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 >

What's Love Got To Do With It? (Defining Bisexuality)

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
cusm
15:58 / 11.07.02
Incidently, I've run into a lot like the original example of Cameron's friend. The usual line is "I'm straight, but I'm into girls." I think that about says everything it needs to. For her, homosexual sex is a kink, not a lifestyle.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:11 / 11.07.02
So, if you sleep with men but do not tell your office mates about the sex you have with men, you aren't gay?
 
 
cusm
16:40 / 11.07.02
Not to them you're not. And that's what matters to you, right? I mean, that's why you keep it secret. Labels are how you want other people to percieve you. Noone need know what a horrible dirty little closeted deviant you are.
 
 
grant
16:55 / 11.07.02
cusm: The label is the public image you present.

I don't buy this. It might be an approximation of the image you *want* to present, but the image you present is something you really have very little control over.
 
 
cusm
17:08 / 11.07.02
Yes, I like my later clairification better: "Labels are how you want other people to percieve you." There is also a big difference between claiming your own label and having one assigned to you by others.
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
17:47 / 11.07.02
i am usually very carefull about stuff like this, asking things like "do you consider yourself..." etc.

I think the world of labels would be made easier if we had more, for instance, a may be bisexual, but i am heteroemotional, and so on.

Me, i find myself heterosexual, i have never done anything with a same sex partner and i dont see myself doing anything in the future, so i would be HS and also HE (het-sex and het-emo) since i dont have any deep emotional relationships with men.

As far as Cam's friend goes (hey look another label) i would say she is bi-sex/het-emo see?

What we need is a less limited system of classification going into the future. As humanity becomes less defined by racial image(if, as theorized, we all start screwing like bunnies so there are no skin colors) sexual image will likely prevail as the primary social set, and we will need more than 2 with a half&half middle ground.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
21:34 / 11.07.02
The label is the public image you present.

That's nonsense. What about straight folks who are harassed by homophobes, mistaken for being gay? It happens all the time.
 
 
gravitybitch
08:16 / 12.07.02
Nick: Which leads to the creation of a middle band when anyone isn't one or the other. But most people chose to identify with one or the other, because this middle band (no more homogenous than the other two) is seen as something bridging a gap between fundamentals.

Ain't none such place, surely?

? This doesn't match with my reality at all. Western culture thrives on the idea of binary opposites. Up/down, left/right, good/evil, white/black, male/female, straight/gay... People get uncomfortable with having this cultural fundamental messed up, whether it's a question of gender, gender "preference," or having to admit that the current cultural super-villain might not be pure evil...

Just because the culture ignores something, this doesn't mean it isn't real. A lot of "binary opposites" are actually just easily defined endpoints on a spectrum or distribution of characteristics, and often there's much more middle ground than endpoints. Gender and sexual desire fit a spectrum model much better than a binary opposites model.

Ain't none such place, my ass. Don't tell me I don't exist!!

Dead Pirate: whether or not you are, say, a bisexual is not so easy, as this thread has surely made clear. a truthful label of one's sexuality isn't possible because sexuality is not a stable object or quality you either have or don't have, are or aren't. they are slippery areas of probability. context: choosing your label tactically, in response to situations rather than an ideal of honesty.

I am a bisexual. It's that easy. I label my sexuality as bi because, for all its flaws, that label fits me best. It's most truthful. What/who I desire changes, yes, and the identity of who I date is definitely a slippery topic (it may be a "only in San Francisco" moment, but I've known more than one dyke-identified post-op MTF to wield a mean strap-on), but these situations don't shake the fact that gender is way down on the list of things I look at in determining whether or not I want to fuck somebody.
 
 
Cat Chant
08:32 / 12.07.02
gender is way down on the list of things I look at in determining whether or not I want to fuck somebody.

Which for me raises the question of why you then call yourself "bi-sexual" - a name which sounds as if sex/gender *is* the only factor that matters in choosing who you want to fuck, and indeed, with the nasty 'bi' syllable in it, suggests a view of gender a bit less complex than your mention of dyke-identified strap-on-wielding MTFs suggests obtains in your life.

