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 >

Those incredible invisible bisexuals

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
BlueMeanie
11:32 / 29.01.06
It seems that bisexuality has raised its head in the news with the dalliances of Simon Hughes, but has remarkably remained almost completely invisible in the press, a clueless prattling by Lowri Turner and the cover of the Independent being the exceptions to the rule. Most news items are discussing homosexuality and Hughes being gay.

I've been rather saddened by this, as it's confirming that bisexuals are usually made out to be greedy, indecisive and corrupting when they do make an appearance in the press (thanks, Lowri). I'm begining to believe that without a positive identity, it seems that if bisexuals are noticed, they most certainly are not taken seriously. What can be done to overcome these negative stereotypes and the sheer invisibility of a substantial number of people?

Any thoughts?
 
 
Ex
12:19 / 29.01.06
Thanks for the thread - I've written to the newspaper myself. It also ties in to a lot of the current coverage of civil partnership in the UK, which is being described as 'gay' in the media.

As someone who identifies as bisexual, but who has more of a investment in destabilising the idea of sexual identity as a whole, I'm torn on this. On one hand, I'd like there to be more visible bisexuals, and a sense of a sexual identity, in part to combat nonsense like the Turner article and get entry-level recognition. On the other hand, I'd prefer a general cultural shift towards more recognition that sexual identities are culturally specific, often strategic, constructed things.

So I'd like bisexuality to be visible, but I'd prefer it not to have to do the things that gay identity has done in emerging - become, to a certain extent, a homogenous, urban middle class identity involving a lot of consumption. I don't mean that as a slight against the amazingly diverse
selection of people who identify as gay. But I know a lot of gay people who feel 'less gay' - somewhat alienated from their own sexuality - because they don't fulfill all the gay norms. That's the last thing I'd want for a newly emergent sexual identity.

And of course, one can theoretically feed into the other. Developing the notion of gay identity forced a minimal recognition that destabilises the mainstream idea that everyone's straight. Establishing the idea of bisexual identity would push the envelope further. But just as, I feel, bisexuality rather got shoved under the carpet in order to establish the specifics of a gay identity, I dread to think what will get pushed aside if bisexuality becomes visible - my guess would be polyamory, or bisexuals with HIV, or poor people, or countercultural queers, because a first impulse would be saying 'No, we don't sleep with everyone! And we're not Typhoid Mary, either! And we have lovely jobs and pay taxes!'. See the 'crabs in barrel' effect in the 'Schisms in the Isms' thread.

Frankly, most of the time this quandry is fiddling while Rome burns, though - if I talk about sexuality, I'm lucky if I get an opportunity to explain that I'm bisexual, and what that means for my basic habits, let alone my world view. But I always feel it's handy to have your theory before you have your strategy.

In pragmatic terms, possibly someone could suggest to the tabloid press that 'BI' has even fewer letters than 'GAY' and thus leaves more space for homophobic slurs in a single headline.
 
 
BlueMeanie
13:58 / 29.01.06
Thanks for the well thought out reply.

I think there certainly needs to be substantial cultural shifts, but I'm aware this won't be over night. There is now a mainstream gay and lesbian identity in our culture, and it is, in my opinion, being increasingly linked to a form of consumer market, such as the emergence of a 'gay music' such as Kylie, for example. I see there's a large number of people who exist outside of this mainstream "homo-homogeneity" - they're gay, but just want to get on with their lives without all the lifestyle extras. A lot of this seems to be driven by market forces, if anything - the so called Pink Pound.

Although gay people are becoming more and more tolerated, I can't hep feeling that there's an identity taking over the media in contrast to the reality of the situation. If the identity is now being taken over by the media, then it's no wonder that trying to get cultural recognition is hard for bisexuals - the growing gay brand is working well for the media, and it's also based on nice and simple categories. A case in point: the two guys in Brokeback Mountain certainly seemed to remain somewhat interested in women, so it was more accurately a bisexual film than the gay film it was universally labeled.

Maybe bisexuals will need to go through a series of culturally recognised phases - which I think might be: establish an identity, gain exposure, become commonplace, and then become accepted to the point of being considered ordinary. I don't think we can piggy-back the gay movement, though. I feel zero connection to a completely gay identity and to gay culture. I also feel out of place in straight culture too, though. Although we have many intersecting interests with gays and lesbians, I feel their cultural identity has different features that are incompatible - the main one being the kind of fluidity of identity that bisexuals often experience. But then how can you build an identity on the fluidity of identity? I really like the notion of: a general cultural shift towards more recognition that sexual identities are culturally specific, often strategic, constructed things. I would love the erosion and destruction of the crude sexual identities we have, but I think to destroy this system it needs to be engaged more than it presently is, then eaten away from the inside. Maybe bisexuality had to be put aside temporarily so that non-heterosexuals could get at least some acceptance. The cultural acceptance of the actual, complicated reality of people's sexual identities can now be introduced.

