I didn't mean to imply that "y'all" are not monogamous, sorry if it came off that way. That ain't the topic at all and wasn't my concern. Faith and fidelity aren't based on sexual preference. As for "foot in mouth", rest assured that from me you'll get just frank open questions that might expose some ignorance about topics, but never judgement or condemnation.
Speaking strictly for myself, I meant I'd be concerned if someone finds things appealing from men and women, then what about those things I can't provide? It's one thing, for example, for me to deal with my wife as I get older, things start drooping or greying, perhaps we're in a rough spot where the passion's dying down. Maybe in some marriages you worry that another man will catch that person's eye. But at least if it's another man I know what to expect, what to fight, what to compete against. What if my partner really finds women appealing and quite simply is just missing something I can't provide? Then what? Is it reasonable to assume that if someone finds women strongly attactive, that person will be happy getting only what I as a man can give for perhaps 50 - 60 years? (I am a strong believer in lifelong marriage for those who desire it). Again, not to judge, but to ask: isn't that asking that person to deny a real part of his or her desires for a lifetime? For example, I tend to like old-school curvacious women. I'm fortunate to be married to one, but if my wife had been taller and thinner, or shorter and heavier, I'd still have loved her because she's a great lady, and there's sexiness in all body types. So, I may not have gotten the perfect form for me, but at least it's still in the same range. I wouldn't spend the rest of my life saying "man, I got this skinny woman and I really need me a Coke-bottle body!" But if I desired something from men, there'd be nothing my wife had that could fill that need. In such a case, can a person be satisfied with effectively half the equation for decades on end? Hope the foot didn't get implanted in mouth on this! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrianne Brennan" <adrianne.bren...@gmail.com> To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 2, 2010 5:47:15 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] "True Blood" Star Pacquin Comes Out on Video Just because you're bisexual doesn't mean you're not monogamous. We're not going to cheat any more than a straight person would cheat with everyone of the opposite gender. Please note that "we" before you reply. There's a foot about to go into that mouth, and I'd like to catch it. ;) ~ "Where love and magic meet" ~ http://www.adriannebrennan.com Experience the magic of the Dark Moon series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#darkmoon Dare to take The Oath in this erotic fantasy series: http://www.adriannebrennan.com/books.html#the_oath The future of psychic sex - Dawn of the Seraphs (m/m): http://www.adriannebrennan.com/dawnoftheseraphs.html On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Keith Johnson < keithbjohn...@comcast.net > wrote: Sorry, not mine. I've never understood why anyone would want to be with someone who's not totally "committed". It's hard enough to have to keep tabs on an attractive, famous person being faithful to you on one side of the fence. I wouldn't want to be worried about someone being attracted to both sides.