I'm interested, not suggesting you're wrong, btw, but I'm a bit groggy this morning so I might not be expressing myself very well.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
13:29 / 12.07.02
Talking about this with Lada just the other night.

Think where I come into this is that in terms of talking about desire and attraction gender is 'way down the list'. This from experience. Which is not at all to say that I don't like boy bits and girl bits, and masculinity and femininity, or that I don't notice these on my ethereal higher plane. oh no.

But that it really isn't something that has any bearing on whether i'm likely /'allowed' to find someone attractive.


Think I'm somewhere between Deva and Iszabelle on this.

I don't like the term 'bisexual' precisely for the reasons that Deva mentions, its prioritising of bi and sexual just doesn't work for me. Feels limiting in precisely a way that feels antithetical to my sexuality.

Buuuuuuut... people who group around the label bisexual do often share things that I at least don't associate with the heterosexual nor homosexual labels. Things like, experiencing bi-phobia from both straight and gay people. being accused of sitting on the fence/going through a phase/cheating/trying to have your cake and eat it.

Having a sexuality that is still pretty much invisible. What are the signifiers? the cultural tags? the stuff that people rally around or kick against? Where's the community, useful or restrictive/exclusive?

So I also think it's useful and important personally to identify as something that definitely *isn't* hetero or homo.
 
 
Cat Chant
13:59 / 12.07.02
I hoped you were going to post on this one, plums, since (a) I am still thinking about your question "what would it mean to 'bi' a dyke detective novel?" back in the days of Fence Sitting Scum and (b) I am currently going through a phase of feeling like a big gay freak when I hang out with straight people and a big straight freak when I hang out with gay people: 'bi' is a poor choice of words in terms of its descriptive accuracy for me but at least it's an entry into a grouping.
 
 
gravitybitch
15:08 / 12.07.02
My turn to be groggy...

One of the main reasons I identify as bi is that it is an easily identifiable label - there are people who congregate under that banner who have a lot in common with me and who are people that I want to spend time with. And, most of the folks who use the label are very well aware that sex and sexuality is more complex than binary opposites.

I'm not straight, I'm not a lesbian... What am I? If I don't have a label of some sort I don't exist, certainly can't find community... Queer as a label is too amorphous for me and probably doesn't have the same rich and inclusive connotations outside of San Francisco that it does here. "Bisexual" has a long and honorable history of activism attached to it and I'm happy to associate with that, hoping to live up to it at least a little.

Aha! Being "bisexual" is a way for me to be a little confrontational (if necessary) about sex and sexuality. There are still people who seem to think that bisexuals are "just confused" or going through a phase or don't really exist or whatever, and I get to do the "sexuality education fairy" bit.

I may be wrong about this or just speaking about the ignorant masses in the US, but I think the idea of being "bisexual" is still transgressive enough that people don't consider it to be reinforcing the idea of gender being restricted to the polar opposites of male and female. People who have a hard time with the blurring of boundaries between gay and straight aren't going to deal well at all with gender being an identity one performs by choosing from a huge buffet of mix&match options... so we take it one tiny step at a time.
 
 
gravitybitch
15:34 / 12.07.02
Sorry I missed out on "Fence Sitting Scum" - does that disscussion still exist somewhere? Is there a link??
 
 
cusm
16:51 / 12.07.02
I think to me it is less a matter of both homo and hedero so much as neither. Its not an indentification of what I want to me so much as a position of openness. Its not that I'm adding a choice, I'm removing a limitation. If I reject someone as a partner, it won't be because of their gender, it will be from other qualities I don't agree with. Its no longer about the plumbing. Its about the people. I'll even be snobbish enough at times to consider it a "more enlightened" perspective, though I'm usually better behaved than that.

