Bisexuality: images and perceptions

[Zerbie]

I'm spinning this tangent off of Troy's thread so that one can be saved for Troy's original purpose of discussing the conservative agenda.

Since Tymejumper has gone ahead and stated outright the problem of bisexual stereotyping, I thought we could move that talk over to here.

What cultural images come to mind when you hear "bisexual?"

What bisexual characters have you seen in film and how did they behave?

Have you ever seen a bisexual character portrayed as anything other than a predator? I have not, yet. Maybe some of you can point me to a movie that does. Maybe not.

There is a tremendous amount of misunderstanding about what bisexual means. Tyme made a great point when she said that bisexuals are now where gay folk were 20 years ago. I never thought of it that way before, but I think she's correct. 20 years ago, the perceived cultural understanding of a homosexual was a man (lesbians were erased) who did nothing but have sex, and of course they all had AIDS. That was the myth the adults around me tried to teach to me. Now we have gone a long way towards dispelling that myth, but we still have this myth that bisexuals are sexually predatory at worst and deceptive, promiscuous cheaters or "swingers" or polyamorous at their most sedate.

That image just effectively erases me. When I was first trying to come out, my first belief was that I was bisexual. But I was a virgin, and not all that interested in dating everyone I saw, more interested in career and spirituality than in hedonism, so I understood it to mean that therefore I did not fit the definition of bisexual. I must be something *else,* that likes both genders but isn't bisexual, yet what could that be?

The idea of bisexuality as BEHAVIORAL rather than orientational was so entrenched, I concluded I had to be lesbian. It was YEARS before I really understood that my attractions were to both genders, and even then I chose to identify as a "lesbian who also like men" rather than "bisexual." It could have saved me 5 years of questioning if I had only known you could be bisexual and monogamous, bisexual and a virgin, as I had been at the beginning of the questioning process.

[tymejumper]

QUOTE"It could have saved me 5 years of questioning if I had only known you could be bisexual and monogamous, bisexual and a virgin, as I had been at the beginning of the questioning process.[/QUOTE]


Zerbie, I am glad you are opening this up to discussion. It is very hard to figure out exactly what you are when you first come out. As I explained on Troys thread, I originally came out as Bi and went to therapy to help me sort through all my feelings and arrived actually at lesbian as the lable that fits me best. I had several of my Bi firends tell me that I was a lesbian! They never said they could not date me or be my friend becuase I was now a lesbian instead of Bi! That is a bit different from some lesbians who when finding out I was Bi, refused to talk to me or befriend me!

I still feel that sexuality is fluid and many scientific articles do state this. There are many that find people can go from straight to Bi or gay to straight. An interesting tidbit is that the latest findings is that womens sexuality is MUCH more fluid than mens. That means we can switch and are more likely to than males.

It angers me greatly when I know of many happily partnered Bi people that are faithful and such get labled with being promiscuious. I would like to make clear that WHATEVER two adults do in the privacy of their home and marriage/commitment that they AGREE on it OK. There are many straight couples who are in open relationships, polyamourous, swingers, threesomes, and all other types of arrangements. Why didn't they get the lable of being untrustworthy, sleezy etc? Is it becuase Bis are minorities and got labled as it was easy to blame a small group who could not defend themselves? That is my belief.

The best thing for Bis to do is to become visible and show they are like the majority. They have families and marriages and partnerships etc. Knowledge is power! If they see you are like everyone else, then they have to see you for who you truly are.

[Zerbie]

Yeah, you've had some journeying not unlike mine, it seems. We've made the same observation too regarding the gender distinction. Men are far more likely than women to orient to only one gender and have that orientation remain pretty solidly fixed over a lifetime. Women, otoh, we can be quite fluid in how our sexuality expresses, to the point of experiencing sexual orientations that shift. I wish I had known, or even heard, of that before mine shifted! :lol: As it happened, the shock nearly sent me into cardiac arrest. I *still* remember the moment I first felt it for a man - like it was yesterday. I was shocked to the brink of dying. :lol:

As to being more out, that's incredibly difficult to do when you're bi and partnered. You are automatically and by default perceived to have the orientation that corresponds to your partner's gender. Are you supposed to keep waving your hands in the air and saying "No! No! I'm BIsexual," ?? That only leads to further misunderstandings. Why are you announcing this?
I came out to a gay colleague about 2 years ago. He was SHOCKED - SHOCKED! - when I told him I'm bisexual and blurted "And- and- and your husband is OKAY with that??" I did not pick up on the underlying assumption, I just gave him a confused look and said "Of course. Why wouldn't he be?" And the guy said, "Er, er, but he - wowwww, your husband is okay with that?!" Me: "Duh!"

So I got home and told hubby about the conversation and it was hubby who explained to me: "Now (colleague's name) thinks that we have an open relationship and you're screwing girls on the side." Me: "Wha!?!? Wha??! What?!!!!!! Omigod, so THAT'S why he was so shocked. " And that basically nipped my coming out as a married bi, right in the bud. Forget it. Let people assume I'm straight. They can fall over in shock someday if I happen to mention an ex-girlfriend then. But no more announcing my orientation. That just doesn't go over well.

[tymejumper]

That is very true. People do have a tendancy to freak out when they find out you are not straight!:lol:

When I said to be more out, I didn't explain myself very well. I didn't mean to be insensitive, I just meant to let others know if they are downing bisexual people that you are and that you have a very happy and faithful marriage. People are very ignorant and sometimes it does not seem fair we need to explain or should HAVE to explain to them how we live our lives is NOT so different from theirs. That is the only way they will see us a normal and like them.

