BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

something we can all agree on finally, those pesky fence-sitters.

  
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
 
Vadrice
09:18 / 12.12.01
One moment coming about often in this thread is the comparison between gay culture and bi "culture." It interests me.
~throws cape over face~
I feed.
 
 
Vadrice
09:18 / 12.12.01
To say that bi folks haven't payed their dues is like saying a homeless person doesn't have to pay rent.
Yeah... It might be an amicable trouble not to have to deal with, but blood hell it's nice to have a roof over one's head from time to time.
To ride this simile to the bone, I wish.
Yeah.
Bi folks may be able to squat every once in a while. stay in someone else's house, but that's just not fufilling. In a culture house, you have to follow the culture's rules. Rules are for lame assed renters.
~hem~
Sorry for furthering conceptions of loose bi folks, but I supose I am after a fassion.

Furthermore, when we're gone where will they bury us?
Um...
nevermind.
 
 
grant
17:10 / 12.12.01
quote:Originally posted by Deva:
I quite like the idea of bisexuality being That Which Disrupts any notion of a unified het population vs a unified homo population. It sounds difficult to live out as an identity category, which is why I mentioned Audre Lorde, who wrote about precisely the difficulties of *not* trying to live in a category while still retaining political and emotional capability.


Was it you or Plums who namedropped
Gloria Anzaldua earlier?
Cuz this thing seems right up her alley - the idea of the borderlands being this fertile, privileged, hybrid vigor-neither/nor space. Far as theorists go, she rocked me.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
04:50 / 13.12.01
I think I talked about Gloria Anzaldua, ages ago. And yeah, her figure of the mestiza/mestizo -- the border inhabitant -- is kind of apt for talk of sexuality, or bisexuality maybe. Then again I've read lots of critiques of people using Anzaldua's work to talk about sexual difference because she meant it specifically to refer to race/ethnicity.... To which I'd refer people (if they're interested in looking0 to bell hooks' 'Eathing the Other' essay.

But yeh, borderlines. Or sexual preferenc as something which is constantly changing, dependent on context? But doesn't necessarily work *independently( of context, ie not a completely fragmented postmodern version?
 
 
tag
05:22 / 13.12.01
personal 2 cents:

one: i like the Judith Butler definition. altho, when forced to explain my sexuality to anyone i wind up describing myself as "sexualy fucked," the fact that she recognises that people aren't static and kind like different things for different reasons is cool. i'm not sure if there are really only two mental genders with which one can play with to be bisexual but assuming there are: what is someone who is gay in their bisexuality-femme aspect attracted to femmes and butch aspect atracted to buches?

quote: Is bisexuality denied a culture because, as one previous poster said, almost all self-declared bisexuals wind up swinging one way or another?

two: i'm not sure this is really true. i'm only 20 (and not so sure i fit "self proclaimed bisexual) so my personal experience doesn't say much about what happens in the end and on top of that i really havn't done my homework on the stats at hand. however, i can say that i've fantasized about being a girl or having sex with guys all my life (one of my earliest memor... oh never mind) and don't expect that to just go away. i've fucked around with guys but never had a serious relationship with one. most my friends are girls and all of my serious relationships (yeh, all 3) have been with girls. sex with the last girl i was involved with often wound up with her being butch and me being femme (she was ... bi? sick? like me? whatever).

so, i don't know what sort of point i'm trying to make here other than perhaps bisexuality is more than just a college fad for some folks who wind up in either straight or gay relationships, it's something they still think about and is an aspect of their sexuality.

also, probly doesn't belong here, but i don't mind embracing "sick" as a sexual label (and actually find it to be the most apropriate with all my other fetishes thrown into the picture)... as long as it isn't confused with anything that goes on outside of a party of concenting people.

oh, and that reminded me: perhaps bisexuality is a fetish? i'm not sure how that relates it to other gay sexualities (typically called lifestyles?) or anything but it's something that's been brought up in my group of friends a couple times ... didn't see it mentioned here yet. so i guess that's 3 cents.

ganesh: i agree with you all the way about the need for govt. sactioned same-sex relationships.
 
 
Ganesh
12:05 / 13.12.01
'Sick' is problematic as a label because it ties into notions of health and disease ('homosexual' is the same, strictly speaking, but has shed most of its clinical veneer) - particularly mental illness. 'Queer' is better.

