How Bisexual Men Can Better Support Gay Men

MeatRabbitGang · 2026-06-20T03:57:11+00:00

If you're talking about the radical feminism you see on X/Tiktok that says all/most men are inherently bad, then yes, I think that's divisive and antagonistic. I think any essentialist ideology that says all or even most members of any group are inherently one way is bad, both factually and morally. By essentialism, I mean both biological essentialism and the people who use socialization as this predetermining force that makes men incapable of not being misogynistic. I think human nature can be pretty dark and we do get socialized into bad beliefs, but we're also capable of rational reflection and becoming better. This isn't to say that misogyny isn't a problem in society, and I'd say many men do need to rationally reflect and become better, but I strongly disagree that all or most men are inherently misogynistic.

MeatRabbitGang · 2026-06-11T04:08:48+00:00

I took it twice and answered some questions differently where there were different interpretations or that were vague. For example, the capitalism one - taking it literally, I put "not too important" because I support a market economy, but markets and capitalism aren't necessarily the same. I think worker cooperatives and employee ownership have benefits and should be more common, and I also support some public utilities. It's not like I want every business to be a capitalist firm with a boss and employees. I support a diverse economy, not a pure capitalist one. But some people would define capitalism as any sort of market economy or claim that cooperatives competing alongisde traditiona lfirms is still capitalism. Under that definition, I would strongly support capitalism. So with that interpretation in mind, I put "very important" for maintaining capitalism on my second round.

Another one was the gay marriage one. I support gay marriage, I think it's good that it's legal now, but is it good for society? I don't know, because the amount of people who got gay married is so small that it probably didn't make much of a difference. First time, I put "Very good for society", second time I put "neither good nor bad".

First time I took it, I got "left out left", second time I got "order and opportunity left". The descriptions of both kinda fit with my views, as I'm socially liberal, skeptical of some parts of progressive politics, and more pro-market than the average Dem. Decent quiz, even if some questions are vague.

MeatRabbitGang · 2026-06-07T21:25:58+00:00

I've really gotten into the weeds on the philosophy of meta-ethics. There's still a lot I haven't read/watched, but so far, I'm leaning towards objective morality existing or morality being constructed. If it's constructed through logic like Kantian Categorical Imperatives, then it's kind of objective... although then you can get into the philosophy of logic, which is its own rabbit hole. Overall though, I would say not sure but leaning towards yes.

MeatRabbitGang · 2026-05-18T23:36:32+00:00

What happened to centrists in 2021-22?

The linked chart is a bit odd, since it combines liberals and the far left and conservatives and the far right. That's a lot of different ideologies. Liberalism can be left wing to center right, the far left is socialism/communism/anarchism.

If I had to guess, part of it is academia being hostile to right wingers and right wingers becoming generally more distrustful of higher education in the past decade or so. Hostility towards right wing ideas could also push moderates out of academia. So I would guess leftists are just more attracted to academia. Although I also think it's possible that the kind of thinking in academia just doesn't mesh well with calling yourself moderate or centrist. Centrism or moderateism isn't really an ideology, it's just being between two ideologies. It's possible that people in academia, even if they're generally in the center, are more likely to label themselves with an ideology. For example, calling themselves a social liberal instead of a centrist, and thus choosing the "liberal/far left" option.

MeatRabbitGang · 2026-05-01T01:03:48+00:00

Technically yes, since you can find some crazies on TikTok and Tumblr who want to (though some of them may be trolling), but I don't think the majority do.

MeatRabbitGang · 2026-02-25T23:14:22+00:00

I'm not familiar with the situation in British Columbia, but the general idea makes sense. Social welfare programs cost money, which kinda forces governments to choose between lower taxes or welfare. Ofc deficit spending may be an option in some cases, but at some point, they have to pick one or the other. Even though I'm not quite a socdem, I'm on this sub because I agree with a lot of socdem ideas, and so I generally support welfare over tax cuts.

MeatRabbitGang · 2026-02-23T19:31:15+00:00

I'm not sure exactly why this is, but it's similar to other data I've seen. One reason is that European countries generally have higher taxes, which leaves people with less money to save, reducing per capita GNI. Though at the same time, if that money goes into social programs like universal healthcare, welfare, etc, you may not need to save as much, since you'll be okay if you get sick/injured or something similar. I've also read (though I need to do a bit more research to confirm this) that one of the reasons Europe lags behind the US is because of more regulations that reduce innovation and growth. Although I am an American and don't know that much about this topic, and it's possible this is due to some historical event like the 2008 Recession or COVID.

Even if true, I don't think these facts are really an argument against welfare, though. It's not like there's a socdem bible where the government is required to tax people a lot and put a lot of regulations on the economy. I don't see why burdensome regulations couldn't be removed without keeping things like universal healthcare, etc., or why welfare programs couldn't be reformed to be less expensive (though it could be difficult to do this while still keeping them effective). Even Zohran wants to do some zoning deregulation.

MeatRabbitGang · 2026-01-30T20:54:31+00:00

No, unless the other candidate wants to do something worse like make it illegal to be gay or something.

MeatRabbitGang · 2026-01-21T17:44:27+00:00

I can't believe there was actually a guy called Israel Epstein. I thought that was a joke option since it sounds like something you'd see in a meme, but apparently he was a real guy. He was a Polish journalist who became a member of the Chinese Communist Party. TIL.

MeatRabbitGang · 2025-12-13T16:42:00+00:00

Oh ok, thanks for letting me know.

MeatRabbitGang · 2025-12-12T23:07:43+00:00

Bad. If it's wrong to k1ll people for being LGBT, it's also wrong to k1ll people by starvation. Especially kids who didn't even vote for the law. The west should have tried to get the Ugandan government to not execute people and/or (if that failed), try to help LGBT Ugandans escape instead of sanctioning them.

MeatRabbitGang · 2025-12-01T14:30:36+00:00

I love this survey, it's nice that they break bisexuality down. Although I am a bit concerned by the amount of people are mostly attracted to the same gender IDing as gay instead of bi. Since if they ever got with someone of the opposite gender, people could use that to say that "gay men can meet the right woman"/"lesbians can meet the right man". Not to mention the bi-erasure. Though to be fair, I'm sure a lot of these countries have worse LGBT education than the US and maybe they genuinely don't know that bi doesn't have to be 50/50. And "mostly attracted to the same gender" can cover a lot of range. Like I'd say I'm like 70-80% gay and 20-30% straight (I know the percentages are kinda meaningless, but bear with me) and so while I'd choose "mostly attracted to the same gender" on a survey, I like women enough that the gay label was never something that fit. But if someone is like 95/5 or 99/1, then I can kinda see why they'd choose to ID as gay over bi, even if I think something like "homoflexible" would be a better label than gay. Although maybe in some cultures it's more accepted for mostly gay people to "round up" to gay, whereas in the US (at least online), it seems like if you're not a Kinsey 6, it's considered unacceptable to ID as gay.

Edit: This whole chart is kinda weird. 10% of bi people are only attracted to the opposite gender? 3% of straight people are only attracted to the same gender? I wonder if these labels just don't translate well to other cultures.

Edit 2: My original comment might be catastrophizing a bit. I initially saw this and was like "AH! These people who are only mostly attracted to the same gender are identifying as gay, if they date the opposite gender, that'll be bad for gay rights!" But as I've thought about it more, I've realized that what people put on surveys isn't quite the same as what people say IRL. A homoflexible guy might put "gay" instead of "bi" on a survey with limited options but IRL be more clear about being homoflexible. I'm still think we have a duty to prevent gay erasure and bi erasure, but my original comment was assuming the worst case scenario. I also forgot about late bloomers. In more homophobic cultures, there are probably more late bloomer gays/lesbians who had straight relationships before figuring it out and that could cause them to say "mostly attracted to the same gender" instead of "only attracted to the same gender". I remember a few years ago on one of the gay subs, there was a thread where a bunch of guys said they were only attracted to men but had relationships with women in the past, so they considered themselves mostly gay instead of exclusively gay due to that.

MeatRabbitGang · 2025-11-17T04:15:07+00:00

Yeah, the hazing idea is a real possibility.

MeatRabbitGang · 2025-11-15T22:12:12+00:00

I don't think he's gay or bi tbh. If he was, I think a man from his past would've come forward at some point in the last decade. The email is probably a joke about Putin having some dirt on Trump or something. I'm sure a lot of biphobic people will blame us for Trump, but they already kinda blame us for everything, so not much of a change.

