Name This Animal

I had no idea there was already a mythical beast named bicorn. My suggestion came from the unicorn being named for its one (uni-) horn, and thus a male unicorn would naturally be a bicorn.

From http://www.yourdictionary.com/bicorn

bi·corn (bī′kôrn′)

adjective

having two horns or hornlike parts
 
After careful examination of the "flow chart" linked to in post 17 [http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5076&postcount=17], I've decided that either (a) the author of that flow chart is decidedly NOT a polyamorist or (b) the author of the flow chart is simply cracking a joke about people who are not polyamorists and yet pretend to be polyamorists.

Actually, the guy who wrote the flowchart is a friend of mine and he is most decidedly poly. He was trying to find a way to illustrate what a lot of single bi girls (many of them partners and/or friends of his) go through when approached by couples with rather unrealistic expectations who are usually new to poly.

So it could be a married woman that is involved with a couple?

sorry for the confusion, but I am just realizing that I might once have been a unicorn if the definition fits for married women.

From what I can gather, the classic unicorn definition is that the girl is single, so that she can be the belong to the seeking couple and no other. Yet another reason the unicorn is so rare.
 
From what I can gather, the classic unicorn definition is that the girl is single, so that she can be the belong to the seeking couple and no other. Yet another reason the unicorn is so rare.

thank you Ceoli!

This has been explained multiple times and people still keep questioning it.

"Unicorn" is NOT the same as the HBB herself. It's the IDEA of what the "couple" or "dyad" is SEEKING. It is a LABEL for a STEREOTYPE.

Stereotypes ARE somewhat based on reality, albeit a sweeping generalization of some aspect of reality. That is why it is POSSIBLE to find a real-life "unicorn". But it is just not PROBABLE because it's an idealization, and real people are not idealizations.
 
Last edited:
I'm just going to take "unicorn" and drop the "o-r-n"...errr wait now...that's probably not going to work :eek:

*Shakes head at Mono and laughs*
 
I've noticed a LOT of male(1) + female(1) couples showing up in this forum, looking for a female "third". In most if not all of these cases, the woman in the couple is bi and the guy is straight. What I'm wondering is... where are the male(1) + female(1) couples where the guy is bi and the gal is straight--and they're looking for another guy? Don't such couples exist? Why have we not seen any of this latter kind and SO much of the former?
 
I've noticed a LOT of male(1) + female(1) couples showing up in this forum, looking for a female "third". In most if not all of these cases, the woman in the couple is bi and the guy is straight. What I'm wondering is... where are the male(1) + female(1) couples where the guy is bi and the gal is straight--and they're looking for another guy? Don't such couples exist? Why have we not seen any of this latter kind and SO much of the former?

I think at least part of it is societal. First, bisexual (or lesbian) women are generally more accepted than bisexual (or gay) men. Second, many straight women would probably not marry a bisexual man due to that very reason. It's a prejudice and a stigma and not right or fair...but there you have it. IMO
 
Do you suppose there are more bi women than bi men? Social acceptance is one matter, demograhphics are another. I just don't get why there are SO many unicorn hunters and so few male+female couples open to a male addition.
 
I know a couple that he is bi and she is straight. They are krishna's (I used to be a krishna). Culturally its acceptable for the men to enjoy themselves together if they are into it in some east Indian cultures. My friend indulges often. True though, not common.
 
.... They are krishna's (I used to be a krishna). Culturally its acceptable for the men to enjoy themselves together if they are into it in some east Indian cultures. My friend indulges often. True though, not common.

"A devotee of Krishna does not try to satisfy his own senses, he tries to satisfy Krishna’s senses. [....] So if we simply satisfy Krishna, the root of the entire creation, then everyone, including ourselves, will be satisfied.

On the other hand, if we try to satisfy ourselves without any connection with Krishna by sex and other things we will never actually be satisfied. This type of sense gratification is like putting fuel into a fire. [....]

Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita that He is sex according to religious principles. So that sex, within marriage for having a nice Krishna conscious child, is very good. But otherwise sex, be it homosexual or hetrosexual is simply meant for the pleasure of the senses of the people involved. It is not being done for the service and pleasure of Krishna. So it is not allowed in Krishna consciousness.