Strictly speaking, a fetish is a 'disorder of sexual attraction' whereby a specific object or situation must be present in order for sex to be enjoyed. I think it has to be an inanimate object in order to qualify (although, admittedly, it's hard to argue that feet, breasts, etc. are inanimate...).

[ 13-12-2001: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]
 
 
grant
13:05 / 13.12.01
quote:Originally posted by Rosa d'Ruckus:
But yeh, borderlines. Or sexual preferenc as something which is constantly changing, dependent on context? But doesn't necessarily work *independently( of context, ie not a completely fragmented postmodern version?

Well, yeah - this is how I'd use the ethnic/national model: tell me where you're from, you know?
If heterosexuality is this country over here to the east and homosexuality is this country to the west and there's this big river dividing the two, with all sorts of islands and shifting banks in various regions -- well, where are you? Are you building a house there? Renting? On a highway to some other region?

I mean, obviously, the allegory isn't all that solid because sexuality moves a lot more fluidly than the ground does (or at least a lot quicker), but it seems to give more room than the current vogue of sexuality being somehow hardwired into the physical reality of the nervous system or the endocrine glands.

That said - I think I've read that bell hooks (she came to speak once when I was in school), but can't recall it for the life of me. Care to summarize/link?
 
 
grant
13:13 / 13.12.01
Oh, and tag, strictly speaking bisexuality can't be a "fetish," because that's a sexual fixation on a particular object or body part - something with a physical reality that's not typically used in a sexual context. Feet and latex would be fetishes. Swimming,say, or roleplaying wouldn't necessarily be - technically speaking, of course.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
01:43 / 14.12.01
quote:Originally posted by grant:

If heterosexuality is this country over here to the east and homosexuality is this country to the west and there's this big river dividing the two, with all sorts of islands and shifting banks in various regions -- well, where are you? Are you building a house there? Renting? On a highway to some other region?


I'm in the river. Permanently. Summer's just kicked in here, and it's hot. Grrr. *grin*

And I would summarise the bell hooks, except that it really is summer now (after six weeks pf rain and cold) so I'm gonna go be out in the sun and swim some laps and stop geeking out. But Mimi at worsethanqueer.com has written a good spiel about bell hooks and eating the other: it should be in her weblog archives. Somewhere.
 
 
Foxxy Feminist Fury
02:27 / 14.12.01
God, Rosa. WHY can't I live in Australia right now??? I MISS SUMMER!

Anyway. Nothing to do with this thread.

Bisexuality.

Personally, as what could probably be best identified as a "queer-identified straight woman," I've both loved and hated the term "bisexual" all my life, 'least as soon as I figured out the meaning of the word.

Loved it, because I strongly believe no one should ever be tied down to one sex in their sexuality. "Love is love, isn't it?" The majority of my crushes have been on men, but I can't deny those crushes on women - and why would I want to? Some great romantic memories out of that!

On a personal level, I like to hang out to "bisexual" because I want to leave that door open. I've only kissed one woman, but maybe I've never been with the right pne. And I've had too many experiences and too many friends with too many stories and switching their sexualities for me to know that "me + dick = sex" forever.

But.

The older I get, the "straighter" I feel. Which actually depresses me. Because I want those doors open. I want them always open. Yes, I've really only been with men. But maybe I haven't met the right woman. Or maybe my own homophobia prevents me from that.

But. What do I know? I'm still young. And as a person who, in general, has never been uncomfortable with her sexuality, I don't minde keeping those doors open. Time will tell. Maybe I'm a lesbian and I'm too afraid of myself to let myself be open to that. Or maybe, maybe I really am just straight. Who knows?

But.

It's obviously easier to "pass" as straight when you're in a heteronormative relationship. I've never had to "deal" with the issues that come with being with a same-sex partner, so what right do I have to wave the free-love banner? If I have any at all? Certainly it has been easy for me, in this regard.

I've always HATED the way bisexuals get persecuted, especially by gay men and lesbians. WHY CAN'T YOU LIKE BOTH?? Why are you sitting on the fence then? Can't you JUST LIKE BOTH??? The majority of my queer-identified friends HATE bisexuals, and the thing that really drives me mad is I can only think of maybe two of them who aren't bisexual themselves.

I love the idea of sexuality being fluid, but the question I put forth to myself, and to my friends, is why is that such a difficult thing to accept? Because I really think that it is.
 
 
Foxxy Feminist Fury
02:29 / 14.12.01
Oh yeah. Drunk when I posted the above. Thus, please look kindly.
 
 
cusm
19:10 / 14.12.01
It is human nature to distrust that which is different from you. That which cannot be identified is also distrusted for the same reasons. If not A, but state unknown, it could be B. Better to be on the safe side and fear it.

Bisexuals trancend gender barriers. Indeed, being there more than 2 genders, bi is probably a poorer term than perhaps omni-sexual, or one of my favorites, trisexual ("I'll try anything ").

I personally like bisexuality because it DOESN'T fit into any established molds. I hate gender roles, and am happy to not fit them. If this causes people to distrust me, too bad. I'm mostly only interested in people educated / enlightened / experienced / whatever enough to understand what it means to be bi, and appreciate the beauty and freedom of it.

Yes, I specificly violate and avoid conventional labels this way, and am ballsy enough to not care of the social circumstances. I just have to be cool enough so that it doesn't matter

The point is to be stateless, to leave all the doors open. True, some doors I'm not interested in venturing in. Everyone has things they're not interested in, even the most liberated of us. But being open to most, its easiest to generalize that chances are, the door is open if you check. So, as we need labels to communicate ourselves, I use the best one I know of to say "your gender doesn't matter to me, if you manage to excite me I'm likely to respond," of which bisexual is currently the best word available. I like pretty people. That's my sexual preferance.

As for bi-culture, I know a goodly number of people who have this view. By and large, we're fantasticly fun people to party with
 
 
Ierne
19:17 / 14.12.01
I like pretty people. That's my sexual preferance. –cusm

I like brainy people. That's my sexual preference. Eyeliner a plus.
 
 
cusm
19:18 / 14.12.01
You know, thinking about this again, I think my preference is actually for bisexuals. Most of my relationships have been with bi's, and I seem to connect best and have the most fun with people who claim to be bi.

There's a switch from the social complaints this thread started about, eh?

Note I say "claim to be bi". I really don't care to try to determine exactly what someone's sexuality is in some discrete final judgemental label or try to determine if they're "really bi." If someone says they are bi, there are certian things I can expect from them, and that's enough. To me, it just means you aren't limited to one thing. What your actual tastes may be can vary, and discovering that is much of the fun
 
 
pantone 292
10:15 / 15.12.01
then, Ierne, you have to meet uber-philosopheuse Sue Golding
behind the shades are some serious eyeliner. I met her yesterday and despite being a terrifyingly hard-core sm-er, at least in my head, she is also a kitten.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
12:59 / 15.12.01
This is [i]so[i/] great, thanks all for responses. Had a hissy fit of embarrassment at doing what feels to me like such a 'baring all' post and nearly deleted. V. glad I didn't now.

And, Nesh, I'm not pushing an idea of 'hey, it's beyond gender, pick who you like etc'... When we had this conv. the last time, (or the time before??) I hope I didn't give that impression, I'm well aware that in a culture/society where equality is laughable, there's alot vested in these categories...

Thank you, thank you Deva, for this:

quote:I quite like the idea of bisexuality being That Which Disrupts any notion of a unified het population vs a unified homo population.

Which is what i was groping towards feebly. Have been having a nagging feeling recently that alot of my own issues revolve around discomfort with an 'us v. them' paradigm where I don't fit anywhere, and, more usefully, that there's probably something useful in identifying (hah!) what's happening with this position.

Interesting that people are finding sources in stuff dealing with ethinicity, as think this is a big part of my deal as well, is it too simplistic to say that this theorists share an obsession with place/where you come from, however that's played out?

That there might be real potential here to make something out of this difficult, disruptive, slippery category and the types of responses it creates when it encounters more unified positions.

