Log in

~*Bisexuality and Beyond*~
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 18 most recent journal entries recorded in *Bi Pittsburgh And Beyond*'s LiveJournal:

Sunday, October 30th, 2005
10:02 pm
Is it the fact that they are immature that makes them pushy, or is it thier pushyness that makes them come across as immature?

Fucking children...
Friday, October 28th, 2005
5:17 am
In the past two weeks, I have been approached by two men who are actually interested in me because of my size.

Normally, in most of my social/sexual dealings with people...men especially, my size is the biggest obstacle to overcome. I swear, some people just think I am going to hurt them. I have developed a few way to overcome this. A little charm and some smooth talking goes a long, long way.

The problem that I seem to be having with this is that I have become too used to having to compensate for it. It's almost reflexive.

Now, I am in a situation where my size is not only appreciated, it is pretty much the sole reason for the attraction. I am completely out of my depth. People being fascinated/frightened by me is one thing. people being sexually attracted to me because of my size is, apparently, something foreign to me.

The one guy is into Giantism. I have heard of the fetish, but never been partial to it. In fact, now that he is trying to make me part of it, it creeps me out. Just not my thing.

The other guy is just into bigger men. He has this thing about being massaged and picked up (lifted off the ground) by guys bigger then him. I am leaning more towards him should anything come of this at all. He seems more normal. The only negative to him is that he is sooo young.

The weirdest thing about all this is that it's making me realize just how much I compensate for my size, and how much I think I overcompensate for it on a daily basis.

I have heard of personal growth coming from sexual encounters, but this is ridiculous.

Edit: ok, the guy that is into giantism is also a feeder. He keeps telling me how he wants me to be 600lbs, and how he wants me to sit on him.

I never thought I would say this, but it is just too damn creepy for me. Not talking to him any more.
Sunday, October 2nd, 2005
6:34 pm
Freaked, yet proud.
There is something very odd about talking to an old friend (That you remember as being innocent and somewhat prudish), having the conversation turn oddly sexual and finding out that she really got off on watching her boyfriend get fucked by another man.

Cue jaw-drop in 3...2...1 *awe*

I would really like to say how proud I am to see her grow as a person and a sexual being, but I am in shock. Deep shock.
Tuesday, August 23rd, 2005
9:20 pm
Question. for those of you still out there...
What is your definition of "Making out"?

I have my definition, but I don't think it means what I think it means anymore.

When I say I have made out with someone, it usually involves some heavy petting, possible partial nudity and that groping that occurs when things are not going to go into full blown sex but are filled with promises of times to come.

Any achieving of orgasm pushes it into the sex category.

Now, I am seeing the term used to mean sex. Almost synonymous with "hooking up".

Am kinda confused now.
Tuesday, August 2nd, 2005
5:12 am
You know...
A one night stand sounds really good right about now.
Wednesday, May 25th, 2005
8:31 pm
Crossposted in my journal...
Overheard today on Talk radio (Read, verbatim, by Rush Limbaugh):

"Years ago, the whole country got a laugh out of The Total Woman’s recommendation that wives occasionally spice things up by greeting their husbands wrapped only in Saran Wrap –– the clear, flexible plastic film meant to cover food in the refrigerator.

Today, right-thinking adults should be outraged by the recommendation in the latest “comprehensive” sex-education materials from Planned Parenthood that, for “safe” sex, 8th graders should use Saran Wrap as “protection” when engaging in oral and anal sex.

Entire CWFA anti-planned Parenthood article here.

I mention this only because I was as baffled as he was.

Now, I consider myself pretty well versed in many matters sexual, but this one has me all confused.
I have been involved in, and overheard, a few discussions in which Saran Wrap was suggested as a substitute for Dental Dams. So, I am all good on that side of it.

What gets me is the Saran Wrap/Anal Sex thing.

As a protective barrier for Rimming, I can see, but that leads me to question if Rimming is considered Anal Sex. Or is that just a question of semantics like the "Is a Blow Job considered sex"?

If they are talking about insertion, then I have issues with that. Especially if this is what they are teaching kids to keep them safe.

