FSTDT

5 REASONS WHY BISEXUALS CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY
[…]
Anton Hagen is a multilingual writer from the UK whose joys and woes living in different parts of Europe inspired him to contribute philosophical pieces to the manosphere, with the odd caustic joke.

The topic of bisexuality keeps cropping up time and time again. It’s constantly rammed down our throats: taking the form of either vacuous gossip about the “bi-curious” escapades of an acquaintance or vapid celebrity, or the even more tiresome bilge concerning “biphobia” and bigotry.

In this article, we shall examine how refusing to take bisexuals seriously is a perfectly rational point of view to hold, after having examined certain aspects of this phenomenon in closer detail.

1. The Ludicrous myth of “Biphobia”
[“Dancing with the Stars” Logo]

In the 21st Century, it is becoming increasingly more and more laughable to suggest that homophobia is rampant, when all television, entertainment and culture seem to be catered towards the tastes of gay men: just looking through a TV guide or turning on the radio confirms this assertion.

Yet it is even more ridiculous to suggest that we live in a culture of “biphobia.” There has been extremely little evidence in history which suggests that bisexuals have been more severely treated than homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Despite this fact, “biphobia” has become an accepted term. Furthermore, it is used incorrectly to describe anyone who questions bisexuality in any shape or form, as opposed to denote those who genuinely loathe and despise bisexuals (of whom there are very few).

By classing the opinions of those with whom they disagree as an irrational “phobia,” LGBT activists are able to shun counter-arguments as being inherently flawed and diseased, without having to tackle the assertion with reason and evidence. This tactic is a favorite among leftists (e.g. transphobia, homophobia, etc.)

[Picture of a hippie-looking woman.
Transcript: Your Rights End where my feelings begin.]

[…]
The term “biphobia” has just become a means of suppressing reasoned arguments and healthy skepticism by portraying their opponents as being mentally deranged. It could not be more typical of the totalitarian progressive movement.

There is no such thing as biphobia: there are only those who do not wholeheartedly embrace bisexuals and shower them in praise and compliments for being so open-minded and adventurous; there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

2. They’re trend-followers
[Picture of 2 female celebrities kissing]
Far from being a minority of poor, oppressed, counter-cultural victims, bisexuals are extolled and exalted in modern culture. From Madonna and Britney Spears’ kiss at that god awful music show all the way up to the Mozart and Beethoven of our age (Lady Gaga and Katy Perry), bisexual behavior is portrayed as “cool” and fashionable.

Impressionable youths therefore gravitate to such behavior because it gives them a sense of identity and excitement. They engage in bisexuality as an expression of faux-individualism, in an attempt to distance themselves from what they believe to be the bigoted, narrow-minded majority.

They are of course, all completely deluded. They think they’re unique, yet all they are doing is following a trend which has been concocted for them by MTV and record companies. Bisexuality has simply become a fashion statement, and very little more.

3. They’re promiscuous
In Tuthmosis’ famous article, he lists claiming to be bisexual as a major slut tell. This could not be more true. Many of the other signs mentioned in that article stem from an adolescent, pseudo-rebellious attitude (e.g. tattoos, piercings, swearing, drugs etc.)

Bisexuality is simply another form of immature revolt: by challenging the supposed “heteronormative” culture, they are trying to affirm themselves as individualistic, exciting people. This childish attitude manifests itself in bisexuality, promiscuity, and self-destructive behavior.

Very often, youths do not have any major achievements or unique personality on which to define themselves; they therefore jump at any opportunity to stand out from the crowd. Unfortunately, the “sex-positive” bisexual culture of today just happens to be the means to that end.

4. Bisexuals cannot form long-term relationships
The rebellious, childish youths described above are not fit for long-term relationships. It is impossible to be bisexual and maintain a monogamous commitment: one half of one’s sexuality must be renounced before entering into a relationship with a single person. Unfortunately the bisexuals will argue that they have the right to “be who they want to be” and claim “I am what I am.”

Monogamous relationships are based on self-restraint, compromise, and mutual understanding. Someone who continues to assert that they wish to sleep with members of both sexes whilst in a long-term relationship simply lacks the above virtues and has no empathy for their partner’s feelings, only caring for themselves and their carnal desires.

Were someone to vow full commitment to a single partner, they would obviously have to abandon any desire for someone of a different sex to their partner. This is a perfectly moral and reasonable expectation. Bisexuality is usually confined to the pre-adult phase of sleeping around and experimentation. It is therefore very difficult to view it something mature and worthy of anything other than condescension.

5. Evidence suggests it doesn’t even exist
Having said all the above, there is still reasonable scientific doubt as to the actual existence of bisexuality. A recent study investigating this naturally attracted a lot of negative attention from the liberal media powerhouse. In this study, it was determined that thirty males who identified themselves as bisexual were indistinguishable from homosexuals in their hormonal responses to pornography. The study can be read online here.

Dr. Michael Bailey, one of the conductors of the study, noted: “I’m not denying that bisexual behavior exists, but I am saying that in men there’s no hint that true bisexual arousal exists, and that for men arousal is orientation.”