They will assume you are straight as you are with a man. I also get that. They think I am straight with a lesbian friend when I go out with my wife. I don't fit the lesbian sterotype of being into sports, short hair and no makeup. I hate sports, love makeup and have my hair in a shag. Yes, I maintian my own car and can fix things around the house. Men especially freak out when they attempt to hit on me and I tell them I am married no thanks. "who's the lucky guy?" they say and I have to point to her or say "Ellie". (imagine those looks! LOL LOL)

It is worse when you are bi because people are thinking you could "choose" a man if you were with a woman, and if you are with a woman then you are now with a man and you were just playing around. Or worse, cant make up your mind. They act like its all fun and games and that you get the best of both worlds, they convienently overlook that difficulty you have and the confusion and such. Us gay people just dont go killing ourselves for something to do! We have more suicide and drug/alcohol problems becuase we are so unhappy society sees us a monsters or degenerates.

I wish there had been some heroes that were bisexual or strong gay heros out there when I was growing up. I think we must be about the same age and it sure would have helped us find ourselves easier.

The only ones I can think of that were out a bit were George Michaels, and Rob Holford(Judest Priest). The only Bi I have heard of was Gia, Angelina Jolie played her, but she dies of a drug overdoes I think. Today, female stars are saying they are bi, Angelina Jolie and Julie Cyper(Melissa Ethridges ex), are all I can think of right away.

The truly best part is that my daughter is in 10th grade and she has MANY bisexual friends. She has several gay guy friends also. We may have to wait for our childrens generation to vindicate us!

Much Metta,
Rebekah

P.S. Your poor hubby! If the other guys think you have a gf on the side, they will tease him. He needs to tell them he has a "rockin hot" wife. It will shut them up!

[Zerbie]

That is very true. People do have a tendancy to freak out when they find out you are not straight!:lol:

Well, the gay boy I came out to has NO EXCUSE to freak out over not-straightness. :lol:

When I said to be more out, I didn't explain myself very well. I didn't mean to be insensitive, I

I didn't think you did (and I wasn't "insensitive" when I told our gay colleague, we were talking about my involvement in gay activism and I mentioned that I consider it my own community and I'm bi - which is when he freaked.)

jThey will assume you are straight as you are with a man. I also get that. They think I am straight with a lesbian friend when I go out with my wife. I don't fit the lesbian sterotype of being into sports, short hair and no makeup. I hate sports, love makeup and have my hair in a shag. Yes, I maintian my own car and can fix things around the house. Men especially freak out when they attempt to hit on me and I tell them I am married no thanks. "who's the lucky guy?" they say and I have to point to her or say "Ellie". (imagine those looks! LOL LOL)

Awesome! Good for you. Leave people no room for a negative reaction and they'll give you positive ones. I hear ya on stereotypes. I could never "pass" for butch in a million years. :rolleyes:

It is worse when you are bi because people are thinking you could "choose" a man if you were with a woman, and if you are with a woman then you are now with a man and you were just playing around.

Ugh! I HATE that. Sometimes someone says "Oh, it's cool that you experimented with girls." No folks. MEN were the experiment.

More serious answer, it is disturbing to see orientation constantly conflated with behavior. I confess I never got as far as I wanted to with girls. But I *know* what my orientation is. I know that *you* know what I mean, Tyme.



I wish there had been some heroes that were bisexual or strong gay heros out there when I was growing up. I think we must be about the same age .

30-ish. You?

The only ones I can think of that were out a bit were George Michaels, and Rob Holford(Judest Priest). The only Bi I have heard of was Gia, Angelina Jolie played her, but she dies of a drug overdoes I think. Today, female stars are saying they are bi, Angelina Jolie and Julie Cyper(Melissa Ethridges ex), are all I can think of right away.

Ah okay, I'm pretty sure George Michael is gay, not bi. He may have cashed into the 80s bisexual chic in order to retain some shreds of passing for heterosexual back when homophobia was massive enough it could have destroyed his career. Wait a minute, what career? Does he actually still have one?

I've heard of Gia before, but as I heard tell, she was lesbian. In any case, the tragic end strung out on substances is hardly role-model material.

Hmmmm. . . interesting, now you mention it, it's hard to find public figures of today who claim the bisexual description.

Even more interesting are the movie depictions of bisexuals as predators. They tend to not only be sexually rapacious, but out of control, criminals and murderers.



The truly best part is that my daughter is in 10th grade and she has MANY bisexual friends. She has several gay guy friends also. We may have to wait for our childrens generation to vindicate us!

Let's hope that stays true out of school! When I was in hs, almost all the girls in my group of friends were bi (one was lesbian, one was straight,) but they/we all came out in college and later. And if I recall correctly, without exception all the boys we hung out with were gay. I knew about the boys at the time. The girls' coming out surprised me a bit.

Much Metta,
Rebekah

P.S. Your poor hubby! If the other guys think you have a gf on the side, they will tease him. He needs to tell them he has a "rockin hot" wife. It will shut them up!

:lol: I can't picture anyone getting away with *thinking* about teasing my husband. :lol: He wouldn't have to do anything, either. People would be scared to. :lol: :lol:

[tymejumper]

Yup, 38. I wont lie about it. It took me long enough to get here and figure out what I want!:D

My friends in HS were mainly guys and butches. Go figure.

Even the Heath Ledger and Brokeback mountain was a bad hit for Bis. They made him a greedy ass in it. (could not make up his mind) I say we take over the film industry and put some REAL gay people in it and make our OWN heroes!