Yes, I get my cake and eat it too. If I'm discriminated against, its by the jealous because I'm having more fun. "You can't do that! You have to fit into one of these preformatted boxes so we can label you!" Fuck that noise. Yes, sex is a banquet table of choices for me. Aren't you jealous cause I have it better. Life is too short to worry about this shit. If you don't like me because of it, I know plenty of people of similar mind who do. /rant

Its unfortunate that the common label for this perspective is bi, relating to "2" and allusion that you are of two things, of a split mind, or somehow failing to be one thing. But I don't mind it so much for this reason: Even though there are many many "genders", there remains still but two physical sexes. There are two kinds of bits, regardless of how you dress them up or hormonally treat them. There are many variations, but they all draw from boy bits and girl bits. That's 2 kinds of bits. Some people like the sort they have, some people like the sort they don't have. Some people like both. Classification begins with a simple common ground. Its from there we hopelessly confuse it with our personal kinks and fettishes, which I'm of the opinion should remain as expressions of personal taste rather than attempts to define everyone on the social level.
 
 
Cat Chant
17:12 / 12.07.02
Pesky Fence-Sitters

Wherein many people say many things of much interest and I go on about how bisexuality implies that there are only two sexes (cusm, there *aren't* only two sexes, however you define them: about 1% of the population, I think, is neither one nor t'other. They tend to get horribly snipped about at birth in order to confirm to insane fantasies of there only being two sexes, but this is a nonsense which is enforced on our bodies, not a 'natural' dimorphism).
 
 
Gibreel
06:35 / 13.07.02
Yip - both this and 'fence-sitters' are very interesting threads.

A general set of points I'd like to draw out surround 'labelling'.

To what extent are sexual identity labels self-created and to what extent are they imposed by or negotiated with others?

Are we completely free in terms of the labels we choose or do we have a responsibility to others?

[Now, personally I self-identify as 'straight' because I find women sexually attractive far more frequently than men. However I have had a few sexual experiences with men. Homophobes would therefore probably label me 'gay'. I don't think the gay community/scene would recognise me as such. Maybe identifying as anything else raises more assumptions than I'm willing to deal with. Is there an act of bad faith on my part taking place?]
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
17:58 / 13.07.02
iszabelle At 06:46 11.07.2002:
(If I'm honest about being bi, I'm much less likely to end up with a lesbian who's convinced that her principles will be contaminated beyond redemption if she sleeps with another woman who's enjoyed sex with a man; we'd be at each other's throats in less than a week).
&
What am I? If I don't have a label of some sort I don't exist, certainly can't find community...

This sort of thinking worries me. I suck at the theory bitch stuff and have a habit of wandering off the point so I'll try and stay focused here.
As terms, I've always seen 'bisexual' as different to 'gay' and 'lesbian' because they define someone on the grounds of the person they are shagging, whereas 'bi' obviously doesn't. 'bisexual' instead defines the type of people one is willing to shag. But, it implies the two gender thing, which isn't what we know to be out there.

But, I'm suspicious about any label that, well, labels generally, but any label that is formed by or about me in relation to others. Now 'gay' and 'lesbian' have the saving grace that in every day life, but if iszabelle walks down the street hand in hand with her girlfriend, how the fuck are they going to know that she's bi, not a lesbian?

I'm all for dumping labels, or fucking them up until their meaningless. Our enemies especially seem to need labels to attack us, which would be a strong reason to dump them. When you become something, you stop being a person. The San Fran thing is interesting because I think izzie is drawing the wrong conclusion, the steps towards liberty there weren't, from my perspective, for gays and lesbians, they were for freedoms.

Damn, it all made much more sense when I was drunk on a beach...
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
15:28 / 16.07.02
Hmm. Thinking about the word 'queer', which is how i've self-identified for quite a while, at the moment, it just feels too vague. Too vague to have any meaning. Also, as I think Crunchy once said, it's just sooo '90's, maaan.