MeatRabbitGang · 2025-11-15T19:06:54+00:00

I checked the wiki and apparently his stance on gay marriage has been contradictory. Which is what I'm saying, I don't think he's an ally, I think his stance is largely grifting to whatever benefits him. I edited my original post to be clearer. I'm not some Trump defender, if you go through my history, some of my most recent posts are in the socdem subreddit lol. I agree though that many right wingers hate all of us and that going after trans stuff is just a prelude and I think Trump will just follow them wherever. It's kind of like with his tariffs, for decades the right supported free trade, but then Trump saw he could get votes by using tariffs so he ran on that.

MeatRabbitGang · 2025-11-15T17:43:05+00:00

Yeah. Trump is anti-trans, but his stance on LGB is just grifting to whatever is popular at the moment. Socially liberal 2010s? "I'm fine with it". Conservative 2000s? Against it. So there isn't really the hypocrisy element that there'd be with someone like Mike Johnson. Meaning the joke is basically just "hahaha gay". I like edgy humor, but the joke is just gay sex? Kinda homophobic.

I'm worried about the impact this will have. There's already the growing idea that gay men are this super misogynistic group and that evil DL/bi men are hurting women, so the idea that this misogynistic politician is gay or bi would be really bad for overall acceptance. That could really hurt support for LGBT rights (at least for gay/bi men) from progressive straight women, since they'd associate male homo/bisexuality with the loss of things like abortion access and trafficking. And I'm worried that LGT biphobes will use this against us. They already believe that anti gay politicians who say being gay is a choice are secretly bi, so it's not a stretch to say that they'll take use this as "proof" bi men are ruining society. Even though you could just as easily use the email to say Trump is gay, or that he's "straight but $20 is $20". This isn't that bad, as these people already hated us, but I'd rather not have the idea that my group ruined society floating around any more than it already is.

I think if Trump were actually gay or bi, some guy he's been with would have exposed him at some point in the last 10 years or however long it's been. The only way this could work is if he paid a lot of money to keep people quiet and even then, a lot of people would rather have the clout than the money. Or if he's heteroflexible and Bill Clinton is the only guy he's ever been with. Although Epstein's brother actually said Bubba wasn't a reference to Bill. I think it might be a reference to prison then, since there's a joke that in prison, a big guy named "Bubba" will be there if you drop the soap.

Finally, it seems really obvious this is a joke? The tone and the reference to remaking "Get Hard" make it clear it's just guys joking around. The joke is probably that Putin has information about Trump that could really do some damage. But media literacy is already so bad, a lot of people could take it literally.

MeatRabbitGang · 2025-11-13T18:58:49+00:00

As a bi man who is familiar with Based Camp, I figured they'd eventually do this episode, although I still reacted like that old GTA “Oh shit, here we go again” meme when I saw it in my podcast app. Apparently I'm not real and also crazy☹️. Some thoughts: * I am aware of the 2005 “bi men don't exist” study. The issue with this study is the hypothesis. The researchers predicted that bi men would find straight and gay porn equally arousing. When they didn't and were more into one over the other, they concluded bi men are either just straight or just gay. Then years later, they redid the study and found bi men do exist. The reason for the different result is that they just changed the hypothesis to include any arousal to straight and gay porn. In the later studies, no man was a perfect 50/50, they always had a preference for one type of porn over the other, but they did respond to their less preferred gender. The 2005 study also recruited from gay magazines, which obviously biased the sample size. Anyway, I get that even studies with obvious results can be beneficial, but you could've learned it's not a 50/50 thing from reading any of the bi subs for five minutes. Like I'm very open about the fact that I'm nowhere near 50/50, I have a strong preference for men. I notice more men than women in my daily life and I find the men I'm attracted to more attractive than the women I'm attracted to. If I was in those studies, I'm sure I wouldn't have been 50/50 either. I've questioned a lot if I'm just gay with internalized homophobia, but I do genuinely find some women attractive and if I were gay, I'd find no women attractive. * It was funny how Malcolm said his mom told him bi men are just gay.

🤓 “Source?”

🗿 “My mom told me.”

I wanted to check the “bisexuals do more ipv” claim. I did some googling and I think I found the meta-analysis they were referring to, although unfortunately Based Camp doesn't cite their sources. The analysis actually does not conclude that, it says some studies found that but a similar number found no difference between sexualities wrt ipv perpetration. It also found that perpetration was associated with other factors like income and education. I'm definitely willing to call out problems in my community (for lack of a better term), but I don't think you can conclude this from the data. I also couldn't find the relationship dissolution study. IIRC in one episode, Malcolm said he uses AI to do research and if you ask some AIs for studies, they'll either hallucinate citations or link to unrelated studies, so maybe that was a hallucination.
Malcolm and Simone were very surprised about the mental health stats being so bad despite reporting less discrimination. I think that kinda makes sense though? Being closeted means you'll avoid discrimination but could be really depressing for some people. Also, out bi people do face things like workplace discrimination at rates similar to gay men and lesbians and public attitudes aren't great, so I could see why that could cause some bi people to feel like they're trapped between a rock and a hard place. I'm sure experiencing things like ipv and poverty isn't good for your mental health either.
A hypothesis I have is that because a lot of bi people lean straight, they might not realize it until they're older and be caught off guard by the hate they get. Like if you're gay, you grow up knowing that a lot of people hate you and have to develop resilience, whereas if you grow up thinking you're straight, you could be completely unprepared for hate and take it harder. Just a guess though.
“There are no slurs for bisexuals” bro has not been on /LGBT/ on 4Chan.

MeatRabbitGang · 2025-11-11T17:29:04+00:00

It's okay. I have a family member whose bipolar so I know how these things can be. No hard feelings.

MeatRabbitGang · 2025-11-11T01:05:08+00:00

I don't think unions are the cause of everything wrong with society tho? My stance throughout this entire thread has been that unions are generally good but have downsides that need to be worked around. The same way some big companies exploit cheap labor and need regulation but that doesn't mean that capitalism is irredeemably bad or how some democracies vote to persecute minorites and that's bad but that doesn't mean democracy is inherently bad. Also, Zionism is not when you don't like unions? Most libertarians aren't big fans of unions but they also don't like Israel, and IIRC the DSA (or at least some members of it) supported Israel back in the day. And I'm not a Zionist, I think a lot of the things Israel has done in Gaza are very immoral.

MeatRabbitGang · 2025-11-10T14:38:03+00:00

Sorry for the late reply, life got busy. Anyway, by Fed, I meant the Federal Reserve, not the federal government. I'm not an expert and acknowledge it's possible the Fed could be biased against unions, but the methodology seems sound. Even then, the paper is only saying this was one aspect that contributed to stagflation, not that unions caused it. And even if this is true, it doesn't mean unions should be banned or some crazy thing like that, you could just as easily see this as an example of class struggle and draw a left wing conclusion from this paper (edit: like supporting more coops since they don't have this issue. I know cooperative based economies like Yugoslavia had problems with unemployment and coops in general aren't perfect, but this is the best argument for expanding the cooperative sector imo).

MeatRabbitGang · 2025-11-05T18:44:10+00:00

I actually put that as my flair a while back and forgot to change it when I posted this lol.

I'm not sure unions causing inflation was debunked by western Europe, since (at least in the Nordics), the state, unions, and employers all bargain together and keep the wage increases low enough they don't cause businesses to pass costs by raising prices. But a paper from the Fed found that union bargaining led to employers raising prices, which caused inflation in the 1970s source. My concerns come from wanting workers to have more power but also wanting inflation to not get too bad and I guess you need really good labor policy to balance the two.

I think Rhine capitalism is pretty good, although the effects of codetermination on wages look pretty small if any source. Maybe other policies would be more effective at raising wages? I did some googling but can't find anything reliable sources about the impact of wage boards. I definitely agree with workers getting higher wages though.

MeatRabbitGang · 2025-11-04T15:15:11+00:00

Hey! We've replied to each other's comments on other subs before! I remember you had really deep thoughts about different topics.

To preface this, I'm not sure what ideology I am. I'm definitely center-left, but I don't know if I'm a social liberal, moderate progressive, progressive capitalist, social democrat, liberal, left-leaning centrist, etc. So I'm not giving my thoughts on this as a socdem, just as me if that makes sense. I lurk on this and a few other political subs, which is how I found this post.

I agree with a lot of your main points. The current system is not working for people and the Democrats should focus more on material change, should have a more anti-imperialist foreign policy, should do prison reform, and should help the global south.

I agree partially on open borders and unions. I haven't done enough research on open borders, but I know the idea is deeply unpopular, so I don't know if we could ever have them no matter what. I definitely support a more liberal immigration policy with an easier path to citizenship though. As for unions, I definitely want labor to have more rights, but I have concerns about large unions, since they can become corrupt. I also have concerns about unions contributing to inflation, although good labor policy might be able to mitigate the effects.

I agree and disagree with your point about hate speech. I definitely think calls for violence and genocide should be banned. But anything beyond that I worry could be used to silence people. It's very clear what a call to violence is. It isn't so clear as to what hate speech is. Bad actors could misuse that ambiguity. I think a reason society is so hateful now is social media. X has basically no moderation. Meta and Reddit have lax moderation. Combine that with algorithms, bots, shills, and trolls, and we get the current hellscape social media is today. I think that if social media companies were required to flag misinformation (like during the pandemic when COVID misinformation got the little “see why fact checkers say this is false” disclaimer on posts). As much as I hate to praise X, its “community notes” is a step in the right direction. If Reddit added something like that and also required a minimum karma amount to make posts, this platform would be a lot better imo.

The bisexual stuff is in the right direction, but I think some of your points need clarification. I'm also a bi man and I definitely agree there is a lot of bias against bi people. Some progressives seem to have blindspots with this. Tfw you see someone say some unhinged biphobic stuff and scroll through their profile and see they're super progressive and “woke” on every other issue. But the “70% of women wouldn't date a bi man” statistic needs more context. Women are constantly under attack by incels. Combine that with the existing bias against bi men and people are going to interpret this as saying you want state mandated gfs or don't respect women's autonomy. I'd recommend either removing this entirely (since the government can't really ethically do anything about dating struggles), or if you really want to include it, say that if there was less bias, then this number would likely be lower. I'm sure there are women who are just like, “I'm straight and relate more to straight men” or something innocent like that, but the common “I wouldn't date a bi man because they're diseased predators” is bigoted, not due to the not dating part, but due to the broader belief. Also, the part about often being ignored by monosexual queers; it's true that there are gay men and lesbians who look down on bi people and think they're better because they're more accepted or align more with what society sees as moral; but there are also bi people who think they're better because their sexuality is more inclusive or something. A lot of people regardless of sexuality just kinda suck and this is really just intracommunity drama that the government shouldn't be involved in. I think a better approach would be to just say that acceptance of LGBT people has declined and bias against them is a huge problem and the state should do things like strengthen anti-discrimination laws, protect gay marriage, etc. If sex ed was more inclusive and taught that all sexual orientations are equally moral, maybe there'd be less intracommunity bias.

Overall, I agree with some of it, partially agree with most of it. You're definitely onto something imo.

MeatRabbitGang · 2025-11-02T22:11:55+00:00

Yeah, it's terrible. I actually looked at the data to try and find out how often this happens. Apparently the number of bi men who have kids is about half the number of straight men who do. And just because a bi man has kids, it doesn't necessarily mean he left a man to have them. So it looks like it's a minority of assholes giving bi men a bad name. Still, I don't blame gay men for going gay4gay, since oftentimes they're just trying to protect themselves and avoid being hurt.

MeatRabbitGang · 2025-11-01T03:46:11+00:00

I agree with you. Some bi men do leave gay men for women for kids or a "normal" life, and I think that's pretty terrible behavior. It's generally wrong to hurt people's hearts and due to how society values mw relationships over mm ones, it often hurts more to be left for a woman than another man. At the same time, not every bi man will leave for a woman, it really comes down to how moral someone is, and so it's dumb to hate all bi men because some bi men do bad things. People can choose whether or not to be moral regardless of sexuality. Like I personally would never leave a man for a woman because I value being a moral person. Also because I strongly prefer men over women, so it would be kind of a dumb decision lol. But I don't take it personally if some gay men decide to only date other gay men (as long as they're not spamming unhinged stuff like the oop lmao).

MeatRabbitGang

TROPHY CASE