In the same way, problematic tho' it is, the term 'queer' has allowed a space for all sorts of different responses, strategies, think there's a verb (seem to remember in the Quuer het thread, people were much happier with queer as verb than noun) and a space to create here, which really excites me... call it 'bi-ing' for a second, what would it mean to 'bi' a butch 'tec novel, for example?


quote:It sounds difficult to live out as an identity category

You're telling me...

quote:the difficulties of *not* trying to live in a category while still retaining political and emotional capability

which is also something Peggy Phelan is very good on, albeit with different moitivations. And yes I will stop harping about her now.

If anyone else is interested in the idea of a 'bisexual' culture and what it is to try and formulate one, or what happens when you go looking for it, I'd recommend The Bisexual Imaginary, which makes some interesting attempts at 'bisexual' readings, of various subjects including the lesbian coming out novel. Light, but feels like a 'good start'.

Oh, and foundthis, which looks at bisexuality in the context of an affective identity politics.

[ 15-12-2001: Message edited by: Lick my plums, bitch. ]
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
13:02 / 15.12.01
Oh and Bluestocking. [eaten up with jealousy]I hate you.[/eaten up with jealousy] you meet the coolest people
 
 
Ganesh
14:06 / 15.12.01
Plums, my comments were directed more towards the first few posters on the thread who said stuff along the lines of "labels aren't important, you shouldn't judge people by their sexuality" etc., etc. Nice sentiments all but, until we live in a more equal society, highly naive.
 
 
pantone 292
14:36 / 15.12.01
[rubbing it in]...and I was sufficiently drunk at the time to prod the good Dr's leg when she claimed to have uploaded a provocative critique of performativity - the link to which I cannot find on her site...all this whilst eating white coffee ice cream and dark chocolate tart..[/rubbing it in]

that Butler quote btw is not affirming that 2 heterosexual desires exist within a single psyche = bisexuality tout court, only that this is the limited and, dare i say, heteronormative, way that psychoanalysis thinks it...

[ 15-12-2001: Message edited by: Bluestocking ]
 
 
Disco is My Class War
12:00 / 16.12.01
I'm jealous too. Sue Golding is an amazing woman. Honorary and most talented theory bitch... I was just reading her 'Sexual Manners' essay today.

And y'know, from my point of view the fact that she's a big nasty leatherdyke makes it even more fun to read her prose... *sigh*
 
 
Foxxy Feminist Fury
16:32 / 16.12.01
quote:Originally posted by Ierne:


I like brainy people. That's my sexual preference. Eyeliner a plus.

And I'm thinking mayhaps you enjoy "Crush With Eyeliner" as much as I do, then?

We should meet, Ierne. You MAY BE THAT PERFECT SOMEONE!!!
 
 
Fist Fun
17:47 / 17.12.01
Has anybody read the diaries of Thomas Mann (1918 - 1939). They included the instructions that they were only to be published twenty years after his death. The detail the many aspects of German life at the time politics, literature, society and also the more personal things. A small, not a major, theme running through the book is the author's, a family man, observations of his own erotic feelings for other men. He notes them down almost as if he was a casual observer. He remarks on the fact that the sight of a young, male, bare-chested railway worked was very erotic. He notes down the impressions and feelings he encounters without any commentary. He doesn't discuss any classment of sexuality.
Perhaps the 'not published in his lifetime' nature of the work gave him freedom from any political implications of his sexuality and allowed him to concentrate solely on the feelings that were aroused.
 
 
Medea Zero
19:04 / 20.12.01
i dunno if this thread is dead yet, or not, but it came up in conversation yesterday, off the board, and so here i am... and this is a rant, cos i'm never sure what to say about all this ...

i'm always wondering about a sexuality which does that whole occupying the slash thing; which is some pseudo-lacanian thing i read about years ago, don't ask me where ... i'm constantly thinking about things in terms of boundaries and movement and speech, lately. and for me, the whole bisexual debate locks into that in this intensively intimate way.

the bisexual label freaks me out. always has. maybe its that whole geography teacher thing someone posted here. or maybe its just cos i constantly hate labels and refuse to be contained or constrained by or within one. in the last year, i've done some rather massive fencejumping, which i prefer to call transitioning - from butch dyke to something else infinitely more difficult and weird which involves growing my hair and shagging boys and performing a different kinda gender - and the most frequent question is: so, like, are you, um, bisexual now? are you straight?