[BrianB]

There is a tremendous amount of misunderstanding about what bisexual means. Tyme made a great point when she said that bisexuals are now where gay folk were 20 years ago. I never thought of it that way before, but I think she's correct. 20 years ago, the perceived cultural understanding of a homosexual was a man (lesbians were erased) who did nothing but have sex, and of course they all had AIDS. That was the myth the adults around me tried to teach to me. Now we have gone a long way towards dispelling that myth, but we still have this myth that bisexuals are sexually predatory at worst and deceptive, promiscuous cheaters or "swingers" or polyamorous at their most sedate.

Years ago I was in counseling and told my therapist that I'm bisexual. His mind subconciously went to predator because he said, "That's okay, I work with sex offenders all the time." Needless to say I got a new therapist. There have been several times when I came out on the internet as bi' that someone would say "Oh, you're a swinger." or "Oh, you're in to polyamory" I would say "no, I'm just attracted to both genders" That is my orientation which I have no control over. What I do about those attractions I have some control over.

[BrianB]

Yup, 38. I wont lie about it. It took me long enough to get here and figure out what I want!:D

My friends in HS were mainly guys and butches. Go figure.

Even the Heath Ledger and Brokeback mountain was a bad hit for Bis. They made him a greedy ass in it. (could not make up his mind) I say we take over the film industry and put some REAL gay people in it and make our OWN heroes!

I just watched a very good DVD about gays in the film industry, The Celluloid Closet. It explains pretty well why Hollywood appears schizophrenic about gay people in movies.

[tymejumper]

I just watched a very good DVD about gays in the film industry, The Celluloid Closet. It explains pretty well why Hollywood appears schizophrenic about gay people in movies.


I heard that was a great movie to see, I have not had the chance to see it yet.

Sounds like your therapist was an idiot, like being a well adjusted gay person is an easy task anyhow, like we really need so called professionals telling us were sick!

Here is my lack of support story: I actuallly was in a "women supporting women" group, for gay women when I first came out. They told me since I didn't have a gf and had not slept with women(just to 1st and 2nd base, fantisized and got really intensly turned on by lesbian porno and women in general) that I could not "know" I was gay, much less bi. I told them that my teen was not sexually active either and she knew who she was atracted to, men, she knew she was straight, and how did they explain that?. I don't think they liked that answer, and needless to say, I just did not go back to that group.

[BlackCatLady]

I'm so waiting the day there won't be any labels on love. You love who you love and that's all.
I consider myself a lesbian because so far I've only fallen for women. But I've never told myself "I will never fall in love with a man", it just never happened in 34 years. It probably won't, but if it would, I won't refuse the relationship (I'm not saying I would not be confused but I'd deal with it).
One of my friends had a 8 years relationship with a woman who was married with a man when they knew each other; and when they broke up her ex got hooked up with a man again. Now is this lady straight-with-an-exception, or bi? I say she was just in love with my friend, and my friend happened to be a woman.
I've seen very sad attitudes from lesbians towards bisexuals; I've heard some girls talk about "the war against bis" which I was totally shocked to hear :mad: (I think I looked so offended that they must have thought I was bi because they never talked to me again and I don't care, I don't want to hang out with such persons). I was involved in a discussion group for lesbians in the past years (it now does not work anymore, long story), but once we were choosing the different discussion topics for the following year, and one of us would go furious every time someone suggested a topic about bisexuality and say "we are a group for lesbians". We (the others) were like well who does it hurt to talk about it?? I explained that if we were so judgemental about it we were no better than the homophobes (eventually this "anti-bi" girl agreed with the topics, just saying that she would not attend those nights).
My girlfriend had a boyfriend for 8 years; they broke up when she realized she wanted to be with a woman. In the beginning of her questioning she identified as bi for a while and told me that sometimes she's not sure that she's not bi. I told her I really don't care; if someday we break up and she's with somebody else, who she will be with is really none of my business - man or woman.
I've known a lot of women who came out as lesbians, and then fell in love with a man and had to "come out" again. It's so sad we have to put labels on ourselves. I think we really will have reached acceptation when we won't need labels anymore - we will just be in love. And I know this day is not near.

[Alecto]

I'd argue transfolk are where gay people were 20 years ago, with bisexuals in the middle somewhere. Or, maybe not even in the middle...I feel like they may or may not be "more oppressed" (oppression olympics is not a game I want to get into anyway), but that they're definitely oppressed differently. And, regrettably, by people from both sides of "the fence". I get really upset when I talk to other gay folks who "would never date a bisexual". This might speak to my inner cynicism, but I don't really expect to much from that great big straight world out there, but when I'm talking to other queer folks...it's really frustrating to me when they don't get it.

As for bisexuals in the media: I'm not sure how it's handled, but I thought there was a bisexual in a lesbian relationship on Degrassi or South of Nowhere. (I'm not able to watch either, really, so I get the two confused).

[Gennee]

I'm spinning this tangent off of Troy's thread so that one can be saved for Troy's original purpose of discussing the conservative agenda.

Since Tymejumper has gone ahead and stated outright the problem of bisexual stereotyping, I thought we could move that talk over to here.

What cultural images come to mind when you hear "bisexual?"

What bisexual characters have you seen in film and how did they behave?

Have you ever seen a bisexual character portrayed as anything other than a predator? I have not, yet. Maybe some of you can point me to a movie that does. Maybe not.

There is a tremendous amount of misunderstanding about what bisexual means. Tyme made a great point when she said that bisexuals are now where gay folk were 20 years ago. I never thought of it that way before, but I think she's correct. 20 years ago, the perceived cultural understanding of a homosexual was a man (lesbians were erased) who did nothing but have sex, and of course they all had AIDS. That was the myth the adults around me tried to teach to me. Now we have gone a long way towards dispelling that myth, but we still have this myth that bisexuals are sexually predatory at worst and deceptive, promiscuous cheaters or "swingers" or polyamorous at their most sedate.

That image just effectively erases me. When I was first trying to come out, my first belief was that I was bisexual. But I was a virgin, and not all that interested in dating everyone I saw, more interested in career and spirituality than in hedonism, so I understood it to mean that therefore I did not fit the definition of bisexual. I must be something *else,* that likes both genders but isn't bisexual, yet what could that be?

The idea of bisexuality as BEHAVIORAL rather than orientational was so entrenched, I concluded I had to be lesbian. It was YEARS before I really understood that my attractions were to both genders, and even then I chose to identify as a "lesbian who also like men" rather than "bisexual." It could have saved me 5 years of questioning if I had only known you could be bisexual and monogamous, bisexual and a virgin, as I had been at the beginning of the questioning process.


Zerbie, the fact that society thinks that gay, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders are freaks and sexual deviants is that misinformation, especially by mainstream media, still is the problem. I am an advocate of us telling our owm stories rather than letting others do it. A personal testimony goes a long long towards truth, healing, and encouragement.

Gennee

[Zerbie]

I'd argue transfolk are where gay people were 20 years ago, with bisexuals in the middle somewhere. Or, maybe not even in the middle...I feel like they may or may not be "more oppressed" (oppression olympics is not a game I want to get into anyway), but that they're definitely oppressed differently. And, regrettably, by people from both sides of "the fence". I get really upset when I talk to other gay folks who "would never date a bisexual". This might speak to my inner cynicism, but I don't really expect to much from that great big straight world out there, but when I'm talking to other queer folks...it's really frustrating to me when they don't get it.

As for bisexuals in the media: I'm not sure how it's handled, but I thought there was a bisexual in a lesbian relationship on Degrassi or South of Nowhere. (I'm not able to watch either, really, so I get the two confused).

Oh, I very much feel the same frustration when queerfolk don't "get" one another.

Yet, I'll dispute your time-frame a little bit. I'd say trans folk are not now where gay folk where 20 years ago, but more like where gay folk where 30 years ago. Still just at the beginnings of mainstream awareness. That's just my opinion based on what I've seen of these things so far, and of course my memory of 30 years ago is very fuzzy and mostly consists of plush toys and learning to walk, read, etc., so that opinion could easily be swayed by more info.

The bisexual thing IS different. There IS the matter of heterosexual privilege, either real or perceived. Then there is the matter of bisexual chic, which reeeeeally has never applied to gays, despite that some on the far right like to claim that being gay is somehow socially popular these days. :rolleyes:

As to media: Interesting how this turned into a discussion of what public figures are thought to be bisexual. Keep it going!

Yet, what I was focused on was an entirely separate issue: the depiction of bisexuals in popular fiction, film, Hollywood. At very first thought I cannot think of a movie with a bisexual character in which that character is not a cheat, a sexual predator, and maybe a murderer as well. That's what I was getting at with "images and perceptions," which those certainly are. Is that supposed to tell us what a bisexual is?? No wonder I didn't think I could be one! :lol:

It's such a loaded term, and so conflated with behavior as to make mention of one's orientation appear to be an announcement about having an open marriage or something. Why on EARTH would someone think the two things have to go together?

I saw a film a couple years ago, not regular Hollywood fare, a filmed dance production, called Car Man. The bisexual anti-hero swoops into town, gets hired at the local mechanic's shop, seduces the owner's wife AND an outcast young man, maintains sexual relations with both of them, kills his boss, and sets up his male lover to go to prison for it. THAT's the kind of thing I was getting at about the way bisexuals are presented. Just what does that imply about bisexuals? Now if it were just ONE story that would one thing, but there are so many other stories of the predatory bisexual.

[Alecto]

The media depictions thing, I think, is just another way that bisexuals are "a little behind" on the movement. I mentioned in the movie thread the Celluloid Closet which has something to say about primarily depictions of gay folk (though I think bisexuals are mentioned), and the villainizing that you mention is a common theme for a VERY long time in film history for ANY queer folks. Gay imagery moved on, it seems, but bisexual imagery.... :-/

I don't have a good timeline, all I know I was shocked out of my little New York liberal arts college bubble once I started hanging out with my trans friend. The most I've EVER gotten, while walking with a boyfriend through campus (on parents' day, even) was a dirty look or two. She gets slurs from speeding cars. Worse, it didn't phase her or her girlfriend. "Oh. Yeah. That happens.".

[Dash]

Regarding bisexuality in movies, etc... Daniel's thread Torchwood was my first thought: http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3647

I first saw John Barrowman in the new series of Doctor Who, where his character, Captain Jack, is decidedly and charmingly bisexual. No predatory implications at all. He is open about his attractions to both the Doctor and the Doctor's female companion. Nice kiss with the Doctor even...something new for a character that has been on TV since 1963!!!

About Adam (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0199314/) is a cute movie with Stuart Townsend. Mostly about his amorous adventures with all the girls in a family, but there's some strong innuendo about some possibilities between him and the brother of said girls. Good...bad? I'm not sure it has a morality about it, but for me he is a delightful character. He's too winsome to be a bad guy in any way.

Both are UK imports. :cool:

As for American icons...Leonard Bernstein comes to mind. Pretty openly bisexual, whether or not it was well known.

[archyboi]

Howdy Zerbie,

May I offer a little observation. Bisexuality is so misunderstood and the differences between the sexes magnifies this greatly. Have any of you read M.D.s, Glenn Wilson & Qazi Rahman's Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation, c2005?

If not read it. It's essential. Turns out "Bisexuality" in males is pretty much a myth and it is kinda predatory through NOT like it's portrayed in movies, although I will say that it is done rather sensitively in Latter Days, c2003. Aaron thinks of himself as straight but different, then bi, but then realizes the truth. And in Saved!, c2004. Dean's experience has the ring of truth and Mary's plan is very understandable. Check those out.

Here's the deal. Males are pretty much, exclusively bimodal -- majority expression straight, minority expression gay. It is VERY rare that a guy is actually equally attracted to both sexes and therefore bi.

Females are SO different. Females are very much spectral in their sexual identity. It is very normal for 50% of females to be equally attracted to both sexes and it really is true that is the person a gal is attracted to, not the plumbing. In the other 50% they can be exclusively bimodal, or attracted to one or the other for extended periods of time and change over time.

This makes it VERY confusing. Especially for males and females to arbitrarily enforce the same gender roles and norms for each other. I think this is the major source of confusion and miscommunication.

We need to talk and listen to each other more intently and purposefully with compassion and open minds.

That's my view for what it's worth.

Here's a little plug for Reichen Lehmkuhl's book Here's What We''ll Say, c2006. He presents an honest point of view on his experience. He thought he was bi but then when he began his awakening he realized how wrong he was. He was a late bloomer and coming of age AFTER he entered the US Air Force Academy was a major conflict and trauma to him. The book has many flaws -- although the structure is very good and the storytelling authentic and very moving, it has MANY mechanical errors. Don't let them distract you and move beyond the clunky sentax stumbles. He tells it accurately from a guy's point of view. The ugly and painful pitfalls are laid bare.

It made me cry very hard and grow.

Thanks,

Kev

[Zerbie]

Hi Kev,

Yes, agreed. Welcome to the forum, btw. :);)


The fluidity of female sexuality versus the likelihood for male sexuality to be strongly oriented to one sex or the other has been mentioned here a lot. Very often by me. :p That's simple observation from experience. I know a lot of females with self-described fluid sexualities, and/or who have drifted insofar as where they place themselves on the desire continuum, though I've met only a very few males who are genuinely bisexual.

I'd be careful about stating that most bisexual men "are predatory" though - that plus calling it a "myth" (since for the few guys who ARE bi, it is not a myth) might create a bit of a storm. Why would you say that? I gather it's based on something you read, (maybe the "Born Gay" title) since you are such an avid reader. I haven't come across any of those books you suggested either. Maybe later when I have some more time I'll take a look at them. The one about psychobiology of sexual orientation sounds quite interesting.

Oh hey, and Dash, sweetie: thanks for the movie/TV references! :tup:

[archyboi]

I get you. But the problem is this. The reason I cited Born Gay is that the studies do not bear your thesis out. Turns out that a 1999 study showed this. 38 self-identified straight males, 35 self-identified gay males and 33 self-identified bi males were asked to participate which they did.

All of the males were pre-interviewed with standardized questions assessing their level of comfort with the subject of homosexuality.

The gay males expressed no anti-gay sentiments. So did the bi males. But of the straight males who expressed no anti-gay bias and the others who did a VERY interesting result was observed.

All of the males who expressed no anti-gay sentiments physiogenically responded only to the female/female soft erotic stimuli and not at all to the male/male stimuli. As expected.

Guess what the other "straight" males responded to??!! Hmmm?

Exclusively to the male/male stimuli and not at to the female/female stimuli.

That's fascinating. Most males who expresses anti-gay sentiments are actually gay denying their true sexual identity, fabricating a false straight sexual identity and lying to cover this over with anti-gay rhetoric. So watch what people say. Ted Haggard is a classic closetcase. Have you seen Jesus Camp? I have. See it. His vitriolic & virulent anti-gay rant goes to such extremes that he is actually frothing at the mouth and sprays his audience. That's interesting. I have read his resignation letter -- it is pitiful & pathetic.

The gay males responded as expected of course.

But here's the REALLY interesting result. Of the self-identified bi males only a couple responded equally to both female/female & male/male stimuli. All of the remainder responded exclusively to the male/male stimuli and NOT at all to the female/female stimuli.

Why?

Because many males who are actually gay are so terrified of self-identifying as "gay" or exclusively "homosexual" that the furthest they can comfortably go is to self-identify as bi.

That's interesting.

So, I am sorry to use hot-botton language but my thesis remains true. That's all I was saying.

Thanks, baby!

--kev

[paul]

I don't know how I missed this thread. Good discussion.

I identified as Bi for about 10 years, I guess. I was on my own with this, so no witnesses to confirm. And actually, my feeling was/is opposite than the "studies." I would much rather say I'm "gay" or "straight" than "bi." Bi means everyone has a reason to reject you :D!

Then there's the notion that, okay, being bi means you can choose. Noooooo. I mentioned in Troys thread that that is like saying which arm do you wanna give up, your right or your left.

It's easy to see how bi people get the reputation they get, they have no "community," or flag, or churches, instead, they have a secret society. It's called survival.

[archyboi]

Please share with me your experience if that's not too cheeky of me to ask. If so disregard my inquiry. I know it is but still I'm so interested.

Are you really turned on equally by both sexes? I don't mean you can perform. I mean emotional connection and truely turned ON by both. Is that true for you? I know it never was for me. The closest description of how I always felt inside is portrayed by Reichen Lehmkuhl in his book, Here's What We'll Say. He couldn't get up the nerve for so many years to have sex with a gal. He had TONS of "girlfriends." He was very lucky they never pushed him or treated him badly. It's different for him, though, just look at him -- what guy or gal would kick him outta bed for eating crackers and making crumbs!

When he finally got up the courage to have sex with a gal he immediately knew he was just going thru the motions -- he preformed and she felt GREAT -- but, zip, nada, nothing for him, no spark at all. But, when he had his first male experience is was like he was on fire -- totally turned ON and rushing, emotions, feelings, images and sparks like he had NEVER felt before. And it wasn't even sex, it was a highly charged emotional circumstance when the other guy grabbed him into a fierce embrace and buried his face into Rick's neck and it was like nothing he had NEVER felt before. He'd made out with lots of girls but this was radically different.

He knew this was how he was hardwired. He just knew. Choice wasn't an option.

That's the same for me & suspect most gay men. As it is for straight men with gals. I remember so vividly my first arrousal at 11. It scared the holy f$%# outta me I'll tell you. I lived near the beach growing up and I remember I was MUCH more interested in the men in trunks than the gals @ 12. That scared me cuz I thought it was a phase I'd grow out of -- I never did. I couldn't perform with a girl either. Had "girlfriends" too but nothing goin' on, ya know?

I'm not dissing you, I'm just really interested in your view.

Is this true for you, really?

--kev

[Dash]

But here's the REALLY interesting result. Of the self-identified bi males only a couple responded equally to both female/female & male/male stimuli. All of the remainder responded exclusively to the male/male stimuli and NOT at all to the female/female stimuli.

Hi Kev,

In general I like your response and the weight you give to research. With this issue though, I wonder if the research really provides a fair indication of an individual's complete sexuality. A physical response to gender-specific/exclusive erotic stimulus (images, I'm assuming?) cannot exhaust the range of attraction that a man feels towards another person. Also, erotic imagery is not the only, nor the most important mechanism of arousal. The physical approach of the lover's beloved and the intimate touch they exchange is a stimulus that I imagine is not represented by this study.

Not only so, but one might consider the possibility that a bisexual male is aroused differently for each gender. It is sometimes said that women are more emotionally aroused than visually, and men more visually than emotionally. Perhaps for some, arousal can be activated in a bi-, or multi-modal way—sometimes visual…sometimes emotional...sometimes who knows?

We’re very complex beings.

[archyboi]

Well I didn't describe all the methodology and mechanics nor the background theorization. That's why I want everyone to read the book.

The point is that males are far more visual and bimodal than females.

The stimuli was video/audio of soft-core porn with nudity, heavy kissing and making out -- no sex. The videos were set up this way. Two males, blank, non-sexual neutral imagery, blank, two females, blank, non-sexual neutral imagery, blank, two different males, blank, non-sexual neutral imagery, blank, two different females and so on.

The readings of the plethsmography sphygmomanometer devices are highly sensitive and accurate. There is no way to hide from or fool them. It's called the sexual lie detector and these studies were more to determine falsification of actual arrousal patterns than strict classification of sexual identity.

Once again the point is that males tend to be more categorically bimodal and females not.

I really want to hear about bisexual males' experience though. I'm not cutting off the possiblity just stating the facts as they are known.

It doesn't really matter anyways. What's important is that every person is precious and valuable exactly the way they are. As long as everyone holds to their truth authentically and gives that out and demands that in return then whom ever anyone is attracted to sexually is nobody else's business than those involved. Everyone deserves the dignity to be themsleves completely without denigration, disparagement, discrimination or invalidation of any kind. Everyone is entitled to affirmation and validation without reservation.

This might be an interesting discussion but never doubt that I don't hold those ideals to be paramount. So I might give my view BUT that view is never a sanction to be used to hurt or invalidate anyone's experience of who they know themselves to be as long as they are true to themsleves and everyone around them -- you know, Honour Bright.

Does this make sense?

BTW: love the sliver surfer avatar but too bad the movie sucked so bad, eh?

--kev

[paul]

Kev,
No dis taken :D.

You'll note that I put tbt (the bi thing) in past tense.

Okay, lets see here. In second grade I had a crush on Mary Lou, and Gary and Garry. Fifth grade was Susan and Danny, but this one is suspect. I started buttoning my sweater like Susan did, like girls did, in imitation...what was that about? In sixth grade there was Ricky and Rita. I cried like a baby when Ricky got another friend. At age 12 there was Mark and gee, I can't remember her name. I slept over at Marks all the time and was always more interested in him than he in me. At 13 there was Harold and Amy. At 14 I was more aware and became a Christian, the boy thing started getting repressed. There was Sharon. At 14 I had my first romantic type, okay wet dream...sigh, it was of Randy. He kissed me. Damn, I still get a little stirred thinking about it even now. That was a shock, Christians don't have those kinds of dreams. Up till then I didn't really connect any of this or see myself as having attraction to the same sex, I spent my high school years fantasizing about guys and repenting, but also liked two girls and ended up marrying one of them.

My particular form of Christianity considered gay unacceptable, so marriage was my only option for relationship (read "sex") so I married at 21, a virgin. My wife is the only woman I have ever kissed or been with. It's kind of funny, I never actually proposed to my wife, God gave us permission to marry. At 26 I had my first experience with a guy, and it was down hill for years after that, I was hooked, I substituted sex for what I really wanted but couldn't have: a whole romantic relationship with all the fixens.

It's really hard to say Kev, I can more than just "perform" with my wife, but have to admit, my biggest turn on with her is giving her pleasure. So, maybe I've never been "bi," but just really friendly. We remain pretty active together and I am now celibate with guys.

So, while I have sexual experience with one woman and several guys, I only have romantic experience with my wife. I have never had the opportunity to be in a complete relationship with a guy, so I don't know how it would go.
In my mind, I am mostly gay and identify as such. But the truth is I have lived my whole life with a woman so it's hard to know, thus it's hard to say definitively whether I am bi or gay, honestly.

Your description here does kind of nail me:
But, when he had his first male experience is was like he was on fire -- totally turned ON and rushing, emotions, feelings, images and sparks like he had NEVER felt before. And it wasn't even sex, it was a highly charged emotional circumstance when the other guy grabbed him into a fierce embrace and buried his face into Rick's neck and it was like nothing he had NEVER felt before. He'd made out with lots of girls but this was radically different.


But then I don't know if that would hold up in a LTR with a guy.

[BrentRichards]

The readings of the plethsmography sphygmomanometer devices are highly sensitive and accurate. There is no way to hide from or fool them. It's called the sexual lie detector and these studies were more to determine falsification of actual arrousal patterns than strict classification of sexual identity.

Whoa! This is a pretty black and white statement on a methodology that is still MAJORLY disputed among both scientific and legal authorities. It is absolutely not fair to say that penile plethysmography is "highly sensitive and accurate" or impossible to fool ... that is very much up for debate. Check out some studies and arguments outside of the particular book you're citing ... opinion is FAR from universal on the value and/or reliability of this kind of research.

I myself am gay, period. Not even a little bi, never thought I was, so far as I can remember. I do know that many exclusively gay men go through a period of identifying as bi "on the way out" ... it's an easier cognitive transition, I'd imagine. But the existence of such men who are "not really" bi does not at all imply that all bi men are "not real" ... how do I explain my friend who is very out, activist, involved in the gay community, and recently fell in love with a woman, married her, and is raising their first child with her? Is he a fraud? Or is he, as he's always said, genuinely bi, and the person he fell in love with happened to be a woman, not a man. I am very wary of ... no, make that strenuously opposed to ... telling people I know their experience better than they do. I've had it done to me most of my life. I won't do it to others. A man who tells me he's bi is bi. He doesn't have to prove it to me, or to any researcher, or ... Why do we (of all people) have to have everyone fit into the categories WE want them in?

Rant over.

[dsdrane]

Tell it like it is!

You go, Grrl!

:cool::love::agree:

[Dash]

The stimuli was video/audio of soft-core porn with nudity, heavy kissing and making out -- no sex. The videos were set up this way. Two males, blank, non-sexual neutral imagery, blank, two females, blank, non-sexual neutral imagery, blank, two different males, blank, non-sexual neutral imagery, blank, two different females and so on.

Well, the methodology does sound rather thorough. I guess what I’m thinking of is an actual physical touch…a kiss, for example. Even for me as a decidedly gay male, the thunderous arousing effect that something so simple has on me is completely different than the effect erotic imagery induces. By your description, it seems that this study does not measure the effect of an opposite-gender kiss or physical touch upon the body of a bisexually self-identifying male.

Therefore, we can say that the test accurately reports what it measures (the effect of visual stimulus), but says nothing about what it does not measure (the effect of physical stimulus). Depending on how much a person responds to these different stimuli, the test may or may not provide an accurate measurement of their capacity for sexual arousal.

One of my early revelations was a statement in some old book on Ancient Greek sexuality (sorry...can't remember) to the effect that Athenian males could not accurately be called homosexual, but rather bisexual. The men were required to have wives and sire children in order to participate fully in the Democracy. So, functionally-speaking, they were not merely homosexual though they generally prized male-male love above male-female. It was the beginning, I think, of a different perspective on my part...an acceptance that people can live healthily and honestly, via sexual/social paradigms which seem foreign to me, but are perfectly natural to them.

BTW: love the sliver surfer avatar but too bad the movie sucked so bad, eh?

You know, I never got to actually see the movie. :(

[archyboi]

OK, Brent, explain to me in just as rigorous a manner exactly how it is not accurate and reliable. Cite the studies that make your case.

It is my understanding that the criticisms you raise are agenda-driven to deny the results. There's a little problem though. Evergreen and MANY others including the behavioral studies dept of BYU have been using this technology for fifty years to torture young gay men using operant behavioral modification electro-shock "conversive therapies" to "change" them into heterosexuals. It's a horrendous failure and evil.

Either the stimulus response is there or it is not and the devices are highly sensitive. That is irrefutable. The correlation to stimuli is the real culprit for error and misreadings. That's why the investigators took much greater care in the presentation and methodology of adminstration than in previous studies.

I think the very idea of a sexual lie detector that is highly accurate frightens a great many people -- especially gay men who are closeted, fabricate false heterosexual identities and have a HUGE vested interest in that never being exposed for what it is.

Anyway, peace to you and I thank you for your criticism.

--kev

[archyboi]

Hey boy!

I didn't either. The first one SUCKED so bad that when the BAD reviews came in for this one I passed. All I can say is that Chris Evans is a hottie and even HE couldn't get me into the theater -- I just downloaded the movie wallpapers! HA!

I think -- AND I AGREE WITH YOU, PAUL -- Reichen nailed me too. I have never read someone tell it so well and accurately. That took guts and a profound willinglness to open himself vulnerably to say the things he does in his book.

That, or he's a major EXHIBITIONIST!

I kinda think both. It takes a kind of bravado backed up with cold-steel determination to be an Air Force pilot that you and I have no idea about.

I admire him immensely.

OH MY G-D!!!

Go over to the Faith and Nonviolence threads -- "Jesus Gay" -- and read the paper I posted by Dr. Jeanne Reames on Alexander the Great's Sexuality. She cites the book you read!

Too cool.

--kev

[archyboi]

Me too. You just described me to a tee.

Thanks, Brother.

--kev

[dsdrane]

It is my understanding that the criticisms you raise are agenda-driven to deny the results. There's a little problem though. Evergreen and MANY others including the behavioral studies dept of BYU have been using this technology for fifty years to torture young gay men using operant behavioral modification electro-shock "conversive therapies" to "change" them into heterosexuals. It's a horrendous failure and evil.

