SBJB

^Posted in another thread

Oh now you're really cooking on gas. Diagnosing me with a personality disorder, and you did it in such a sensitive and none-public manner too. Bless your cotton socks. It's a good job I'm not the sensitive type, which would of course match me to one of the common traits of a narcacist, if I were one that is. It's actually pretty funny, and I guess we could say quite offensive in its intention, even if I didn't take it that way. 

Now I don't know you well enough. So I couldn't possibly accuse you of Psychologically Projecting your own Narcasism onto me. But I wouldn't rule it out. No, I wouldn't rule it out. I certainly wouldn't accuse you of it though. Still, each to their own.

I'd love some quotes of mine that actually demonstrate narcissism. I don't think you'll find any. It really is quite ridiculous. There's many offensive things I would have expected to hear before that.

Perhaps it's a case of hating what you don't understand and desperately trying to give it a bad lable?

Of course, what I'd really love is for you to actually answer the questions I ask you on the various active theads. Just as I answer yours. You could backup your arguments then. However if you don't have the answers, that's honestly fine. None of us have all the answers, but just say. 

Now we're all equal and we all share a passion for sagging. Why don't we get back to the original conversations, and forget about our personal disagreements?  🙂

Just now, tomass said:

What difference does my opinion matter, or anyones, when all you are going to do is shoot it down anyway.

Shoot it down? It's a discussion bro. There is no shooting it down as long as we can all contribute, which we can. Please share, after all you are an adored and respected member tomass. 

2 minutes ago, tomass said:

SBJB always has to state his opinion on everything and he thinks his opinion is always right. If its not, then he will continue to fight and argue about it. The world doesnt revolve around you SBJB.

Yes, that is called freedom of expression, my friend. People fought and died for it, so it must have meant something for them to want to have it so bad.

Everyone always thinks they are right, unless they allow themselves to be proven otherwise. If you have a differing opinion, please do share. I'm always open-minded and ready to challenge what I know.

It doesn't revolve around me, until you make it all about me as apposed to discussing the subject in-hand. This is what you've just done.

So back on subject, please do share... want to add your opinion on hairy bodies, bisexuality, or maybe you have some top tips on waxing?

13 minutes ago, Admiralolsen said:

Let’s start here @SBJB. 

First, This was Vikkin’s original post and his first comment.  

“PS.: If you comment please write down your sexuality, because I'm interested if there's a difference between gays and bis in this matter.” 

I do not see anything that states Vikkin wants to know neither what bisexuality is not do I see anything in the first part of Vikkin’s query that would require this comment in any way:

“There's no such thing as Bisexual, people confuse the romantic attractions they have for women as sexual attractions. They are not the same thing. So there can be no difference in what people prefer hair-wise.”

Second, this is what Vikkin responded with when he posted again:

”I'm just simply interested the opinion of people here, and somewhat was interested if we can see a difference of the preference of gays and bis.”

I have read this statement several times and in no way, shape, or form that this comment listed below even is part of the actual conversation that Vikkin was stating.  

“There's no such thing as Bisexual, people confuse the romantic attractions they have for women as sexual attractions. They are not the same thing. So there can be no difference in what people prefer hair-wise.”

Vikkin didn’t not ask for your opinion on what bisexual means nor did he inquire as to the true meaning, your meaning, that you have so inappropriately interjected into the conversation.  He simply wanted to see if bisexual people had a different preference for hair over gay people.  Next time, read the full question and keep unnecessary comments or interjections to yourself and stick to the main topic at hand next time.  

Respectfully, Admiral_olsen

hittingmyheadagainstthewall.jpg

As you can see, I did from the start offer my opinion on hair. I didn't mention bisexuals. But the OP responded with a follow-up question, this is when I stated my belief on bisexuality.

I understand why you feel I have taken the subject off track. This isn't actually the case. If you can imagine for a minute that bisexuality doesn't exist, and that all bisexuals are actually just gay. I know you don't think that, but from my point of view that's what I see. So when someone wants to compare one group to another, but I feel both groups are the same thing, I can't really just pretend can I? If you were playing a card game and you had to guess which hand held the 10 of Diamonds, you'd guess. But if you knew the deck was fixed and there is no 10 of Diamonds, you're not just going to go along with it are you?

The fact that the OP has a very specific interest in differences between gays and bisexuals, does by its very nature require me to offer my opinion that there is no difference between them, as that is what I believe. Of course there is a difference, as I mentioned above, but not the one the OP is thinking of. If you worked in an Apple store and a customer said they wanted an iPhone 10 but it must be a black one because they have a better battery life, you wouldn't just nod your head and get him a black one, you'd say; well okay sir, but there is no difference in colour for battery life, would you still like a black one? So when I see someone posting something on the basis that there is a difference between gays and bisexuals, other than one group just being more aware of themselves than the other, I'm going to point out the difference.

Note: There is no such thing as 'inappropriate'. It's a word people use to control and suppress other people.

What do you mean by next time keep comments etc to myself? Do I have a position to tell you what to do, or is it just yourself that has moral authority? I'd rather not be told what to post tbh, that way we can all express ourselves, you know?

Another point: (and I'm not trying to be facetious) you're question above to Dillon is also going away from the original subject, but I'm okay with it, because this is how conversations work.

Brownies

Letters or numbers

2 minutes ago, Admiralolsen said:

Yeh @SBJB, I’m still unclear about what left field that “no such thing as bisexual” comment came out of.  There is no preface and it’s mostly and unfounded argument in your comment.  You simply make a statement without anything to back up your argument or to relate that argument to.  To me, the “no such thing” comment is as if you were stating that bisexuality is a myth and doesn’t exist.  You then back up your argument with an incomplete and unreasoned argument.  Also, @Vikkin was simply stating that on many occasions (as I know many Bisexual people) that there are some obvious, and less obvious, differences in likes and dislikes between those people who identify as gat and those who identify as bisexual.  Your “no such” comment is totally unrelated to the comment made by Vikkin in his post about the differences. 

As for Your comment @Vikkin, if you have 5at much body or facial hair, more often than not, most barber shops, or salons, will be able to shave your hair at a much faster, and more efficient rate, than what you could do at home.  Now, if you are turned off by your own body hair and others, then you can always look into laser hair removal which is very effective and relatively pain free.  I would cut down on your personal grooming time and  save yourself a lot of money in the process.  But, that is only what I would do if I were in your position.  Since I have very slow growing body and facial hair, I don’t have to shave or from very often and I enjoy getting a haircut as a fresh haircut makes you look fresh and handsome. 

As I tried, and evidently failed to clear up above; the OP wants to know the differences between what gay and bisexual guys like, hair-wise. It's an unusual question, in that it wouldn't make any difference to most people what someone prefers, regardless of their sexuality. So why is the OP asking? The only relevance would usually be what they prefer in a man vs a woman. I can't understand where the OP is coming from, or what he's really trying to find out, this is evident thus far as he isn't being very clear (no offence OP).

Furthermore, it's my belief that there is no such thing as bisexual. So if OP wants to gleam something from the fact that one group may prefer something more than another do, then he would be basing it on a trend in sexuality as apposed to a trend on where people are regarding how self-aware they are with their sexuality. It's like me researching if a store has more elderly people vs younger people shopping there, but I only conduct research on a Friday morning when all the young people are potentially at work. The results would be inaccurate.

I can absolutely back-up my argument. But I was asked a question with not a lot to go on, and I prefer to avoid it looking like I'm attacking the site admin. I was also reluctant to jump straight into giving any answers, people learn far more about themselves when they are asked questions and allowed to find out on their own. Separate to all of that, what planet do you actually live on for you to think that I would actually need to give any evidence whatsoever that there is no such thing as bisexuality? I say this because, NO ONE HAS ANY EVIDENCE THAT IT DOES EXIST. But typically, because it's a main-stream way of thinking, anyone that challenges it must prove why, apparently. Isn't this how it went down when someone first suggested the world wasn't flat?

Even if I have gone way off subject by talking about bisexuals (hopefully I've explained clearly enough that I haven't, with it being mentioned in the first post of the OP). But even if I have, why would it bother you so much? Does someone going off-topic spark something that big inside of you? Or is it more to do with the subject of 'does bisexuality exist' threatening you somehow?

Peace and love

Car

Teddy bears or Marshmallows 

3 minutes ago, TheOther1 said:

@SBJBnot sure where the bisexual remark came from but hu?

If I can be sexually and romantically attracted to guys and girls (I am) , if bisexual isn't a thing. What is it then lol? 