Looking at 'queer' highlights a crucial point for me here: the gap between personal and societal meanings of terms. 'Queer' to me has a meaning that arises from a particular (some might say bastardised!) understanding of Queer theory, and the notion of queering as an insidious process/excavation of meaning. Therefore to describe myself as a queer has within this a slippage between a process/verb, and subject. And links into something we talked about on the 'fencesitters' thread, regarding non homo/heterosexuality perhaps being 'that which queers' positions of sexuality. (thanks Deva) And these are just my intentional meanings, let alone whatever else may be going on.

But - once I let that definition out in the open , there are all sorts of associations, 'queers and steers', 'queer as folk', and all sorts of people who call themselves queer. And the term perhaps retains a flavour of 'not straight'. But I guess I want something more than that at the moment, and am not sure what.

Seem to be getting to a point where I am concerned with finding ways (not just around sexuality, but as regards class, gender, race boundaries) towards descriptions that have some meaning. This I think for me, especially regarding sexuality, ties very much into wanting visibility/community.
 
 
XXII:X:II = XXX
02:08 / 17.07.02
I think in this age of the terrorist threat awareness color chart, the Kinsey scale may have an "in" to get picked up to clarify matters.

Humans are, biologically, bisexual. Not simply because either gender can deliver sexual gratification, but because "male" and "female," "hetero" and "homo" are not simply binary genetic switches that completely alter a person into another species. However you look at it, we're all still 99.9+% genetically identical, even among the limited scope of our entire species.

On the other hand, much of what makes up sexual behavior has to do with awareness. This may seem a copout, and remind people of the line from the Kids In Hall movie, "You're gay, Danny. I know it, your family knows it, even dogs know it." But action and acknowledgement seem to be separate animals. Brian Warner, aka Marilyn Manson, claims to have had a penis in his mouth many times (and yes, they were still attached to their owners), yet still maintains that he is hetero, as he derived no sexual pleasure from the act and these penii were, for the most part, flaccid. On the other hand, speaking for myself, I identify myself as bisexual, although, save for some adolescent sexual play, I have never had a sexual encounter with another man. And believe me, since I am far more often attracted to women than I am to men, I do agonize over whether I claim that status to be trendy or different, because I would not want to detract from "actual" bisexuals. At the end of the day, however, I know I have had both romantic and erotic feelings for other men, and given the right circumstances in which I felt comfortable to express that side of myself, I'm fairly certain I would.

This is one of those issues where I don't think there's a "right" answer. But that girl described in the first post is just kidding herself. I wonder if her sexual partner thinks of their time together quite so flippantly.

VJB2
 
 
gravitybitch
04:39 / 17.07.02
On the subject of gay vs queer vs bi activism...

I did a quick look through a few books (Bi Any Other Name: ed. Loraine Hutchins and Lani Kaahumanu, Daring to Be Bad: Alice Echols, Tales of the Lavender Menace: Karla Jay), and it's all remarkably complex. There's a lot of overlap when you look at the rise of feminism, gay rights, "civil" (read as black) rights, anti-war protests, etc.

The Stonewall Riots were in June of '69 - not necessarily the beginning of "Gay Rights" movements, but certainly a turning point as far as visibility goes... Feminism was getting vocal and visible at about that time, with the rise of militant lesbian feminism in lockstep/complete opposition to the feminism of the straight community, depending on which side you were on... and the veiwpoint of the time that the only way to be a true feminist was to be a lesbian is a root of the biphobia still so prevalent in the womens' community today.

The San Francisco Bisexual Center didn't open until '76, and a lot of the reason it opened was that there wasn't much, if any, acknowledgement of bisexuality as a legitimate way of being sexual. The "bisexual contingent" of the SF Pride Parade didn't really make headlines/gather notice until '84. And in '84, it was still a struggle to get press for the fact that gay and bisexual men were dying of AIDS... (and bisexuality is still suspect,, Other, not trusted or visible or admitted to)

It looks like most of the "liberation" protests of the time were completely dependent on fairly narrowly-defined identity politics.