Does any of that make sense?
 
 
BlueMeanie
13:58 / 29.01.06
There was a great letter written into The Independent:

Sir: Simon Hughes has nothing to apologise for, whether to the Press, party or voters. Asked if he was gay, he said he was not. The mere fact that the journalists who asked him were so blinkered in their understanding of human sexuality that they failed to ask whether he was bisexual is a reflection of their shortcomings, not his.

JEN YOCKNEY

EDITOR, BI COMMUNITY NEWS, LONDON WC1

I think that's very insightful.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
16:54 / 30.01.06
Is most of the gay and lesbian visibility on TV particularly helpful though? I won't talk about 'The L Word' because I've only seen a couple of episodes, but was the whole Willow/Oz/Tara/'Token replacement in the last season' particularly empowering? From reading the Radio Times it seems that almost all of Sun Hill is gay, except for Reg Hollis. And then there's 'Queer Eye' and 'Will and Grace', I wonder if something that Lowri Turner finds harder to define might be easier when lesbians on telly stop being something to titilate straight men and gay men aren't straight women's 'must-have' accessories.

There is also the need to deal with the biphobia of the gay community too.
 
 
Dead Megatron
19:15 / 30.01.06
There is also the need to deal with the biphobia of the gay community too.

Damn it, I was going to adress that issue...

There seem to be a great deal of prejudice against bisexual people in the gay comunity. I mean, straight people don't seem to notice the difference (bi=gay), but that's just ignorance, I reckon. Homosexuals, on the other hand, seem to have a tendency to see bisexuals as indecisive people who don't have the guts to admit they really are gay, and I think that's sad. Maybe they do this because they are trying to hard to establish their own identity, which is all right, but, as a consequence, they greatly antagonize anyone who does not fit their view of what "gay" should be (i.e., demanding them to "out" themselves and join the the political movement, or else they are hipocrits).

Human sexuality is not a binary thing ("A" or "B"), it's a whole spectrum of choices, ranging from "gay", to "straight", and several levels of bisexuality in the middle, not to mention pansexuality, people who are atracted to transexuals (is there even a name for that?), and other preferences that are not even legal.

Additionaly, I know a few women who proudly claim to be bi, but no man. Maybe female bisexuality is much more accept and visible, than male's, which is biased in itself.

That's a complex issue, by all accounts
 
 
BlueMeanie
19:27 / 30.01.06
I sometimes wonder if the biphobia from gay individuals is sometimes rooted in latent heterosexual feelings or unease about such experiences inthe past, in the same way that homo/biphobia from heterosexuals can be caused by an unease over latent homosexual feelings. Could the psychological desire for maintaining a 'pure' identity cause an emotional backlash against those that muddy the waters by their very existence?

This is just pop-psychology speculation, but I think that it's not completely without merit.
 
 
Dead Megatron
19:36 / 30.01.06
mm, good point.
 
 
*
20:45 / 30.01.06
(tangent)

people who are atracted to transexuals (is there even a name for that?)

Trans-amorous is sometimes used. One usually negative term is tranny-chaser. I've seen transsensual a time or two.

But please don't use "people who are attracted to transsexuals" as evidence for a spectrum of sexual orientations much wider and more freaky than anyone ever imagined ever, if that's where you were headed. The fact that I am differently-dicked does not make my gay (non-trans) male lover anything other than a gay man, as he identifies himself. Yes it's true that gay-vs-straight, with some weirdo bisexuals in there somewhere, is an inadequate description of the spectrum of sexual preferences, but people who love trans people fall everywhere in that spectrum.

(/tangent)
 
 
Ganesh
20:46 / 30.01.06
I talked a little about 'gay biphobia' wayyy back in 2001, in this thread. Some of my contributions look a bit dated, but some still hold.
 
 
Dead Megatron
03:11 / 31.01.06
But please don't use "people who are attracted to transsexuals" as evidence for a spectrum of sexual orientations much wider and more freaky than anyone ever imagined ever, if that's where you were headed

It's not, sorry if it sounded that way. I mentioned transexuals as an example of variety, that's all. The "more freaky" orientation part goes with the "preferences that are not even legal" line.
 
 
Quantum
11:18 / 31.01.06
I mean, straight people don't seem to notice the difference (bi=gay), but that's just ignorance, I reckon. Homosexuals, on the other hand, seem to have a tendency to see bisexuals as indecisive people who don't have the guts to admit they really are gay, and I think that's sad. DM

Generalise people by their sexuality much? As an ignorant breeder I of course have never encountered bisexuals, but if I were homosexual I'd deride them as cowards, is that right?
I'm fully aware of biphobia and the problems people face (yes, beyond watching 'Chasing Amy') but I'd gently point out the possibility that you're assuming rather a lot.
 
 
Dead Megatron
17:43 / 31.01.06
Actually, I was just wondering if that was the problem, not stating that it is. But, re-reading my post, it does sound like I was generalizing. (maybe I should have phrased it as a question.) Again, I apologise...
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
00:48 / 01.02.06
lovely thread.

I have many things to say for but now...


As someone who identifies as bisexual, but who has more of a investment in destabilising the idea of sexual identity as a whole, I'm torn on this. On one hand, I'd like there to be more visible bisexuals, and a sense of a sexual identity, in part to combat nonsense like the Turner article and get entry-level recognition.

On the other hand, I'd prefer a general cultural shift towards more recognition that sexual identities are culturally specific, often strategic, constructed things.

Agreed. personally, realising I was attracted to people in Queer ways>realising I was Queer>realising that the best idnetitiy I could attached my 'banner' to was the bi one.

And, like Ex, I'd like for our relatively new identity to not have to go through the stages that L&G idenities have, but I think it's unlikely to happen.

What I think, in my most optimistic headstates might happen, is that 'we', ie publicly identified bi people, go through those stages, but more quickly than L&G people, as the 'ground' so to speak, has already been laid by those groups.

I'm uninclined, personally, to applaud that process though, if it means, as per the 'crabs in the barrel' model, we have to divorce ourselves from less commonly palatable groups, for eg transpeople, queer POC, people who refuse to quantify their identities according to 'sexual attraction' based models. Fuck that, really.

There's a dynamic whereby after a certain amount of acceptance for a minority grouping, in this case a sexuality-based one, which I'd argue Bi people in the UK aren't really near as yet, that the pressure goes on to 'dump' groups with which they have an affinity in order to get access to mainstream influence.

And I'd like to see 'us' NOT do this. Openly and avowedly. Possibly controversially, I'm prepared to wait longer for a bi comfort zone if it means we don't dump people who are inconvenient the second we get some recognition.

But then I'm in a very priveglied position, where I'm out to my friends, family and workplaces, and my day-to-day experience of homophobia and biphobia is pretty limited. Not that it doesn't happen, but I'm not isolated, and have space to discuss/fight etc.

I'm torn between wanting generally to see bi people get as much recognition as we can, and personally not wanting it to happen on terms that feel
a)like they involve an 'I'm alright Jack' mentality
b)that involve agreeing a very prescriptive model of bi that doesn't allow for much of what I love about my bi communities, namely that they allow for pluralism, a number of very different reasons for wanting to be in bispace whether one identifies as bi or not
c)A space for a general cultural shift towards more recognition that sexual identities are culturally specific, often strategic, constructed things. is disallowed

which personally, is what I really want.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
01:05 / 01.02.06
also: glad to hear that people are writing, well done Ex. Mine's going off tomorrow, as soon as I can tone down the rage.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
01:08 / 01.02.06
PS: thank you A for starting this thread. Good timing and excellent first post.

I wil try to come back with some ideas for strategies, but I am very glad that you started this discussion and created a space for it to happen.
 
 
BlueMeanie
17:07 / 01.02.06
PS: thank you A for starting this thread. Good timing and excellent first post.

I wil try to come back with some ideas for strategies, but I am very glad that you started this discussion and created a space for it to happen.

Thanks, (if I'm who you meant by A).

The recent issues brought up in the press regarding the two Lib Dem MPs has provided a unique opportunity to get ourselves out in the open, as has been done by the well written letters people have sent into various papers. It feels a little odd to have to point out to the press that a group exists, and there's actually are a lot of us out there.

There's a lot of interesting stuff to discuss, I think. One think I'd be interesting in getting an idea of is what people think a bisexual identity is. Frankly, I haven't a clue, but I believe that establishing an identity will be one method which could help reverse the invisibility and discrimination bisexuals face.
 
 
Dead Megatron
17:33 / 01.02.06
I just remember something tha tmight be worth mentioning

I'm from Brazil. A couple weeks back, Veja magazine, our most famous and wide-circulated magqazine (our version of Times, I guess) gave thr front page to a Brazilian female pop-singer called Ana Carolina, and the heading rad: "Sou Bi, e daí?" ("I'm Bi, So What?"). The article was all about how3 the woman had sex and relationship both with men and women, but did not think it was a big deal. She talked about how she had negative reactions she got from the gay movement for not wanting to perform in the Gay Pride parade held in São Paulo, my home-city, every year (it is, I think, the world largest gat pride parade. Last year attendance was 2 million plus). Maybe bisexuals are creating and identity that is based on the line "it's no big deal", as opposed to gay movement struggle for equal rights, at least down here. I'm not sure if that attitude is helpful or quite the contrary

The Brazilian movement in Brazil starting getting big about ten years ago, when they coined the acronym (am I using this word correctly?) "GLS", which stands for "Gay, Lesbian, and Sympathizers" (straight - or bi - people who supported the movement). Recently they changed it to GLBT (Gay, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgenders). It certainly covers a much wider spectrum, but I'm not sure if excluding the "sympathizer" part is a good idea also.

Any opinions?
 
 
Dead Megatron
17:46 / 01.02.06
my god, so many typos in my last post, I'm ashamed...
 
 
*
18:23 / 01.02.06
DM, it seems to me that this is similar to a debate going on now in the trans community, and less so in the queer community, about the extent to which "allies" are insiders. Maybe this has relevance to the issue of bi invisibility in that bi people are often not seen as insiders to queer culture, or at least less so than yur reglar gayers. At the same time, though, they can't be regarded as simply allies. The issue as I understand it is to what extent allies should speak for the comunities they support, and how much authority they should claim.

I'm having a similar issue myself right now, since although I've had relationships with both men and women I am coming more to identify as gay rather than bi. I'm trying to discover how much of my growing disidentification is related to internalized biphobia, and how much is just that it doesn't seem an accurate descriptor anymore. So, in this nebulous state of only wanting to have relationships with other men, but still being mildly attracted to particular women, exactly how much should I allow myself to speak as an insider in the bi community?
 
 
Dead Megatron
18:33 / 01.02.06
"nebulous" seem to me the perfect word to describe human sexuality, not only gay or bi, but all of it...
 
 
Dead Megatron
20:14 / 01.02.06
I'm trying to discover how much of my growing disidentification is related to internalized biphobia

I don't know you personally id, but, taking your posts as a parameter, you don't sound biphobic at all. People who suffer from any kind of prejudice (be it biphobia, homophobia, racism, or any other...) seldom question themselves about it. Or so I suppose.
 
 
*
21:35 / 01.02.06
Remind me never to have a discussion with you about my racism, then.

Here's why I'm concerned about internalized biphobia. I have one pretty legitimate reason for not wanting to call myself bi-- that I don't want to imply I'd be open to a relationship with a girl, when that's actually an outside chance; far too many people think I'm a lesbian rather than a fag to begin with. The rest of the motivation is hard for me to pin down. Something about the branding of bi identity doesn't seem to fit, doesn't seem to be something I want to say about myself, and I don't fully understand why or what. Perhaps it's because I've known very few bi men, and the ones who've been more "together" didn't call themselves bi so much as dispense with labels altogether. Obviously the more prevalent image of bisexual people is that of bi women, and it's predictable that I'd want to distance myself from that. But there may well be an underlying feeling that I wouldn't be welcome in the gay male communities with which I identify if I also identify as bisexual. That's a pretty shitty reason to shy away from that label, in my opinion, because if people don't openly identify as bisexual we can't very well change the image.

Now that I've clarified I'll step back, because I don't want to dominate the thread.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
10:34 / 03.02.06
This is somewhat linked to Our Lady's hope above that some day lesbians on telly stop being something to titillate straight men and gay men aren't straight women's 'must-have' accessories, but I feel the lack of recognition for bisexuality may be related to the popularity of "lipstick lesbianism" and, to a certain extent, its male counterpart.

My perception may be coloured by alignment with subcultures which tend to assign a certain glamorousness to the terribly risque practice of - shock! - kissing people of the same sex, but of people I've known to identify as bisexual, a significant number - probably a majority - clearly identified as such for Brett Anderson, rather than personal, reasons. Which of course isn't meant to discourage anyone from fun kissing-whoever-they-want or to disparage those who are uncertain about the extent of their possible attraction to members of xyz sex, but to state that one would just as happily sleep with/be romantically involved with/etc. someone of the same as of the "opposite" sex, when such is clearly not the case, would seem to damage the credibility of a sexuality which many people do hold. Thus dear Ms. Turner's execrable "Bisexual? God, are you TEENAGE or something?!111!" tripe kindly linked to above.

Basically, I'm inclined to say that when a significant number of "claims" to bisexuality are made in a Britney/Madonna style, it leads to a tendency among the public at large to view all claims of bisexuality as such. But is there any way to actually combat this?
 
 
BlueMeanie
10:57 / 03.02.06
Some very good points there. Bisexuality is seen as something risque and affected for the purpose of "being interesting". Certainly not the case for homosexual orientations, but that's presumably because if you're say you're gay, you've just severed the possibility of boffing a member of the opposite sex you'd be trying to entice.

Basically, I'm inclined to say that when a significant number of "claims" to bisexuality are made in a Britney/Madonna style, it leads to a tendency among the public at large to view all claims of bisexuality as such. But is there any way to actually combat this?

It needs to be moved away from the two traps of barely serious bi-curious heterosexuals and from gay-but not-completely-out-the-closet simultaneously.

But then again, there's nothing that wrong with either of those positions.

Although I am not keen on the idea, I think always using the term bisexual as part of the trinity of "lesbian, gay & bisexual" when talking about queer things, rather than just "lesbian and gay" raises the profile of the term and queerifies it at the same time, whilst also making the term distinct from "lesbian" and "gay".

It may well be seen as hijacking the lesbian and gay movement, however, and I'm not sure that the bisexual community would want to be joined at the hip with them anyway - a bisexual community might want to wander off in other directions.

Personally, I try to combat this in my own life by just not making a big thing about it - which I do to just about everything else in my life others might think I was doing just to be 'weird'.
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
15:16 / 03.02.06
Could the problem with bisexuality being viewed seriously be at all related to the the reasons wicca isn't viewed very seriously? Not that it is all the fault of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but the show is a symtom of the fact that being bi, or being a witch, is often seen as just another high school fad?
 
 
BlueMeanie
16:24 / 03.02.06
Unfortunately you might be onto something.

Why, I wonder, is either seen as a fad to participate in?
 
 
*
16:32 / 03.02.06
Thank you, elijah. Would you care to explore with us why that might be the case? Because what you've just posed really doesn't get us any farther in that direction: bisexuality, like wicca, is seen as a high school fad; cf. Buffy.

So why is it seen as a high school fad? Does it have something to do with people like me, who could probably justifiably call ourselves bisexual in public but choose not to do so, or is that an effect rather than a cause? I could probably also justifiably call myself wiccan, but I also distance myself from that label (with a halberd if necessary); am I harming the cause? Is it because of media portrayals like Buffy, or are those spawned by an already extant stereotype? What do you think?
 
 
BlueMeanie
20:12 / 03.02.06
So why is it seen as a high school fad? Does it have something to do with people like me, who could probably justifiably call ourselves bisexual in public but choose not to do so, or is that an effect rather than a cause?

If I think back to sixth form, which is where I first started experimenting, it was first of all a time where you're prepared to try anything, and also people are just begining to form adult personalities. Having an interesting one is a social bonus - and bisexuality is deemed interesting due to its taboo breaking.

The more important factor, however, is that it's a very safe and liberal environment to be in. Very different to the real world where you don't have the kind of protection being in an academic setting provides. The reality of homophobia means that, for many people, it's best to put any homosexual inclinations back into the closet if they're not too pronounced.

Breaking through the social stigma and the personal fears caused by internalised homophobia take effort and stress, so if you have a choice to go along with conventional heterosexual society, then it's not surprising that people just decide to live sexual lives that are exclusively heterosexual.

Any thoughts?
 
 
Dead Megatron
21:33 / 03.02.06
I know it's a bit off-topic, but let's go.

Based on my own experience, I would never describe high-school as a safe, liberal environment. In fact, I can't remember being so oppressed and policied as I was during those hellish years. And I'm straight.

But that's just me.

Sorry. Back to topic
 
 
BlueMeanie
21:39 / 03.02.06
There was am immense difference between high school and sixth form for me.

High school was indeed hellish.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
23:05 / 03.02.06
DM, I think Dr Argentum was talking about sixth form (college, 16-18, distinct from high school) there.
 
 
Dead Megatron
23:36 / 03.02.06
oh, ok, I was not familiar with the term. I just read "high-school fad", and made some assumptions. Always dangerous.

Yeah, college was waaaayyyy liberating after high-school for me too.
 
 
*
05:17 / 04.02.06
Breaking through the social stigma and the personal fears caused by internalised homophobia take effort and stress, so if you have a choice to go along with conventional heterosexual society, then it's not surprising that people just decide to live sexual lives that are exclusively heterosexual.

True. Or in my case, identify as exclusively gay-- different kind of pressure, but evidently there is some.
 
 
Dead Megatron
16:36 / 04.02.06
No matter which way you turn, there will pressure. Ans the athorpologists would say, society is fundamentally based on repression.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply