is it weird to be sexually attracted to men and women, but not want to be sexually attracted to men. i'm not emotionally just sexually. what does that mean?

 

It means you're very confused. Would you like to try restating your question so that it makes sense?

 

If i understand what you are trying to say, you are repressing your feelings of being sexually attracted to men, even though you are. I think that you should figure out who you don't want to be sexually attracted to men.
In short, you're sexually confused.

 

It's not weird to have sexual attractions to both sexes. it's perfectly normal. I'm bi so I see nothing wrong with it.lol

 

Yeah.

I think you're somehow under the impression that same-sex tendencies would be bad. Like, society, your family and friends, and others would look at you in a different way that you wouldn't really like. You're honest enough with yourself that you can allow yourself to be attracted to men sexually, but aren't allowing yourself to become emotionally attracted.

I think it's pretty normal to keep open sexuality a secret.

(This post assumes you're a man.)

 

No

It's a shame to resist your feelings. I can only be romantically attracted to women but I love sharing a hard cock with my lady.

 

For what it may be worth to you to think about:

By most accounts the old Romans, during time of empire, and perhaps mainly influenced by the ancient Greeks before them, appear to have had, what today would seem to be a very modern, progressive outlook on such matters.

What we think of today, (post Christian religious domination of the west, puritanical subjugation and Victorian times etc.) as bi-sexuality was very common in those days.

From what I understand, what mattered was to be "beautiful" in Roman society.

This Roman sense of beauty however, seems to have applied ambidextrously, between both males AND females alike.

Roman baths were places both sexes communed and appreciated one another, being physically attractive was considered beautiful despite ones own gender. This appears to be a time, pre-renaissance, which already had ideals of physical attractiveness well established by the way.

There are numerous accounts of men having sex together if they found each other "physically" attractive.

However, I suspect from what I have read etc., it wasn't the other persons "manliness" OR lack thereof, that was the key attractive component, and permitted men who would never have been considered 'gay' 'quere' or what have you, to engage in homosexual sex quite openly at orgies and so on without disdain.

I imagine the other guests would not have been at all surprised or disapproving, unless they personally didn't agree with the choice of partner based on their OWN perception of attractiveness.

(Like a woman or so thinking: Ooher..how could he wanna fuck that guy? look at that soggy ass! he's not very good looking. )

From what I think I understand you have said about you're feelings. And by the Romans historical sexual benchmark, I would speculate you're not weird at all by their, only recently, more accepted example, at least amongst many in our own modern, progressive societies today.

 

thank you fanfiction, u r totally right!!!! for once someone knows that it is ok to be bisexual or have feelings for both sexes as the greeks and romans did. did u kno that in times of war they partnered up with another soldier and slept together? they formed bonds between eachother, which made them fight harder and smarter to protect the person they joined with during war time!



(isnt my major in global interesting and exciting?!)

 

Actually . . . no. You simply can't compare Roman views of sex with modern ones. The considerations involved are completely different.

What was "accepted" was that men have a need to screw. It was acceptable to screw women, girls, and prepubescent and barely pubescent boys. Sexual relationships between adult men could get one or both parties stoned, even during the more licentious periods.

Acceptable partnerships were determined by status. The higher your status the more partners that were available to you. A senator could drag the daughter of a free trademans home, use her for a few months, discard her, and nobody would think much of it. If your status was high enough you could even get away with same-sex adult relationships and beastiality.

Unfortunately, all the records that have passed down to us were written by men, so we don't have any inside looks into how Roman women looked on sex.

 

Those were the days, my friend. We thought they'd never end. We'd fight and never lose, those were the days.

Ah yes, I remember it well.