Disclaimer: I have to admit that I was in the heartland of the US through much of this tumult, was more concerned about relatives dying of AIDS and my impending divorce than I was with identity politics even after I moved to California; so I can't speak from personal experiences until after the late '80s. But I do my homework!
 
 
ibis the being
11:54 / 06.07.05
I heard a brief piece on NPR yesterday about a Northwestern U study that supposedly disproves the existence of male bisexuality.

They took a group of gay-, straight-, and bisexual-identifying men and and showed each of them gay & straight 'erotic films' while monitoring whichever part of the brain showed sexual stimulation. They found that no man was aroused by both gay & straight porn, only one or the other, and nearly all of the bisexual-identifying men were only aroused by the gay sex films. The researcher on NPR said that their conclusion was there is no such thing as bisexuality (as least in the sexual sense), and those men that claim to be bisexual are either mischaracterizing romantic-but-not-sexual feelings for women, or delusional, or lying.

Now, I know this was a scientific study and all that, but I find it extremely hard to believe that even straight men are NEVER aroused by images of gay sex and vice versa. I don't know if my imagination is limited because I'm a woman and studies have shown that most women exhibit at least some bisexuality in these sorts of scientific tests. Is it possible that male sexuality is this polarized? And if not, what accounts for the results of the Northwestern study?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:59 / 06.07.05
Well, most obviously, maybe the bisexual men in the control group were sexually attracted to men and women, but not sexually excited by watching films involving men and women having sex. This is a fundamental failing in all tests which attempt to make judgements about sexuality based on erotic response to pornography - they have to assume that pornography is the same as sex, which it is not.
 
 
*
14:56 / 06.07.05
Please also note that one third of those men were aroused by neither set of images. Does this mean that one third of men are asexual? Or possibly there is something wrong with J. Michael Bailey's research methodology... again?
 
 
ibis the being
17:36 / 06.07.05
Ah, thanks for the link. I didn't realize Bailey was a known character and so eminentently Googleable. It makes sense to me now why he would get the results he did when (I'd say it's reasonable to presume) to he was probably actively looking to disprove male bisexuality, rather than just looking to see what's there.

This is a fundamental failing in all tests which attempt to make judgements about sexuality based on erotic response to pornography - they have to assume that pornography is the same as sex, which it is not.

In fact that would explain that third that sentimentity mentioned - likely just not turned on by visual pornography at all.

I'm disappointed in NPR and Madeleine Brand for such lame coverage of the study. They just left it at "Huh, they disproved bisexuality. Fancy that. Next story -"
 
 
Ganesh
21:45 / 06.07.05
Ah, thanks for the link. I didn't realize Bailey was a known character and so eminentently Googleable. It makes sense to me now why he would get the results he did when (I'd say it's reasonable to presume) to he was probably actively looking to disprove male bisexuality, rather than just looking to see what's there.

Bailey has attracted a considerable amount of ire largely as a result of his writing on transsexualism. His studies on gay males are actually pretty sound. Admittedly I've only read his The Man Who Would Be Queen, but there's certainly no hint therein that he has a vested interest in 'disproving male bisexuality'.

Even it he had, presumably his research would stand or fall primarily on its methodology rather than biases attributed to the researcher himself.
 
 
Ganesh
21:48 / 06.07.05
I think Haus's point is a more valid one than "yeah, but that guy's biased; what does he know".
 
 
Unconditional Love
09:26 / 07.07.05
ive been reading through this thread and a word came to mind, PANSEXUAL.

A pansexual is one who can love sexuality in many forms. Much like a bisexual, a pansexual can love a man or a woman but a pansexual can also love transgendered, androgynous and gender fluid people, people who do not feel they fit into categories of male or female. Pansexuals come in all shapes and sizes, all sharing one common goal, sexual freedom.

above description taken from a blog.
 
 
*
14:11 / 07.07.05
You're right, Ganesh, although I remain convinced that his biases are important in evaluating his studies. I'm more concerned with his methodology however. Presumably standard sets of erotic photographs were used, for instance, and if one isn't interested in the specific types of images portrayed, that could also explain a lack of response. I would come to the conclusion that this study was poorly designed no matter who was in charge of it, but my opinions on Bailey make me less surprised that the study is then touted as if it were conclusive evidence that there is no such thing as bisexuality in males, its flaws notwithstanding.
 