In Krishna consciousness sex is for having nice God conscious children and such sex is Krishna Himself and is very glorious. But other sex is illicit sex and it is prohibited for a devotee."
:mad:

http://krishna.org/our-opinion-on-homosexuality/

"The Homosexual Appetite of a Man for Another Man is Demoniac"
http://krishna.org/the-homosexual-appetite-of-a-man-for-another-man-is-demoniac/


Baby-producing sex, good. Not baby-making sex, bad. -- says Krishna.
 
Last edited:
Almost all religions are alike in their embrace of heterosexuality, baby-making, monogamy..., and condemnation of all else. So much so that --for this and other reasons-- my basic attitude is to reject formal/organized religion, per se. But "spirituality" is worthy of embrace -- it's always about finding a genuine way from "within" -- one's own inquiry and meditation/prayer/inquiry.... Takes courage!
 
well i'd have to go with Dragon, but that's b'c i love dragons. I am a single bi-man, although i don't know if i'm hot. then again i'm very modest when it comes to my own self image.:eek:
 
On topic

let's get serious about this thread. I want to put Heffalump out there,- I've been meaning to...
 
I think at least part of it is societal. First, bisexual (or lesbian) women are generally more accepted than bisexual (or gay) men. Second, many straight women would probably not marry a bisexual man due to that very reason. It's a prejudice and a stigma and not right or fair...but there you have it. IMO

When I was married, my wife (who was staight but bi-curious) was excited by the though of two woman but completely turned off by the thought of me with a man.
 
When I was married, my wife (who was staight but bi-curious) was excited by the though of two woman but completely turned off by the thought of me with a man.

This is remarkably common. Men and women both are, on average, much less turned off (and often turned on) by a couple of women having sex / making love than a couple of men.

Related to this fact, I think, is that men/guys have generally been thought to "lose their masculinity" when they engage in same-sex love and passion. Yet this isn't supposed to occur with women, who, if anything, become even more feminine when engaging with other women in this way.

A man is only a "real man" if he's heterosexual, apparently (in popular culture).

I'm not sure why this is. Is it about war, warriors, warfare, somehow? You can't have any pansies on the battlefield? :confused:
 
let's get serious about this thread.

I like that idea! I think maybe we should hold an election. www.polyamory.com has polling software, as I recall. I'll have to look into it. Would anyone here like to design an election process? Maybe we should run it like a US presidential erection... um..., election? (Sorry, Freudian slip!) You know, a primary and then a general election? People could then advocate for their favorite candidate, argue against certain candidates..., and in the end we should have made a good decision. We'd have to set election dates, and put word out in the larger poly online community. This would also promote our www.polyamory.com to the wider world.

Who has some volunteer time to offer to the cause?

I want to put Heffalump out there,- I've been meaning to...

I'll compose a list of all proposed candidates, thus far.
 
Last edited:
Most societies are patriarchal. Men (you know REAL men-the hetero, hunting, red meat eating, smoking, drinking, cowboy-soldiers :rolleyes: ) enjoy seeing two women have sex. I think many also feel these women just need a REAL man. Look at mainstream porn. The lesbian or bi women are forever into rough and kinky and using phallic toys in every orifice. And then in comes the man they both "crave" so much. So two women=sexy is shoved down our throats. Gay or bi men are often portrayed as feminine, "swishy", less manly. And bisexual male+straight female porn is not nearly as mainstream. Women are taught to want a "manly man", not a feminine one. So, I think, women are far less likely to be attracted to a bi man and form a relationship then men are to be attracted to a bi woman.

For my part, yes, two men turn me off. It doesn't disgust me to think about. I'm not offended that it happens. I don't care what my friends of any sexuality do behind their bedroom door nor talk to me about. But I don't want to watch it. It just isn't as aesthetically pleasing to me as two women or a man and a woman. But then, I've never felt the male body was as aesthetically pleasing as the female anyway. Those odd hanging things. How does one walk with those? :p
 
Back
Top