OTOH, I am making allowances for this not being exactly what Planned Parenthood meant. At least, I hope there were a little more thoughtful about what they are actually putting out there.
Thursday, May 19th, 2005
11:51 pm
I am deeply amused
Boy wants to hang out, cause we haven't seen eachother in awhile, so I invite him over for dinner, movies, and whatever later. Another friend calls to see if we were having our irregular anime night, and we work out that this can add to the evening so make it so. Anime night is him, his girl, and a girlfriend of hers she likes to get drunk and make passes at. Its usually a pretty amusing evening ;) So as it turns out, my friend doesn't show, neither does the girl's girl, but my girlfriend does suprisingly, as she previously had plans tonight. Boy feels cock-blocked, and heads home after the movie, as does friend's girl and Girlfriend (as she has to get home to her boy tonight as his girl is out), leaving me alone for the evening, which I actually don't mind so much as I need to get up really early tomorrow anyways. But Girlfriend, when realiazing that she spoiled my fun, was apologetic about it. I feel bed cause I know Boy was disappointed, but I don't feel like I've missed anything for having gotten to see Girlfriend for a bit anyways, so its all good. And that is how it works when you've got the love.
Monday, May 9th, 2005
12:50 pm
My exchange with irisdragonfly in my last "Bi and Beyond" post got me thinking about the labels we use. Heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual (whatever the fuck that is), polyamoury, polysexual, etc, etc, etc. Are they necessary at all? Are they even particularly helpful?

Scott and I have an open relationship. This DOES NOT MEAN either of us is unhappy with the other, that we're oversexed, that we're looking for other people to "hook up" with, or anything else. But when I mention that we have an open relationship people assume all kinds of shit. So if I use this term and the other person interprets it as something else entirely, what exactly have I accomplished? Language is supposed to facilitate communication, not impede it. Maybe it would be better to drop the labels altogether.

We don't need a plethora of labels for other facets of our existence. Yeah, sexual exclusivity isn't a factor in my relationship with Scott. We also don't have any dietary restrictions, but I don't feel obligated to announce this. "Hey, I'm involved with somebody, but I can eat Fritos whenever I want to."

Same for the hetero/homo/bi distinction. Do we need it at all? Some people love Pepsi but can't stand the taste of Coke. Others love Coke but won't drink a Pepsi. I'm sort of a pancola person myself, I'll drink either Pepsi or Coke, whichever is on sale, but my personal preference is really Diet RC. I've never found myself hopelessly crippled by a lack of terminology for these distinctions. I've always managed to get by without a specific word to indicate that I love lobster but gag at the very thought of putting sourkraut in my mouth. If somebody invites me to dinner and serves brussel sprouts I've never found it difficult to politely decline, even though there's no term defining me as a person who gets physically sick if forced to eat those noxious little green buds.

For the most part, the only time a person's sexual orientation is even relevant is in a potential "dating" situation, but even then the labels are of little if any use. Just because I'm gay doesn't mean that you can toss me into a room with any gay/bi dude and we're suddenly going to start getting it on. This weekend somebody told me, with that hey-dude-you-could-get-some-dick tone, about a man who is bisexual. It was actually a little annoying, because the person in question is somebody on this very list who sounds like he'd be a cool person to get to know, but now I'd feel a little uncomfortable about going up and talking to him or suggesting we get together sometime. Not because he's bisexual, but because somebody else made it an issue. And I'm sure most of the people on this list have had the same experience. Are there any hets here who haven't had people make assumptions about a friendship you've had with somebody of the opposite sex? Even if the friendship might develop into something more it's embarrassing to have people make assumptions like that.

We have all of these words which have so little real value. I suspect they're reflections of our society's obsession with sexuality more than anything else.
Friday, May 6th, 2005
4:59 pm
Most of you probably recall my previous rant concerning the term bisexual. In the late 1970's (around 1978 I believe) I decided to stop using such a vague, meaningless term and just say that I'm gay. Yeah, sure, I had a few girls after that, but for the most part I preferred male companionship. (Fancy way of saying I like dick.)

But in all honesty I've found that even "gay" doesn't work very well as a descriptive. It took me another 27 years to figure out why, but last weekend it all came together for me. I was at the ADF gathering talking to a man who surprised me by saying that he considered gays and lesbians to be "family". Suddenly I felt miles away from this guy. Why? Because being gay doesn't make you a part of my family in any way. It's irrelevant unless you're wanting to date me. I was still mulling over this (not out loud, obviously) when this same man asked me if Scott was Pagan. And I thought that was an incredibly stupid question. That's when the epiphany crashed down on me.

There's a difference between being sexually gay and being culturally gay.

I used to think it was just a matter of priorities, but maybe I don't really have much in common at all with most of the people who describe themselves as "gay Pagans". Culturally I am not gay. I'm Pagan, pure and simple. That's how I define myself and how I define the people around me. And this makes sense to me because a person's beliefs are a large part of who he is. They're the source of his ethics and values. Of course Scott's a Pagan. I would never consider someone as a life partner if he weren't Pagan. Sure, I'll have sex with a gay cowan and enjoy it immensely, but that (to me) is essentially nothing more than a means of getting my nut off*. The person I actually share my life with has to be somebody who, well, I can share my life with. (I'm not trying to convince anyone of this. I realize that mixed marriages are very fashionable in Pittsburgh, and that's okay if it's your bag. It's just not something I could do.) When I'm at a Pagan event like the ADF gathering, everybody there is sort of like "family" because we share a polytheistic world view. I may not like some of them (hah!) but I recognize a shared kinship. Because culturally I'm a Pagan man.

I don't feel this way about gay people. Which is good because life would get very confusing, I think, when you toss in the bisexuals and the mostly-straight-but-like-to-plays and the various other possible manifestations of human sexuality.

When it comes to sex, though, I'm pretty much gay. I enjoy the smell of a man. The taste. But maybe "gay" isn't the right word for me. People assume things. Language can be so inadequate.
Wednesday, April 20th, 2005
1:05 pm
In the wake of irisdragonfly's comments elsewhere concerning the confusion that often surrounds the term "polyarmoury", I have my own short rant. Not about polyamoury, although that word is vague enough to warrant an exhaustive discussion of its own. No my gripe is about the term bisexual.

This has got to be one of the most useless words in the English vocabulary. Yeah, great, NSync tells us in code that they're "Bi, Bi, Bi", and maybe they are, but who isn't? Bisexual can mean anything these days. It can be a young lady with a husband and three children who has NEVER done anything intimate with another woman, but who thinks Willow Rosenberg (from "Buffy") is really kewl. It can be a man who really, really really prefers the company of women but just happened to let a guy blow him when they were both a little drunk back in '92, so he can't really be completely heterosexual. It can be the other guy who blew him, who feels no real passion for women but is ashamed to admit that he's turned on by a big hard cock. Once in a blue moon the word is applied to somebody who's actually attracted more or less equally to both sexes.

I don't believe there's anybody who isn't bisexual, the way the word is commonly used. I'm sure there are people in this group who can point out some man who is 100% heterosexual, who couldn't possibly get aroused by another man and doesn't even masturbate because unless it's a WOMAN'S hand it won't do anything for him. Let me clue you in on something, I've run into this same guy at the baths. And the bars. Years ago it used to surprise me, but I've wised up since then. A man who really has no interest in other men rarely feels a need to announce this to the world.

On the flip side, there are a heck of a lot of bisexuals out there who really aren't. If, all things being equal, you'd really rather get it on with the opposite sex, then you're heterosexual. It's great, absolutely great that you're open minded and aren't limiting your options, but essentially you're straight. And if the opposite sex doesn't do much for you, if you'd rather get it on with your own sex, you're homosexual. That's what the word means. It doesn't matter that you had the occasional fantasy or even if you act on the fantasy once in a while.

I'm not just speaking abstract theory here. In 1975 I was the poster boy for bisexuality. My primary partner was a woman (don't ask, big mistake) and people thought I was SO cool. I was held up as an example to straight men as to what a REAL man was like. It was such a farce. Yep, I was fucking women. I was 21 years old. I would have fucked cantaloupe if nothing else was available. I was not bisexual. But it wasn't until around 1978 that I finally dropped the pretense and admitted that, all things being equal, I'd really rather get it on with a guy. I've had a few women since then - women can be fun and a vagina can do wonderful things for my cock - but that was when I stopped using "bisexual" as a personal descriptive. It just didn't seem honest.

Anyway, this is supposed to be a place where we can discuss stuff like this and not worry about being politically correct, which I know I'm not. I know that it's more popular to sling the bi label around onto everyone and everything. But I think it's more crippling than uplifting. It impedes communication.
Monday, March 7th, 2005
6:05 pm
Intros 'n 'at
Howdy all. I like to think I'm pretty uncomplicated. I'm male and identify as such, and mostly prefer the company of women. But my outlook on life is a hedonistic one, and this has led me to both bi and poly as natural expressions of my desire to not miss any of the good stuff :)

On poly, I'm in a dedicated relationship with someone, but we both know we like some on the side now and then so keep a simple rule on being careful and not taking time away from eachother, and otherwise play as you will, with each holding a veto clause if needed though it rarely is. I like this, it works well. The less complicated the rules set, the better, I think.

On bi, there's a comment I overheard at a party recently that irked me that I wanted to comment on. "There's no such thing as a bi man, they're really just gay." If I wasn't busy making out with someone at the time, I'd have jumped on that. Cause I like men, gay sex is plenty fun, but in most cases I prefer women. So, I can't see how there's any accuracy to this comment. But it does illustrate a stereotype I've noticed. That it seems to be more socially acceptable for women to be bi than men. That there's this tendency to label men as gay if they cross that line at all. Is this just the latent homophobia in American male culture showing itself again? Its hard for me to tell, I don't really talk much about sex except with people who wouldn't be the least shocked by what I do, but I remember the culture of my youth and attitudes I saw then even if I rarely expose myself to them now.

On likes/disliks, I've noted an odd disinterest in most kink. Odd, cause I pride myself on my flexibility, yet find games of pain and domination uninteresting. A little bit can be spicy, but I don't care for when it is the focus. Its just not what I'm after, I suppose. I prefer loosing myself in the moment and my partner, getting all sensual and just enjoying every little bit of it. And I definitely dig group play as a major turn on. Its just so hard to make it work the more people are involved.
Wednesday, February 23rd, 2005
7:45 pm
Tuesday, February 22nd, 2005
7:44 pm
Blame it on Miss Theresa!
Flattered to be mentioned in a post regarding gender, and feeling rather sluggish, drained, depressed, bored due to recent life blahs, I am inspired to write one of my semi-world famous.... gender posts, and I figure this is a good place for it.

As my divine *d*i*v*a* ~g~o*d*d~e~s*s* irisdragonfly points out, I am something of a gender duality. I own more makeup than most high femmes I know, and know less about such things as eyelash curlers, curling irons and ironing boards than most male college freshmen. I'm part giggly school girl and part boyish charm. Part guiness part gin and tonic and part mango margarita with just a dash of fine wine and shots. I'm equally at home in a 'wife beater' and too-big pants as I am in a skirt, lace top and stockings. (Okay, honestly I'm more 'at home' in the pants and more 'divatastic' in the skirt.) I have short hair that is alternately barely styled and arrayed with any manner of my *over 300* hair clips.

Okay, so still with me? You say that gender isn't all appearance and alcohol? Good for you. So what else is it? Masculine? Like the way I hate to cry, be wrong, be contradicted, or give up an argument. The way I hate to ask for directions even when I'm utterly lost. Feminine? Like the way I get moody over nothing, need to have 'conversations' and hate to leave an argument for the sake of being late for a meeting. The way I smile and say thank you when people hold doors like I'm being given an Oscar.

Back to more general traits though. I look equally stunning in a suit or a dress. I prefer my partners femmy but never overly feminine. I consider myself a sparkle butch, a butch queen, a fagboi and a tricky femme at any given moment. I tend towards women but continually date feminine (usually bisexual) men. My current partner looks better in nail polish than I do but would look silly in a skirt.

So this is duality, but I don't believe that it is the only part of my 'gender.' I am also poet-gendered, musician-gendered, intellectually gendered and scholarly gendered. I'm young-adult liberal gendered. I'm queerly gendered. I play with gender because gender is a plaything. (I'm also a consumate switch.)

I am the socially agressive partner in my current relationship but I'm slightly more submissive than my partner in the bedroom. I love to penetrate and be penetrated in turn. (Is this getting too TMI?) I love fluidity and role reversal. I love looking full on femme and holding doors and paying the bill. I like putting on a suit or other 'boywear' and being treated like a princess.

I enjoy telling you these things and I hope that you are at least somewhat amused.
Wednesday, February 9th, 2005
3:34 pm
At this point, I either need to grow a set of balls, or completely remove my conscience.


I just can't help that meeting people from on-line still makes me a bit nervous.
Sunday, February 6th, 2005
10:26 am
Something I ran into last night...
I was talking to someone last night, and the subject of Poly came up. She asked me what the "rules" were between my wife and I.

I explained it to her we have a very basic set of guidelines we follow, and anything outside of that is dealt with on a case by case basis. Honest discourse and all that happy stuff.

Then a certain subject came up and apparently my answer was difficult for her to understand, and so I am bring it to you. My trusted council.

Is it unusual to have a date or lover that your primary has never met?

This is not a situation that is typical for me, but I have had lovers that my wife has not met face-to-face. Usually, my lovers/secondary's are friends of mine or ours, so chances are that my wife has met them or will meet them eventually. But there are people that she hasn’t.

I don't, as a rule, bring my dates home to meet the misses. Nor does she insist that I do. There have even been times where my wife has preferred to not meet the other person.

I don’t think this is unusual, but apparently, this is not the "norm" *insert eyeroll here*

What do you think?
Thursday, February 3rd, 2005
6:01 pm
For discussion/advice/general amusement/whatever else it might be good for:

I haven't felt terribly enthused with any of my sexual partners/sexual prospects aside from my primary in several months now. To me this isn't a problem necessarily because I'm fine with just seeing my primary and doing what I need to do on nights when zie has dates until I find 'the right person.'

The awkward thing is that my partner has (recently) been in the process of ending something that's been going on with hir for about three months now. There was never really any 'relationship' or emotional connection between them, but apparently the sexual chemistry was on and zie's a bit upset about ending the relationship.

I'm usually very sexual (as opposed to emotional) when it comes to relationships, yet I can't find myself getting enthused about casual sex (even when the sex is decent, and even with one person where the sex was particularly noteworthy.) My partner, on the other hand, was mono before meeting me and despite being every bit as poly as I am was of the mind that zie couldn't have a sexual attachment without emotional feelings up until he met his current sexual partner.

It feels like something odd is going on about me, or about hir, but I'm not sure what it is.

Any comments/advice/beratings more than welcome,

Tuesday, February 1st, 2005
12:59 pm

Am I going to be the baby? Ahh, well, I suppose I've been told by enough people wiser than I to enjoy my youth while I have it.

I'm a 22 year old bio-female leaning towards a faggy-butch-queer identification. I'm poly and despite my primary interest in women, I find myself more often than not ending up in sexual situations with bisexual men. There's just something about a femme bio-boi that totally piques my interest. I am also currently in a primary relationship with the ever delectable lucretia777. (Zie's Merlin776 on OKC for those of you who subscribe and would like to check out my honey-honey.)

I love meeting new people for chat/drinks/dance/play/friendship/films really just about everything. Also I love to talk about gender/sexuality issues of all sorts and I love anyone who will let me do their makeup/clothing/fingernails/toenails.

In my non-sexual life I am a student, a poet, an indie film lover and a folkie among other things.

Yay for fun new communities!


Interests: Femme bois (bio-male or female), bois kissing, D/s, some SM (I identify as a switch), slash fanfiction, tongue kissing, gender fuck, gender fluidity and various other forms of naked or partially naked activities.
Monday, January 31st, 2005
10:02 pm
Well, Somebody should start this off, so here goes...

Hello everyone. My name is Chuck, and I am a Martha Stewart addict.

Damn, wrong group. Can we strike that from the record?

Hello everyone. Some of you I know. Some of you I know of. Some of you I know not at all, but that should change in time.

I am 29, bisexual, married and poly (successfully so far).

I am a man who knows what he wants, what he needs, and what he is willing to do to get those things. A man who has worked long and hard to break free of certain things in his life to become what he is now, and is not willing to give that up for anybody.

A cursed man, able to find beauty in all things but his own reflection, but who makes up for that in what he sees reflected in those he most cherishes. Truer then any mirror will ever be.

I have done the rounds in both the Poly and Bi groups and agree totally with irisdragonfly. They never seem to be what I need. There are only so many times I can go over the same thing. I hope that this group gives me something different. I hope to learn things about others, as well as some things about myself. I like the idea of having somewhere I can go to ask questions that may be silly to some, but there is always a varied source of references available through the other members of the group. I also like the idea of being free to be as silly and irreverent as I know that some of us can be.

What I bring, hopefully, to this group is a vast amount of useless knowledge, some sexual some not. I have a very practical outlook on many things, but can be extreme and passionate on others. I may just be another voice in the crowd, but hopefully I can give you a different insight into matters or, at least, phrase a cliché in a new way that it gets you thinking about things in ways you have not before.

Ok, I showed mine...Now, you show yours.

Interests Brian Kinney, open faced shower stalls, scarves, passion, fingertips, sexual expression, sexual freedom, wandering hands, eagerness, intensity, naked co-ed porcupine wrestling, innuendo, tenderness, roughness, love,
About LiveJournal.com