 
Ganesh
17:06 / 07.07.05
Pornography seems, to me, to be such a specific thing that it's difficult to see how it could be adequately 'standardised' for this sort of research - without having carried out preliminary studies on the pornography's effectiveness...
 
 
ibis the being
20:01 / 07.07.05
Admittedly I've only read his The Man Who Would Be Queen, but there's certainly no hint therein that he has a vested interest in 'disproving male bisexuality'.

Well, perhaps I got the wrong impression, but after sifting through Google results it seemed people were saying that in that book (which I haven't read) Bailey originally made the statement that all men are "gay, straight, or lying." If that's a conclusion he's already drawn on his own, it's slightly harder to believe he embarked on this new bisexuality study from a truly objective standpoint. A number of sites also referred to his book as a prime example of "bad science," using anecdotal evidence, personal experience, and assumptions more than any real scientific process. I understand that the reason for the existence of many of these websites is a vitriolic and perhaps factually unreliable hatred of the man, but I read them to get the other side of the radio story I heard.
 
 
*
22:54 / 07.07.05
My response (i.e. 'Oh, of course, Bailey') came out of a general feeling that Bailey's conclusions tend to reduce things down to binary oppositions, i.e. either autogynophilic transsexual or homophilic 'true' transsexual; either gay or straight; etc. And yes, I do think, based on his methodology and the assertions he makes based on his findings (which seem to me unwarrantedly concrete for studies which seem to have so many holes) that he designs studies with this agenda in mind. I can't be sure about the accusations of unethical behavior, but in my opinion the research Bailey did for TMWWBQ was not good science.

But enough of this. There's no sense impuning the man's character when he isn't here, and I'm sorry I brought it up. I was being too lazy to critique the methodology so I used the old debate as shorthand, and that's just sloppy thinking.

Assuming this particular study was just fine methodologically, I still don't feel it proves what Bailey (or perhaps the NY Times) wants it to prove. I don't think "bisexuality" is a simple matter of what dirty pictures get someone hard. I think we can safely say that this study suggests that most men who identify as bisexual respond differently to naked pictures of men than they do of women. What does that mean? If someone is aroused by looking at pictures of men but, say, by hearing, touching, or smelling women, is that still bisexuality? If someone is attracted to women mostly but to men in a particular context, is that still bisexuality?
 
 
Ganesh
23:58 / 07.07.05
Well, perhaps I got the wrong impression, but after sifting through Google results it seemed people were saying that in that book (which I haven't read) Bailey originally made the statement that all men are "gay, straight, or lying."

Admittedly it's a while since I've read his book, but I thi-i-ink it's more the case that much of his work on gay men is couched, perhaps inevitably, in terms of how they differ from straight men - comparing one group to another - with little or no attempt to unpick bisexuals/bisexuality. TMWWBQ can be criticised, certainly, for not being particularly interested in bisexuality, but I don't think he claimed "all men are gay, straight or lying". I don't remember it, anyway.

If that's a conclusion he's already drawn on his own, it's slightly harder to believe he embarked on this new bisexuality study from a truly objective standpoint.

Very few researchers do approach their subject matter from a "truly objective standpoint"; they've usually formed a particular theory/hypothesis which they then set out to test, using standard methodology. The study then stands or falls on that methodology. Are you suggesting Bailey might be so invested in his non-objective standpoint that he'd fake his results?

A number of sites also referred to his book as a prime example of "bad science," using anecdotal evidence, personal experience, and assumptions more than any real scientific process.

I'm not sure that's entirely fair. Bailey makes no bones about the fact that TMWWBQ is a 'popular psychology' book and, as such, contains a mixture of anecdotal experience, personal reflection and references to research, his own and other peoples'. There are clear distinctions between the narrative, illustrative bits and the 'hard science' bits. As I recall, he's mainly been criticised for exaggerating/embroidering elements of the former. The studies he cites, however, are sound, and there's little reason to doubt the validity of his research.
 
 
ibis the being
00:39 / 08.07.05
Very few researchers do approach their subject matter from a "truly objective standpoint"; they've usually formed a particular theory/hypothesis which they then set out to test, using standard methodology. The study then stands or falls on that methodology.

