIV is spreading faster in heterosexual populations than amongst men who have sex with men, there remains a hangover from the AIDS crisis that bi men are disease vectors. Ultimately it’s just based in bigotry. " Yes thats what i am feeling there a definite stigma between the two communitys… Should there be a separatation? That the question then. If you have verification of meets with men and tvs then the system auto correct your profile to bi rather than straight etc? Similar if it was a women as well so there wasnt any lieing… or am i just thinking of a more happy world with leace and harmony than it can be | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are also lots of straight men and women who don’t “play safe” but unfortunately despite the fact that HIV is spreading faster in heterosexual populations than amongst men who have sex with men, there remains a hangover from the AIDS crisis that bi men are disease vectors. Ultimately it’s just based in bigotry. Yes thats what i am feeling there a definite stigma between the two communitys… Should there be a separatation? That the question then. If you have verification of meets with men and tvs then the system auto correct your profile to bi rather than straight etc? Similar if it was a women as well so there wasnt any lieing… or am i just thinking of a more happy world with leace and harmony than it can be" I definitely feel the same as you but people are just far too complicated for it to be that simple. Wish it was though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are also lots of straight men and women who don’t “play safe” but unfortunately despite the fact that HIV is spreading faster in heterosexual populations than amongst men who have sex with men, there remains a hangover from the AIDS crisis that bi men are disease vectors. Ultimately it’s just based in bigotry. Yes thats what i am feeling there a definite stigma between the two communitys… Should there be a separatation? That the question then. If you have verification of meets with men and tvs then the system auto correct your profile to bi rather than straight etc? Similar if it was a women as well so there wasnt any lieing… or am i just thinking of a more happy world with leace and harmony than it can be" Although I can see the good intention behind it, I’d be deeply uncomfortable with any auto-change. It’s for individuals to identify however they choose. If they don’t want to call themselves bi, the don’t have to. It’s not really anyone else’s business. For those who say “ah, but I have a right to know”, replace “bi” with any other protected characteristic. “I have a preference not to meet Jewish people… I find it so dishonest when they put ‘agnostic’ in their profile”. We wouldn’t ever try to suggest that was anything other than bigotry, would we? There was a woman on here recently whose profile was changed to “TV/TS” without her asking for this (presumably because someone had reported her profile as being dishonest - she is trans, but quite rightly and correctly wants her profile to reflect that she’s a woman). Automated decision making (particularly with a site like this that doesn’t have a very settled set of categories and definitions) risks causing chaos. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are also lots of straight men and women who don’t “play safe” but unfortunately despite the fact that HIV is spreading faster in heterosexual populations than amongst men who have sex with men, there remains a hangover from the AIDS crisis that bi men are disease vectors. Ultimately it’s just based in bigotry. I get what your saying but i would understand that she/they would need to state on there profile that they are trans which i ve seen a few times on site which is perfect acceptable to me… its just as you say some bigotry that will not accept her as female… Its the same way that people should state bbw or athletic on there body type but there are still folk calling them selfs curvy which is the wrong category too choose in many folks opinion. I think fab should get away with those and just have text boxes instead to write what you believe yourself to be rather than a pigeon hole for what fab believes you should be if you get my understanding? Yes thats what i am feeling there a definite stigma between the two communitys… Should there be a separatation? That the question then. If you have verification of meets with men and tvs then the system auto correct your profile to bi rather than straight etc? Similar if it was a women as well so there wasnt any lieing… or am i just thinking of a more happy world with leace and harmony than it can be Although I can see the good intention behind it, I’d be deeply uncomfortable with any auto-change. It’s for individuals to identify however they choose. If they don’t want to call themselves bi, the don’t have to. It’s not really anyone else’s business. For those who say “ah, but I have a right to know”, replace “bi” with any other protected characteristic. “I have a preference not to meet Jewish people… I find it so dishonest when they put ‘agnostic’ in their profile”. We wouldn’t ever try to suggest that was anything other than bigotry, would we? There was a woman on here recently whose profile was changed to “TV/TS” without her asking for this (presumably because someone had reported her profile as being dishonest - she is trans, but quite rightly and correctly wants her profile to reflect that she’s a woman). Automated decision making (particularly with a site like this that doesn’t have a very settled set of categories and definitions) risks causing chaos. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I get what your saying but i would understand that she/they would need to state on there profile that they are trans which i ve seen a few times on site which is perfect acceptable to me… its just as you say some bigotry that will not accept her as female… Its the same way that people should state bbw or athletic on there body type but there are still folk calling them selfs curvy which is the wrong category too choose in many folks opinion. I think fab should get away with those and just have text boxes instead to write what you believe yourself to be rather than a pigeon hole for what fab believes you should be if you get my understanding? " I hope I’ve got all your points - when you reply within the “quote” markers it makes your reply indistinguishable from what you’re replying to. I’m the case I mentioned it’s entirely up to the woman concerned whether she (definitely she, not ‘they’, btw  ) wants to mention anywhere in her profile that she is trans.
I agree and disagree at the same time re the other description fields. I think it perfectly illustrates how one person’s “average” is another person’s curvy. These fields are helpful to some but a hindrance to others.
As with most matters of identify in most circumstances, it’s really for people to describe themselves unless opinion is invited or required (e.g. to describe on a population scale, or for legal/procedural requirements). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are also lots of straight men and women who don’t “play safe” but unfortunately despite the fact that HIV is spreading faster in heterosexual populations than amongst men who have sex with men, there remains a hangover from the AIDS crisis that bi men are disease vectors. Ultimately it’s just based in bigotry. " Well in that case there is also "bigotry" being shown from bi men towards other bi men as the example I cited above was given by a bi man. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why is this a thing? Spoke to a couple that only meet bi men… 18 verification all men all straight but according to the couple all play bi… Why is there such a stigma around men saying there bi? Ps 100% straight just asking because in 2022 i feel this shouldnt be an issue any more" I have seen men say they are orally bi, or will accept oral from a man but not give oral sex. There are fifty shades of sexuality or anything else for that matter. Opinions are like arseholes and everyone has one of those. There will always be those that will say these men are bi or at least bi curious just as some of those men will not see themselves as bi and class themselves at straight. I agree with Miss Muff, it gets so you wonder if there should be discriptors... but then some will say yea and some will say nay to that too  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are also lots of straight men and women who don’t “play safe” but unfortunately despite the fact that HIV is spreading faster in heterosexual populations than amongst men who have sex with men, there remains a hangover from the AIDS crisis that bi men are disease vectors. Ultimately it’s just based in bigotry. Well in that case there is also "bigotry" being shown from bi men towards other bi men as the example I cited above was given by a bi man." Possibly. I don’t know enough about what they said or the circumstances they were describing, but anyone who suggests that the actions of a few members of a group (in terms of protected characteristics) justifies the exclusion of that entire group… is certainly somewhere on the path towards bigotry. “I don’t like black people because they X” is likely to fall under a reasonable person’s definition of racism, regardless of what “X” is. If a member of that group, in this case a black person, then said “Yeah, I’ve definitely seen black people do X”, that in itself isn’t necessarily racist, but it’s certainly unhelpful as it does nothing to challenge the initial premise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are also lots of straight men and women who don’t “play safe” but unfortunately despite the fact that HIV is spreading faster in heterosexual populations than amongst men who have sex with men, there remains a hangover from the AIDS crisis that bi men are disease vectors. Ultimately it’s just based in bigotry. Well in that case there is also "bigotry" being shown from bi men towards other bi men as the example I cited above was given by a bi man. Possibly. I don’t know enough about what they said or the circumstances they were describing, but anyone who suggests that the actions of a few members of a group (in terms of protected characteristics) justifies the exclusion of that entire group… is certainly somewhere on the path towards bigotry. “I don’t like black people because they X” is likely to fall under a reasonable person’s definition of racism, regardless of what “X” is. If a member of that group, in this case a black person, then said “Yeah, I’ve definitely seen black people do X”, that in itself isn’t necessarily racist, but it’s certainly unhelpful as it does nothing to challenge the initial premise. " I agree on the not knowing enough on what or why something was said but surely it could be based on experience with no bigotry involved. If you ten people with green hair and 8 of them yellow eyes then you will look to see if that pattern is true in the future and presume that it's common in green haired folk. Human nature is geared to spot patterns in many ways. Bigoty is not acceptable in any sense for sure  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are also lots of straight men and women who don’t “play safe” but unfortunately despite the fact that HIV is spreading faster in heterosexual populations than amongst men who have sex with men, there remains a hangover from the AIDS crisis that bi men are disease vectors. Ultimately it’s just based in bigotry. Well in that case there is also "bigotry" being shown from bi men towards other bi men as the example I cited above was given by a bi man. Possibly. I don’t know enough about what they said or the circumstances they were describing, but anyone who suggests that the actions of a few members of a group (in terms of protected characteristics) justifies the exclusion of that entire group… is certainly somewhere on the path towards bigotry. “I don’t like black people because they X” is likely to fall under a reasonable person’s definition of racism, regardless of what “X” is. If a member of that group, in this case a black person, then said “Yeah, I’ve definitely seen black people do X”, that in itself isn’t necessarily racist, but it’s certainly unhelpful as it does nothing to challenge the initial premise. I agree on the not knowing enough on what or why something was said but surely it could be based on experience with no bigotry involved. If you ten people with green hair and 8 of them yellow eyes then you will look to see if that pattern is true in the future and presume that it's common in green haired folk. Human nature is geared to spot patterns in many ways. Bigoty is not acceptable in any sense for sure "Totally. “I won’t sleep with bisexual people because they have unprotected sex” whilst being an indication of someone’s personal preference, is rooted in prejudice. “I’m bisexual and I have seen other bisexual people have sex without protection” appears to be a ‘statement of fact’ based on personal experience. It draws no wider conclusion so doesn’t appear to be prejudicial in and of itself but it certainly reinforces the premise of the prejudice. Before this gets drawn into issues of consent - I’m not saying that people should be under any pressure to sleep with anyone they don’t want to, in any circumstance and for any reason. To take sex out of it, clearly you have a right to choose your own friends, but if people don’t see why “I wouldn’t want to be friends with a black person because of my past experiences with black people” is problematic, then they don’t appear to understand what prejudice is. Similarly if they conflate this with things like “I couldn’t be friends with a tory”, they don’t understand the unique and innate nature of protected characteristics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As mentioned above, many women/couples don't meet bisexual men because they consider it to be higher risk. But it's not purely down to bigotry. Every year, STI transmission statistics in the UK shows that bisexual and homosexual men have higher rate of infection than others. Now this doesn't have to mean bisexual men don't play safe. Anal sex in general is way more risky than vaginal sex. That could be the prime reason. Hard to make any guesses about safe sex %. In the end everyone has the right to choose the kind of people they want to have sex with. It's not right to shout bigotry for sexual preferences." Though when you think about it, so many are choosing to lie about their sexuality that the people who have preferences have no idea if the person they meet are breaking them or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As mentioned above, many women/couples don't meet bisexual men because they consider it to be higher risk. But it's not purely down to bigotry. Every year, STI transmission statistics in the UK shows that bisexual and homosexual men have higher rate of infection than others. Now this doesn't have to mean bisexual men don't play safe. Anal sex in general is way more risky than vaginal sex. That could be the prime reason. Hard to make any guesses about safe sex %. In the end everyone has the right to choose the kind of people they want to have sex with. It's not right to shout bigotry for sexual preferences. Though when you think about it, so many are choosing to lie about their sexuality that the people who have preferences have no idea if the person they meet are breaking them or not." That's true. It's hard to be sure when you don't anything about the sexual history of the person. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As mentioned above, many women/couples don't meet bisexual men because they consider it to be higher risk. But it's not purely down to bigotry. Every year, STI transmission statistics in the UK shows that bisexual and homosexual men have higher rate of infection than others. Now this doesn't have to mean bisexual men don't play safe. Anal sex in general is way more risky than vaginal sex. That could be the prime reason. Hard to make any guesses about safe sex %. In the end everyone has the right to choose the kind of people they want to have sex with. It's not right to shout bigotry for sexual preferences. Though when you think about it, so many are choosing to lie about their sexuality that the people who have preferences have no idea if the person they meet are breaking them or not. That's true. It's hard to be sure when you don't anything about the sexual history of the person." Safer sex isn’t about avoiding an entire group of people on the basis of their sexuality. Have you seen / read what some straight people are doing here? Sexuality is not an indicator of risk in the individual-level way you seem to think. Also, sweeping assumptions about sexual practices help no one. There are lots of men who have sex with men who never / rarely have anal sex, just as there are lots of men who only have sex with women who have lots. Like I said, people choose who they want to have sex with for whatever reason they want, that’s fine, but sweeping declarations such as “I would never sleep with a disabled person” or “I would never consider sleeping with a black guy” are absolutely rooted in bigotry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As mentioned above, many women/couples don't meet bisexual men because they consider it to be higher risk. But it's not purely down to bigotry. Every year, STI transmission statistics in the UK shows that bisexual and homosexual men have higher rate of infection than others. Now this doesn't have to mean bisexual men don't play safe. Anal sex in general is way more risky than vaginal sex. That could be the prime reason. Hard to make any guesses about safe sex %. In the end everyone has the right to choose the kind of people they want to have sex with. It's not right to shout bigotry for sexual preferences. Though when you think about it, so many are choosing to lie about their sexuality that the people who have preferences have no idea if the person they meet are breaking them or not. That's true. It's hard to be sure when you don't anything about the sexual history of the person. Safer sex isn’t about avoiding an entire group of people on the basis of their sexuality. Have you seen / read what some straight people are doing here? Sexuality is not an indicator of risk in the individual-level way you seem to think. Also, sweeping assumptions about sexual practices help no one. There are lots of men who have sex with men who never / rarely have anal sex, just as there are lots of men who only have sex with women who have lots. Like I said, people choose who they want to have sex with for whatever reason they want, that’s fine, but sweeping declarations such as “I would never sleep with a disabled person” or “I would never consider sleeping with a black guy” are absolutely rooted in bigotry. " We all take decisions in our lives based on risk analysis and probability. We like to avoid living in places where crimes have happened recently. Does that mean we consider everyone living there to be criminal? Even in those places, the chance of us being victin of crime is usually minimal. But then you have only one life and that's way too short already. It's just a matter of people being risk averse than anything else in this case. Here are the statistics: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sexually-transmitted-infection-risk-in-england-is-greatest-in-gay-men-and-young-adults You or I have no clue about where someone's sexual preferences are coming from. It's not fair to conclude that person is bigot just because they have specific sexual preferences. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As mentioned above, many women/couples don't meet bisexual men because they consider it to be higher risk. But it's not purely down to bigotry. Every year, STI transmission statistics in the UK shows that bisexual and homosexual men have higher rate of infection than others. Now this doesn't have to mean bisexual men don't play safe. Anal sex in general is way more risky than vaginal sex. That could be the prime reason. Hard to make any guesses about safe sex %. In the end everyone has the right to choose the kind of people they want to have sex with. It's not right to shout bigotry for sexual preferences. Though when you think about it, so many are choosing to lie about their sexuality that the people who have preferences have no idea if the person they meet are breaking them or not. That's true. It's hard to be sure when you don't anything about the sexual history of the person. Safer sex isn’t about avoiding an entire group of people on the basis of their sexuality. Have you seen / read what some straight people are doing here? Sexuality is not an indicator of risk in the individual-level way you seem to think. Also, sweeping assumptions about sexual practices help no one. There are lots of men who have sex with men who never / rarely have anal sex, just as there are lots of men who only have sex with women who have lots. Like I said, people choose who they want to have sex with for whatever reason they want, that’s fine, but sweeping declarations such as “I would never sleep with a disabled person” or “I would never consider sleeping with a black guy” are absolutely rooted in bigotry. We all take decisions in our lives based on risk analysis and probability. We like to avoid living in places where crimes have happened recently. Does that mean we consider everyone living there to be criminal? Even in those places, the chance of us being victin of crime is usually minimal. But then you have only one life and that's way too short already. It's just a matter of people being risk averse than anything else in this case. Here are the statistics: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sexually-transmitted-infection-risk-in-england-is-greatest-in-gay-men-and-young-adults You or I have no clue about where someone's sexual preferences are coming from. It's not fair to conclude that person is bigot just because they have specific sexual preferences. " If you avoided a particular ethnicity or race because of crime stats, yes that would be bigotry. Are you really saying that I should be excluded because my sexuality represents a higher statistical risk to someone who sleeps with me? Because I can assure you that through practice and testing regime, on an individual rather than population level, I will represent a far lower risk than many of the straight men on here. I won’t (can’t) link to it here but the now slightly dated 2012 “bisexuality report” from the Open Uni sets out the exclusion faced by bi people very well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you avoided a particular ethnicity or race because of crime stats, yes that would be bigotry. " People wanting to meet only a particular race or not wanting to meet a specific race is a different topic. There are multiple reasons why someone may have such preferences. Some are racist, some are not. " Are you really saying that I should be excluded because my sexuality represents a higher statistical risk to someone who sleeps with me? Because I can assure you that through practice and testing regime, on an individual rather than population level, I will represent a far lower risk than many of the straight men on here. " No one said you "should" be excludes. Just saying some people are more risk averse in these matters. It's well within their rights to do it. People don't have enough time to have sex with the whole world and they filter out members here based on multiple preferences. If they don't want to meet you, you just move on to someone who wants to meet you. Of course, you too have the right to judge them. I am just pointing out that your judgement may not be right. " I won’t (can’t) link to it here but the now slightly dated 2012 “bisexuality report” from the Open Uni sets out the exclusion faced by bi people very well. " Again, not saying bi/gay people never faced exclusion. There are bigots out there. Just saying people who have personal preferences in finding sexual partners are not bigots by default. They could very well treat bi and gay people with respect in real life but just not want to have sex with them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People wanting to meet only a particular race or not wanting to meet a specific race is a different topic. There are multiple reasons why someone may have such preferences. Some are racist, some are not. No one said you "should" be excludes. Just saying some people are more risk averse in these matters. It's well within their rights to do it. People don't have enough time to have sex with the whole world and they filter out members here based on multiple preferences. If they don't want to meet you, you just move on to someone who wants to meet you. Of course, you too have the right to judge them. I am just pointing out that your judgement may not be right. Again, not saying bi/gay people never faced exclusion. There are bigots out there. Just saying people who have personal preferences in finding sexual partners are not bigots by default. They could very well treat bi and gay people with respect in real life but just not want to have sex with them. " I think we’re hitting the point where nuance makes it so difficult. I agree, personal preference is absolutely fine. There is a big fuzzy area between having those preferences and making broad sweeping statements on the basis of certain characteristics. One end of that fuzzy area definitely IS bigotry. I agree, though that there’s an area near the other end which probably isn’t. Not everyone who is a racist realises they’re a racist, etc. To take colour or body difference out of it an example might be “no Irish travellers please”. While it is the individual’s absolute right to decide with whom they have sex, do you agree that that statement m, if posted on a profile here, would be problematic (and likely to be rooted in prejudice). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People wanting to meet only a particular race or not wanting to meet a specific race is a different topic. There are multiple reasons why someone may have such preferences. Some are racist, some are not. No one said you "should" be excludes. Just saying some people are more risk averse in these matters. It's well within their rights to do it. People don't have enough time to have sex with the whole world and they filter out members here based on multiple preferences. If they don't want to meet you, you just move on to someone who wants to meet you. Of course, you too have the right to judge them. I am just pointing out that your judgement may not be right. Again, not saying bi/gay people never faced exclusion. There are bigots out there. Just saying people who have personal preferences in finding sexual partners are not bigots by default. They could very well treat bi and gay people with respect in real life but just not want to have sex with them. I think we’re hitting the point where nuance makes it so difficult. I agree, personal preference is absolutely fine. There is a big fuzzy area between having those preferences and making broad sweeping statements on the basis of certain characteristics. One end of that fuzzy area definitely IS bigotry. I agree, though that there’s an area near the other end which probably isn’t. Not everyone who is a racist realises they’re a racist, etc. To take colour or body difference out of it an example might be “no Irish travellers please”. While it is the individual’s absolute right to decide with whom they have sex, do you agree that that statement m, if posted on a profile here, would be problematic (and likely to be rooted in prejudice). " The topic is not well researched. Sexual preferences raise due to various reasons and we don't even have partial understanding of these reasons. I would rather prefer to say I don't know. I personally see racial/sexuality preferences just like age/height preference. Someone wanting to meet only people as old as 40 doesn't mean they hate older people. The reason why I am saying this is that I had chance to meet a few people in kink scene who don't meet Asian men. But they all treated me with respect and friendliness. I know of a black woman who meets only white men. We found through a forum chat that we both love same books. We had a social meet where we discussed about the books we read, the fetishes we had and how we felt about them. She told clearly before meeting that sex was off the table because she prefers white men. Is she a racist? Far from it. So I prefer not to pass judgements on these matters. To each their own. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People wanting to meet only a particular race or not wanting to meet a specific race is a different topic. There are multiple reasons why someone may have such preferences. Some are racist, some are not. No one said you "should" be excludes. Just saying some people are more risk averse in these matters. It's well within their rights to do it. People don't have enough time to have sex with the whole world and they filter out members here based on multiple preferences. If they don't want to meet you, you just move on to someone who wants to meet you. Of course, you too have the right to judge them. I am just pointing out that your judgement may not be right. Again, not saying bi/gay people never faced exclusion. There are bigots out there. Just saying people who have personal preferences in finding sexual partners are not bigots by default. They could very well treat bi and gay people with respect in real life but just not want to have sex with them. I think we’re hitting the point where nuance makes it so difficult. I agree, personal preference is absolutely fine. There is a big fuzzy area between having those preferences and making broad sweeping statements on the basis of certain characteristics. One end of that fuzzy area definitely IS bigotry. I agree, though that there’s an area near the other end which probably isn’t. Not everyone who is a racist realises they’re a racist, etc. To take colour or body difference out of it an example might be “no Irish travellers please”. While it is the individual’s absolute right to decide with whom they have sex, do you agree that that statement m, if posted on a profile here, would be problematic (and likely to be rooted in prejudice). The topic is not well researched. Sexual preferences raise due to various reasons and we don't even have partial understanding of these reasons. I would rather prefer to say I don't know. I personally see racial/sexuality preferences just like age/height preference. Someone wanting to meet only people as old as 40 doesn't mean they hate older people. The reason why I am saying this is that I had chance to meet a few people in kink scene who don't meet Asian men. But they all treated me with respect and friendliness. I know of a black woman who meets only white men. We found through a forum chat that we both love same books. We had a social meet where we discussed about the books we read, the fetishes we had and how we felt about them. She told clearly before meeting that sex was off the table because she prefers white men. Is she a racist? Far from it. So I prefer not to pass judgements on these matters. To each their own." Indeed. I think we have quite different levels we’ll tolerate, and there’s certainly no easy or simple answer, but like you say, to each their own! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've met many FabStraight guys, very nice men and they suck really well "You’re wicked my dear Mr Mod | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People wanting to meet only a particular race or not wanting to meet a specific race is a different topic. There are multiple reasons why someone may have such preferences. Some are racist, some are not. No one said you "should" be excludes. Just saying some people are more risk averse in these matters. It's well within their rights to do it. People don't have enough time to have sex with the whole world and they filter out members here based on multiple preferences. If they don't want to meet you, you just move on to someone who wants to meet you. Of course, you too have the right to judge them. I am just pointing out that your judgement may not be right. Again, not saying bi/gay people never faced exclusion. There are bigots out there. Just saying people who have personal preferences in finding sexual partners are not bigots by default. They could very well treat bi and gay people with respect in real life but just not want to have sex with them. I think we’re hitting the point where nuance makes it so difficult. I agree, personal preference is absolutely fine. There is a big fuzzy area between having those preferences and making broad sweeping statements on the basis of certain characteristics. One end of that fuzzy area definitely IS bigotry. I agree, though that there’s an area near the other end which probably isn’t. Not everyone who is a racist realises they’re a racist, etc. To take colour or body difference out of it an example might be “no Irish travellers please”. While it is the individual’s absolute right to decide with whom they have sex, do you agree that that statement m, if posted on a profile here, would be problematic (and likely to be rooted in prejudice). The topic is not well researched. Sexual preferences raise due to various reasons and we don't even have partial understanding of these reasons. I would rather prefer to say I don't know. I personally see racial/sexuality preferences just like age/height preference. Someone wanting to meet only people as old as 40 doesn't mean they hate older people. The reason why I am saying this is that I had chance to meet a few people in kink scene who don't meet Asian men. But they all treated me with respect and friendliness. I know of a black woman who meets only white men. We found through a forum chat that we both love same books. We had a social meet where we discussed about the books we read, the fetishes we had and how we felt about them. She told clearly before meeting that sex was off the table because she prefers white men. Is she a racist? Far from it. So I prefer not to pass judgements on these matters. To each their own." This, preferences are not necessarily rooted in bigotry. There are often merely that. To say EVERYONE who has a preference is bigoted is in my opinion wrong. That’s not to say some are though. As the Dali Lama said folks “be kind, you can always be kind” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t think it’s white as black and white as people think. In my younger days, I slept with women but once I met K, I classed myself as 100% gay. And for 18 years he was all I wanted so being gay was fine with me. Now we swing and I have very little interest in men outside of him and just wanna meet women. And now, I class myself as bisexual again. People will identify with what they feel comfortable with I guess. " Agreed, there’s fifty shades of sexuality and if it’s between consenting adults then all’s good  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