aaargh. it makes me feel medicalised pathologised labelled and pathologised. which is never a good thing [well, maybe sometimes...]. i no longer identify as a dyke, i don't identify as straight but what am i? queer is almost ok, but at the same time, i feel as if queer is so problematic... over-used and under-interrogated. or something. and what does all this mean for my movement through sexual cultures and communities? because i haven't been in dyke space for a long time - for all stupid reasons about gender and a kind of shame because of various expressions of vitriol from people who assume that i have sold out - and because straight mainstream cultures of sex and gender can't accommodate a pervert and queer who's a little too butch and intense about it all. i think that when we think about exclusion, we do so in terms of straight versus queer, or about gendered constructs which mandate a particular division, but the very real consequences and practices of exclusion through the axes of the glbt spaces considered to effect a 'community' are rarely contemplated. so, thanks, plums...

i think we all have reflected this kinda need for some space, somewhere, beyond exclusion or feeling a need to identify through somebody else's categories ... i don't know if one exists ... particularly not in terms of sexual cultures, which are inevitably defined by some kinda nominal outside... so in this way i think that the best thing to do is to not buy into that compartmentalisation of sexual identity but doing that thing deva talks about, doing that which disrupts. is queer enough any more? i don't know.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
19:39 / 23.12.01
I tend to use 'queer' but often I have to follow that up with a long-winded rxplanation on how I'm using that to define myslef as queer related to the hetero-norm and not in the narrow sense of being gay. Sometimes I think I should just have it printed up on a frikking t-shirt.
Recently I've experimented with not saying.
 
 
Jackie Susann
20:54 / 23.12.01
A while ago I met Sasha Soldatow (probably spelled wrong), a semi-legendary gay anarchist who is an extraordinarily endearing, grouchy old man. We got to talking about bisexuals and he said he'd never understood bisexuality, because didn't it mean you'd slept with exactly even porportions of men and women, and how would you calculate that? What if you'd slept with lots of men once and one woman a lot, or vice versa, or whatever? I found this argument completely bizarre, since it seemed to imply that if, say, you were a man and you'd slept with 50 women and 51 men that would make you gay, and indeed that calling yourself bisexual in that situation would be completely dishonest. But I nodded along happily. Then he turned to another of the young whippersnappers nearby and said, "I suppose you're bisexual, too." Despite the accusatory tone, he was completely charming. It was really annoying that I couldn't go for a beer with him since I was filming the anarchist conference we were at for community tv.

I am aware that this post adds nothing to the thread, especially since none of you (bar, maybe, three people) have any idea who Sasha is. But anyway. And you should read his book with Christos Tsolkias, Jump Cuts. Not that it sheds any light on bisexuality, but it is very good.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
00:00 / 27.12.01
will come back to this when less stuffed, but for now, couple of things.

a) think i'm in love with medea zero.

b)a quick quote:

quote:'Tell me, Mr Strachey,'the military investigator asked, 'what would you do if ou saw a German soldier attempting to rape your sister?'

Several of his sisters were in the gallery. Strachey briefly turned to look at them, consideringly, and then faced the board to give his answer.

'I should try to come between them'he said.'

[ 27-12-2001: Message edited by: Lick my plums, bitch. ]
 
 
Disco is My Class War
01:25 / 27.12.01
plums, plums, you're finally online... email me, grrl. and lots of hugs.
 
 
Medea Zero
07:28 / 28.12.01
... she loves me ... yay.

even if i indulge in entirely narcissistic, uninteresting theorybitching. sorry folks.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
10:12 / 28.12.01
I always heard that quote as "I should attempt to interpose my body between them". But perhaps that is more about me than Lytton Strachey...
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
11:44 / 28.12.01
Quite possibly.

quote:Originally posted by medea zero
even if i indulge in entirely narcissistic, uninteresting theorybitching. sorry folks.

None of that, now. Personally, your post articulates alot of stuff that I can really relate to, and I think that this

quote:? queer is almost ok, but at the same time, i feel as if queer is so problematic... over-used and under-interrogated.

Is spot on, especially as regards the place of groups, identities, processes that queer the queer. It's a word I'm becoming less comfortable with to describe a state of being, while being reasonable happy with it as a verb...

I tend to think of this stuff geographically as well, thinking of the spaces i'm allowed or not allowed to occupy, the difficulty of locating a bisexual position or space... even if only to trash and/or play with it...

Been rereading the Bisexual Imaginary recently, and one interesting point it raises relate to this very important (to me) point:

quote:the very real consequences and practices of exclusion through the axes of the glbt spaces considered to effect a 'community' are rarely contemplated

Which is that bisexuality as a theoretical construct/site of investigation is at a very early stage, and therefore struggles with a tension between being born out of/theorised by people whose background is in post-structuralist, de-essentialising, post-Lacanian modes, but also having urgent needs of establishing safety, identity and validation that doesn't exist right now...

And so there's a difficulty between being dubious about labels and the awareness that visibility is easily hijacked and compromised, and a very real need to maybe have some labels to cling to for now...

[ 28-12-2001: Message edited by: Lick my plums, bitch. ]
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
09:58 / 29.06.04
ye
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:03 / 29.06.04
My sleuthing powers tell me that Our Lady has bumped this thread because of the Heretical Buffy thread, in which there was a discussion of which is the form of sexuality in greater need of decent representation.

Our Lady said: "the bisexual community needs more visibility than the gay one"

Whereas Flux said: "I'd argue that in the context of American pop culture, bisexuality among cute white girls is represented far more often than that of full-time lesbians, so Willow coming out as definitively gay is the bolder move."

What do people think? My gut reaction is to say that what bisexuality needs isn't more visibility, but better representation, ie. representation that doesn't function essentially as a bonus add-on to heterosexuality from a male perspective... I suspect Joss Whedon & co were trying to avoid falling into this trap by having Willow explicitly state that she was "gay now": what some bisexual viewers of the show would have preferred, understandably, is for that trap to have been avoided through the technique those in the trade called 'good writing'. In other words, aside from the issue of this particular character, avoiding the portrayal of bisexual women as a response to bisexual women having been portrayed cack-handedly in the past, is no kind of response at all.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
13:12 / 29.06.04
Phew, now I don't have to admit I was deep-mining the Headshop and this was all an accident of keys to stop my line manager seeing what I was doing...
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
13:54 / 29.06.04
Obviously Flux is going to know more about American pop culture than me, so I'd like to see some examples that we might have heard of over here, I just hope he's not going to use the XTina/Britney/Mads tongue souffle as an example, just because normally they're found sucking on male blood.

I think Flyboy's right about better representation but I think for starters it needs more. And this is tricky because it would seem to take longer to establish someone's queerterosexual credentials than their bi cred, the former is a one-scene act, the latter needs two at least. And as drama comes through conflict, it's unlikely that bisexuality is going to be introduced any other way than someone cheating on someone else, which is where the better comes in.

(To momentarily go back to Buffy, when Oz comes back in (IIRC) 'New Moon Rising', if only this had been used for something other than "Tara's my special friend now", but anyway...)

But we're two and a half years down the road from when this thread started, do those that had a position back then feel they've changed? I certainly felt a surge of wanting to make clear I was bi after Bicon last year, and I expect another one after August. But it seems 'bisexual' has got hopelessly muddled with 'lesbian' in the popular mind, perhaps because it's only women who are allowed to 'experiment', for the purpose of the fascination of the men watching.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:27 / 29.06.04
'bisexual' has got hopelessly muddled with 'lesbian' in the popular mind, perhaps because it's only women who are allowed to 'experiment'

I think the representation of bisexuals has actually gone downhill, if anything Britney and friends did bisexuality a huge disservice. Not only is it 'greedy', 'confused', not only are all bisexuals 'fence-sitters' but now they're not bisexuals, they're just people sticking their tongues down each others throats and then going home to their heterosexuality. Bisexuality isn't even allowed a positive role-model like Willow, articulate, intelligent, powerful and decisive- of course she's a lesbian because there isn't enough definition in bisexuality.

Why can't TV conceive of a bisexual in a straight relationship? That's what really bothers me actually, bisexuality in the media is always represented through an instance of homosexuality but isn't the whole point that it can also be represented, just as realistically by a character openly dating someone of their own sex and then with someone of the opposite sex. It just seems terribly naive and ridiculous and it demonstrates the ugliness of a society that still wants to create heterosexuality as the default (naturally I think that's utter nonsense).
 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
  
Add Your Reply