Right, they begin with a hypothesis or theory but the studies are not (hopefully) set up to influence results one way or the other. Maybe the researcher isn't objective, but the methodology certainly should be. I'm not saying Bailey's wasn't, but maybe... all we know is he showed a small group (100 men) some 'erotic movies' of some sort. I admit, I'm actively looking for holes or mistakes, because I find the results implausible.

Are you suggesting Bailey might be so invested in his non-objective standpoint that he'd fake his results?

No, no - not fake. But perhaps skew, misinterpret, who knows? Every Psych 101 student spends a little time learning about statistics and how they can so easily be manipulated in psychology studies.

Look, I don't really know if Bailey is a quack or 100% on the money with this bisexuality study, I'm just questioning it. Do you think it demonstrates that there is no such thing as a bisexual man? Because I think that would be a pretty remarkable and significant finding.
 
 
This Sunday
01:39 / 08.07.05
Doubt anyone's going to argue against any of this, but:
What I've never got was the idea that someone who's attracted to men and women must be attracted - and utterly lusting after - all women and men. I've known people to go only for the big muscular set - male and female - and people who are turned off by the bulky gym-addict look, of either and any gender/sex. About thirty-thousand other options that could be inserted here.
I've known biosexuals (anything that moves - no thorns), bisexuals, hets, gays, creatures, ambisexuals, omnisexuals, technofetishists, sporks, what-have-you who were self-identified, labelled and named by society or friends or the last person they had sex with, from many a walk of life... but I don't know anybody for whom everybody works equally and extremely well. Hell, I know people who're regularly and constantly obsessed with sex to the point of 'my boyfriend's ignoring my phonecall tonight? Fuck it, I'm off to Basic Plumbing for about forty minutes and six condoms' or whatever. I know people who don't have sex and almost appear to have no sex-drive or attraction they can be comfortable with and doesn't cause them paroxysms of paranoia.
Don't know anybody who is equally and entirely and extremely turned on by everybody. Or even just everybody fucking on video.
But, apparently, sitting people in front of a television screen is a better monitor of their attractions than who they pursue, show interest in, stalk-via-camphone-and-friends-digging-up-dirt, et cetera... in their real normal life. Because some people do actually get to, well, have sex with people they enjoy having sex with. And some of them might not, despite having roughly similar equipment, be really anything like the randomly selected people shown in a video in a testing booth.
Here's the part people might disagree with:
I do not believe there are people who are gay, straight, only turned on by chimps in purple diamante with a tiara that smells of butterfly scales. No. We've got more variety than that, or even more specificity than that. All of us. We're interested in whomever we're interested in, and while I think talented touch is talented touch, fun is fun, and kink is kink... I won't imply that it's anybody'll do for any of us, and I cannot really buy into the idea that only one subset of a group of a type will ever, ever, ever interest us in either a sexual or romantic way by necessity.
Which is, of course, an incredibly hypocritical and pompous position. But, an honest one that seems to make more sense than 'no bisexuality here, there, anywhere.'
 
 
Quantum
14:14 / 13.07.05
To be unusually controversial (especially as I'm a self confessed heteronormative straight male) I think almost everyone has been wrong about the girl in the first post. She's not talking crap, she's defining her own sexuality. Who are we to tell her she's wrong?

Why is it alright to say that everyone is a little bit bi (to me, a belief many bisexuals are prone to)? Why is that not as wrong as saying everyone is straight, gay or a liar? I know examples of friends (het and homo) who are not *even a little bit* bi.

I don't mean to put anyone's nose out of joint, but aren't many posters here defining their own sexuality in just the same way the girl in the original post was? How can we be pissed off at her doing what we all do?
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply