I've encountered a number of bisexual women or straight women who have experimented with women that are opposed to male homosexuality. Normally they are Christian. I am so confused by this state of mind. It's horribly hypocritical. Have you ever encountered this mindset? The only explanation I've managed to get is something along the lines of "Women with women is fine but men with men is wrong, it's in the Bible."
Well women are correctly known as the more beautiful/lovely version of the human race, I don't think many people would disagree. (Some gay guys feel the same way towards men, but I still say most would agree that women are very curvy and nice to look at.) Now, because of this I think that women wanting women has always been more accepted. I think a good man on man experience is a powerful and sensual show of the male strength and desire that might be hard to demonstrate with a female partner. While I definitely agree that these women are hypocritical, I kind of understand where they are coming from.
I can see that I suppose. The only thing I can think of is the general bias in society of affection between men. Straight women kissing, embracing, holding hands, verbal expressions of affection etc are seen as more "natural". Straight men doing these things is unheard of in America anyway. I think the average straight person is simply more comfortable with the idea of two women having sex than two men. Hopefully this view will change.
Only because a straight male heirarchal system has decreed that to be so. It is straight white males who by and large dictate what it is acceptable and what isn't in society. Although yes, there are some women who discriminate against gay men, if it were women who dictated what was acceptable and what isn't in society, male homosexuality would be viewed much more equally with lesbianism. And not only gay men would feel that way towards men, but a lot of straight women too. I don't understand where they are coming from at all, and those women are certainly not examples of "more beautiful/lovely examples of the human race". Their mindsets are just as vile as the males who also share that viewpoint. In fact, they are even worse, as they are being hypocrites. That they are hypocritical is a total no brainer, and hypocrisy is definitely one of the worst and most detestable traits any human being (male or female) can possess.
Just my $.02 and perhaps a generalization, but in the US, while there's a lot of talk about equality and strong women, the reality is that many females have been conditioned to the idea of males taking care of them and want a guy that will continue to take care of them. That includes females that have jobs but still think males should buy them shiny trinkets, place them on some pedastal, and defer to them. Males like, want, need and enjoy sex. Not just for procreation...but for what it is...a stress reliever, a way to release some energy, a way to feel alive, a way to feel close to another human being. Guess what? That gives an otherwise historically helpless creature a little (or a lot) of power they can wield. Male bisexuality/homosexuality threatens the idea of exchanging intimacy for security ...especially, but not exclusively, amongst the bible thumping conservative types who just want to stay home, have babies, and play house. It also threatens those simple minded males that need to have a helpless creature dependent on them to fell like a man. If a book was written that said males should work 7 days a week and give females 100% of their income so they could shop all day long, the same simple minded individuals would call that a bible. - Think about it, the average american female is driven by two things: 1) financial security 2) and attention. - How does she get it and who does she expect to give it to her? Males...she wants males to take care of her and males to notice her, not because she's done something special, but simply because she exists - How does she get and keep a male? By using some combination of sex, babies, or marriage. If more males not only open their eyes to other outlets for sex, but actually act upon them....ie, bisexual or homosexual activities, then most females go from having some power over a male to practically no power. (When was the last time you came across a guy, his ad, his profile, whatever...on any site where a guy wanted to be paid just for human contact with another? It doesn't happen...read any female profile on any site and you wonder if you've stumbled across an advertisement for a prostitute...I'm just saying) Males would have almost zero incentive to lay with a female for anything other than procreation. Why do you think there are laws on the books that say once you've married a female, you're financially obligated to take care of her until the next smuck comes along? Again, my $.02, but while there are some females out there who actually work very hard and contribute, IMHO, you're average female just wants to hitch on to a male who works hard and is obligated to take care of her. Let the flame wars begin...:afro: PS: If you're only reason to write is to whine that I have issues with women, don't bother. I don't, I just define them differently. You're born a male/female, what you do with your life is what determines if you become a man or woman.
It's very easy to explain: If she can't have the dick (for whatever reason) then nobody else can. Not some other chick and, god forbid, not some cocksucking faggot who is ten years younger than her and looks better. Sorry for the rant .... just that sometimes I can't believe all this shit.
I used to live in a country that drafted men into a year worth of military service in the times of peace. Sure, quite a few people started opposing this. The proponents of draft quickly polled the general population, and discovered that the majority of women were in favor of the draft. Sure, it did not affect them, their lives, their incomes, their careers in any detrimental way. So, the majority of perfectly unaffected citizens were for it. (Add all the conservative senior citizens to the bunch, too.) Similar logic or rather the lack thereof, applies here, too. A group of people claim a certain right for themselves, and denies the very same right to the others based on ideological grounds. I agree with KinkBorg here. As soon as someone comes up wishing to tell the others what to do and what not to do, and how to live their lives, the issue of self-interest pops up. Stigmatizing male homosexuality only makes sense if you are going to benefit from such a stigma. Otherwise, why would you care what other people do in their bedrooms? Why would that be their business? We sure live in a very material(istic) world. The courting and dating games of the heterosexual couples carry a heavy price tag on them in many cases. We are talking serious time, money, and possibly, a disappointing outcome. This produces a climate of situational homosexuality for many young men, limited in their resources. From this point of view, I am very grateful to all the female harpies out there... KD