Skepticism over the existence of bisexuality continues to this day. We still cannot determine at this stage whether it categorically exists or doesn’t, but it is downright foolish and disrespectful to label those who question it as having a “phobia” or being “bigoted.” The burden of proof remains on those who argue for its existence, rather than those who claim its absence.

Conclusion
It is not irrational or incorrect to hold a healthy, skeptical attitude towards bisexuality. Furthermore, those who doubt it should not be classed as intolerant or bigoted. Upon closer examination of the matter, it appears to be linked to juvenile irresponsibility and typically millennial, liberal attitudes towards sex, relationships, and politics. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to cast doubt upon it.

Undoubtedly, the leftists will jeer, howl and screech their vitriol against such an objective examination of their degenerate habits. Questionable behavior such as bisexuality should be repudiated if we are to gain a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world around us as a whole.

AN IDIOT’S GUIDE TO NEW WESTERN SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS
…
Arson Greyer
Arson is an anti-SJW crusader and critic of sexual marketplace deregulation who has gotten filthy rich from the non-existent gender pay gap. He enjoys spending as much time as possible outside of America in places where short-haired women are viewed as social outcasts rather than strong and independent.
…
Up until a couple of years ago, my basic understanding of human sexuality was roughly as follows: there are men, and there are women. A person’s sexual orientation could be defined as one of heterosexual (being sexually attracted to the opposite gender), homosexual (being sexually attracted to others of the same gender) or bisexual (being sexually attracted to both genders).

Recently, however, I’ve been coming across a plethora of new terms in mainstream cultural commentary that purportedly seek to describe other sexual orientations. I quickly found myself coming across such terms as “pan,” “demi,” and even “homoflexible,” wondering what the hell they all mean.

Even the dating app OKCupid has recently broadened the options on gender and sexuality its users can display in their profiles. What was LGBT has now expanded even further, with seemingly new sexual orientations materializing out of thin air on the regular. I’ve written the following “Idiot’s Guide” to help my fellow men avoid the same confusion I’ve suffered in making sense of this new alphabet soup of sexual orientations.

But first, a disclaimer:

You’ll notice that I’ve titled the article as a guide to new “western” sexual orientations. That’s because one would be incredibly hard pressed to find terms like “asexual” or “sapiosexual” being used in any non-western context. In fact, I can’t recall ever even seeing one instance of a woman on a Russian, Ukrainian, Asian or Latin American dating site ever mentioning she identified with one of these new-age, alternate sexual orientations.

Interestingly, the usage of these new sexual orientation terms seems to be primarily restricted to the discourse of two basic areas of the internet:

1. Articles by SJWs and feminists on known manosphere-hating sites (e.g. Jezebel).

2. The social media and dating profiles of young middle and upper-middle class white women.

The definitions and examples I’ll provide below are more relevant to understanding these terms as used in area “b,” but nonetheless will provide clarity in other contexts also. Okay, let’s begin:

1. Pansexual
Definition: sexual attraction to all sexes and gender identities.

Famous Alleged Pansexuals: Madonna, Lady Gaga.

More Accurate Description: Bisexual. Proponents of pansexuality claim that it differs from bisexuality in that it is gender blind, so allegedly pansexuals wouldn’t know a cock from a vagina if it slapped them in the face. The queer “movement,” however, claims both pansexuality and bisexuality can mean attraction to not just the male and female gender, but any gender (whatever those others are). So, they’re essentially the same.

…
4. Demisexual
Definition: sexual attraction to another person contingent upon deep emotional and romantic connection.

More Accurate Description: Women who are approaching the end of easy riding on the cock carousel and desperately want to lock down a good man before the wall or have the “baby rabies.”

With these in mind, a demisexual woman has resolved to restrict future access to her worn-out pussy to only those who want a deep, romantic connection (read: beta-provider LTR) with her. This is, of course, until she meets the next alpha who suits her fancy and is good for a quick one-nighter.

5. Asexual
Definition: is not sexually attracted to anyone; doesn’t have sexual feelings.

More Accurate Description: A woman who has allegedly never experienced sexual feelings yet signed up for a dating site and posted several extremely slutty, suggestive photos under the guise of “trying this out” or “just to make new friends”.

All indications indicate this woman has had multiple previous sexual encounters (including gangbangs), but is using the “asexual” label to discourage messages from thirsty betas who will pass over her profile because “she’s asexual”.

Conclusion
What’s common among each of these supposed new sexual orientations is that we already have a term that has long-described almost exactly the same kind of sexual attraction. This raises an important question: why are people classifying their sexual orientation under new, buzzword banners when there’s already a well-understood term that describes it precisely?

The answer lies in the attention-whoring tendencies of the two groups – a and b – that use these terms the most. To be merely bisexual isn’t counter-mainstream enough anymore and calling oneself that doesn’t get the same kind of attention it once did, when few people identified as this. Therefore, to feed the egos of members of these two groups, new terms for already-existing sexual orientations had to be conjured up to maintain a fresh supply of new attention and coverage.

They’re new labels for the same sort of old sexual behaviour. The next time you see an American woman who is calling herself sapiosexual, heteroflexible, or whatever new term is invented next month to describe long-standing sexual behavior, the most prudent option is to ignore it completely, as a shit test, and game on as you usually would.

These new sexual orientations are, for the most part, nothing more than a cry for attention. They win if we if give it to them.