The bisexual remark was in response to the OP question; is there a difference between what gays and bis like?

It depends on what you see the difference as being between those two types of attractions, or if you see one at all? What if there were no name for bisexual, what then? What if there were no name for Santa? What if law-enforcement officers were called either police or pigs, but terrorists were only ever called terrorists? Anything with a name must exist, and anything without a name can not exist. How can we talk about something that has no name and vice versa?

6 hours ago, Vikkin said:

Choping it off would take hours that's my problem, otherwise I would have done it long ago. I'm just simply interested the opinion of people here, and somewhat was interested if we can see a difference of the preference of gays and bis.

So you won't spend 'hours' to do something that will stop you from feeling ashamed of yourself? Do you refuse to spend an hour getting your hair cut too? Refuse to shower? Refuse to eat? Where do you draw the line?

The opinion of people here won't differ much from out there. Only that there may be a few that have a thing for hair, when they really just have low self-esteem and choose to pick which lesser desirable qualities they will settle for in a person. Although perhaps not always.

There's no such thing as Bisexual, people confuse the romantic attractions they have for women as sexual attractions. They are not the same thing. So there can be no difference in what people prefer hair-wise.

What's with American's saying 'no homo' all the time? Are they doing it because they're actually worried someone is about to call the gay for something they just said, or is it just like throwing out a random communal catch-phrase like 'yes g', 'what's good', 'put it there bru', 'god bless', 'laters', etc?

19:30 is not there. Sinner!

3 hours ago, Vikkin said:

My question is to everyone who is into guys, but mainly guys who are strictly homosexual (if neither of this fits you but you want to share, do so).

So I'm 18, a twink, but somewhat hairy. My problem is that I'm really really annoyed by body hair, I don't have any problems with those who are very hairy or into hairy guys it's just a huge turn off for me. I don't find guys with hair sexually attractive and neither I like that I have body hair. Originally humans had much more hair because that kept our body warm and protected from mechanical impacts however to this day both of this are done by clothing. I can say I'm somewhat ashamed by my body hair (because I hate it so so much). I'm interested in anyone's opinion but as I'm gay I would be most interested in other gays' opinions. Do you like yourself and others hairy or not and anything which you wanna ad.

PS.: If you comment please write down your sexuality, because I'm interested if there's a difference between gays and bis in this matter. 

So chop it all off then? Or do you have a confidence issue with changing your appearance in this way, even though it's what you want?

I'm a little confused tbh. Your question is redundant; you must be aware that most men and women today prefer themselves and their attraction relatively hairless? Or are you asking why men and women today prefer to look like they did before they had pubic hair? I've read your post 5 times, and I can't see what you're getting at?

1 hour ago, Admiralolsen said:

I am 24 yeas old and I can’t tell when someone is straight or gay and it’s hell.  And after really thinking about it, this would be helpful for me to get a date and for those who cannot figure things like this out.  I can look at any guy or girl and and unless they make their sexuality obvious, by action or display, then I would never be able to tell.  And because of that, displays of affection and emotions are a total mystery to me in general. 

I can relate to that a lot. My gaydar used to be **** too, ****! So I asked myself; why couldn't I see what others could? Then the more I learnt about me, the more I learnt about others. 

48 minutes ago, TheOther1 said:

You really like to dig into things like this lol 

I guess though a lot of people do look gay or sound gay. Though a lot don't. So I can't see how this would work.. If I get time tomorrow will read the article. 

 

Thanks, and that's interesting. Because a young child can't determine if someone is gay, but an adult can. So when an adult says that some gay guys are obviously gay (camp), and some aren't clear to see. Perhaps this is because a higher level of observation is needed, one that can determine if all men are gay or not? Some people have a good gaydar, and other's not. Maybe there are always signs if you know what to look for?

Of course science doesn't understand sexuality. As I said above, it's trying to understand something that it thinks needs to be understood. We are born understanding it, it's only when society's warped views get in the way, combined with our unresolved emotional issues, social acceptance etc, that we end up so confused. How do we understand heterosexuality but not others? We are missing the obvious, the simple obvious.

And even if we didn't understand it, how would that stop us from being able to identify if someone is gay? We don't understand what causes some illnesses, but we can still access a patient and diagnos them with it. 

Indeed I shared the same thoughts regarding them only testing openly gay men. But doesn't that just bring us back to my belief that there are far more homosexuals than we realise? 

The issue isn't really about whether or not you can determine someone's sexuality by looking at their face. It's about your fear of other's knowing your sexuality, and also your fear of you knowing their sexuality. Have you ever questioned yourself about your parent's sexuality? Does it make you feel uncomfortable? Make you feel unstable? Why is that?

I think we can very easily understood sexuality. If we understand that the way we currently view sexuality is setup so that we view all sexual expression as a sin. In other words, if you forget what you know, what you've been taught, take the emotion out of it, it is pretty clear to see. 

We don't have the evidence? The article has just given you the evidence. What evidence do you have to dispute it? Apart from stating that you don't understand it.

The face has connection with gender, you'd have to agree with that. We know that women's voices soften when they give birth, so they can speak in a more nurturing tone of voice. Is this why homosexuals have effeminate voices?

With respect, don't be afraid to read something if you're scared it might be true. The story they've made, ie 'is it right or wrong to look this closely at people', may be rubbish. As apposed to just sharing news of the new technology. As such, it's clearly not rubbish. There are many things about our physical makeup that giveaway things about us. When they say 'don't judge a book by its cover', that's not true. You can absolutely learn things about a person. Why would nature want our sexual orientation to be secret? 

Why do people actually think this is a prank? I wouldn't mind if he said at the end that it was just a skit, but he doesn't, so it's dishonest. 

The whole basis for the video is to poke fun at sagging. The sagger makes weak arguments to make himself look stupid. 

It's also portrays the idea of him lowering the other guy's pants as out of order. But the other guy is apparently within his rights to adjust the sagger's pants?

They'd probably like to F**** eachother, if they're honest enough to admit it. 

Whilst it would be invasive to begin with, we don't actually need our orientation to be so personal. We are in fact already assuming that everyone is straight. So for those who are, they are having the personal orientation made public anyway. For those aren't straight but are assumed to be, they of course have even bigger problems. 

At current people with a minority sexual preference, eg homosexuals, are subject to discrimination if they come out as gay, or living a suppressed life if they can't come out as gay. 

Given that most countries have now decriminalised homosexuality and made laws for discriminating against it. Having everyone being seen as gay if they are, just as black people are seen as black, would stop people form having to come out as gay. Those who don't come out, usually down to on their personality style making them more conformative and less definitive, would benefit from being free. 

But most of all, there really are far more homosexuals than people relalise. So most remaining homophobia would be quashed at the point people realise there is usually about one gay person in every family.

It's really important to relalise that society is pretty tolerant today. But that tolerance extends only to people that have come out as gay. At no point does anyone ask the question; are there people out there living in prison?

People see LGBT as a drive for equality such as the right to get married etc. But what about the homosexuals living a lie? Is the biggest issue for a gay person really going to be that they had to wait to get married because it was not allowed 10 years ago? Or is it that it took them years to come out, the hardest thing they'd ever done, fear of rejection from their family and friends, that to some extent is always true. Years of adolescents wasted whilst they had to date the opposite sex, secretly longing for something everyone around them hated.

Why is coming out celebrated as if the the person has only just become gay at the point they came out? If someone comes out, a person should say holy F****, you had been having to live a lie for all this time? And I'd always assumed you were straight, making it so much more difficult for you.

LGBT should be about equality AND irradiating suppression.

Computer algorithms can analyse a person's face and detect if they are gay or straight. With 90% accuracy. 

Are you for or against such technology?

Imagine if no one had to live a lie or come out as gay, because everyone already knew what everyone was.

Perhaps other groups that have been subject to discrimination and oppression are fortunate in that way. Obvious to see if someone is a women or a black person. I don't believe society realises just how many homosexuals there actualy are. In the long run, this would almost irradiate 90% of issues regarding homosexuality. A bit like removing a band-aid. 

Should we roll out this software everywhere, for all to use?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/07/new-artificial-intelligence-can-tell-whether-youre-gay-or-straight-from-a-photograph

Pain from being fucked up the ass?

That's great, thanks for sharing. It's actually crazy just how often feminists are left speechless when you throw a few facts at them.

I must share this one too. Super aware guy who is clearly too open-minded to have swallowed any crap from the education system. Teacher gets owned.