I'm sorry; I must be slow.

How does the above prove or disprove the reliability of the method in question?

[BrentRichards]

OK, Brent, explain to me in just as rigorous a manner exactly how it is not accurate and reliable. Cite the studies that make your case.

Actually, since you're citing it as evidence, that ball falls in your court. The question here, to be technical is not reliability ... does the test show the same kind of patterns every time, sure ... that's reliability. But do those results TELL us anything useful? The proper term for that is validity, and that's what's seriously in question here ... even the test methods greatest advocates (see for example Barker and Howell, 1996) acknowledge a very limited predictive value, and huge margin for error in subjective conclusions being drawn from objective measures. Standardized stimuli, testing procedures, expected responses, interpretation methods, etc., simply haven't been established. The method is based on the idea that "it makes sense" that increased penile tumescence indicates increased sexual arousal. But "it just makes sense" (face validity) is not an acceptable scientific standard in psychological (or any other) research. What is to say that the differences in tumescence are not random, or caused by a condition of the testing (genital contact, for example), or even consciously controlled by the subject (a possibility advocates of the method dismiss as impossible due to the sensitivity of the equipment ... but you can't just "dismiss" a methodological problem, you must SHOW it isn't a problem) ... any kind of definitive research establishing a predictive, meaningful validity for the device is still missing ... so far as I've seen. I'll be happy to know of any specific names of rigorous studies you've read to the contrary. Without them, we can't assume it's valid because it seems like it would be. This is why Dr. W.M. Tyson and others have successfully argued for the exclusion of PPG evidence in court. Does it accurately measure changes in tumescence. Yup. Does that tell us anything definitive about the subject ... Um, maybe. Not good enough.

It is my understanding that the criticisms you raise are agenda-driven to deny the results. There's a little problem though. Evergreen and MANY others including the behavioral studies dept of BYU have been using this technology for fifty years to torture young gay men using operant behavioral modification electro-shock "conversive therapies" to "change" them into heterosexuals. It's a horrendous failure and evil.

What exactly is my agenda supposed to be here? And I also fail to see how the dispicable use of PPG methods in behavioral "aversion therapy" adds any weight to the validity of the method?

Either the stimulus response is there or it is not and the devices are highly sensitive. That is irrefutable. The correlation to stimuli is the real culprit for error and misreadings. That's why the investigators took much greater care in the presentation and methodology of adminstration than in previous studies.

Exactly the point. Is this book you refer to an account of the study? I'd be interested in seeing how they've addressed the methodological problems ... but I'll also want to see it in a peer-reviewed journal ... is it out there somewhere?

I think the very idea of a sexual lie detector that is highly accurate frightens a great many people -- especially gay men who are closeted, fabricate false heterosexual identities and have a HUGE vested interest in that never being exposed for what it is.

I'm sure you're correct about this. In my case, it's irrelevant, as it would seem to be for you, too. I'm sure you're aware that the most common use of PPG techniques today is in identification and treatment of sex offenders ... and it is fraught with controversy in that field as well. I'm far from an expert, though I've had enough graduate level social science to be an informed consumer of research, and will gladly check out what you suggest. I'm also savvy enough in the social sciences to bristle any time someone posits a study as anything approaching absolute proof of a simple answer to a complex question.

Ultimately here, Kevin, my concern is not to be "anti-PPG" ... if the tool proves to be useful for research (which point I am not convinced we are at yet) fine and good. My concern with your post was very much that you seemed to me to present this as a "clear as day" proof that self-identified bisexual men are lying. I don't think that's true, and I KNOW it's not helpful to the cause of equality and dignity for all of us... G's, L's, B's, T's ... and the rest of the alphabet, too.

[archyboi]

So sorry, my fault entirely.

M.D.s, Glenn Wilson & Qazi Rahman:
Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation
c2005

Get the book and read it. All the study citations are in the appendix and referenced scrupulously to the body text.

Go read it.

For the information I talked about here are the study citations:

Chivers, M.I., Rieger, G., Latty, E. & Bailey, J.M. (in press at time of publishing) ‘A sex difference in the specificity of sexual arousal’, Psychological Science.
Freund, K. (1963) ‘A laboratory method for diagnosing predominance of homo- or hetero-erotic interest in the male’, Behavior Research and Therapy, 1, pp. 85-93.
Freund, K., Watson, R. & Rienzo, D. (1989) ‚Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference’, Journal of Sex Research, 26, pp. 107-17.
Sakheim, G., Barlow, D.H., Beck, J.G. & Abrahamson, D.J. (1985) ‘A comparison of male heterosexual and male homosexual patterns of sexual arousal’, Journal of Sex Research, 21, pp. 183-98.

For the 1999 study:

Bailey, J. Michael, Pillard, R.C., Dawood, K., Miller, M.B., Farrer, L.A., Trivedi, S. & Murphy, R.L. 1999 ‘A family history of male sexual orientation using three independent samples’, Behavior Genetics, 29, pp. 79-86.

Go find them and read them.

--kev

[archyboi]

You honestly don't know about this?

It is going on right now in secret institutes like Evergreen and others that have no official footprint -- the Mormon anti-gay "conversive therapy" arm of the church since BYU couldn't do it any more after 1979.

The plethsmography sphygmomanometer is the primary signal initiating device to administer the shocks.

Seems to have been plenty accurate for 50 years or so.

That was my point.

Would you like to know where the electrodes are placed? It's graphic and medeival. The shocks aren't dangerous but the permanent mental trauma is.

Sorry, but this makes me furious that human beings could do something so monstrous to other human beings. These studies began as an investigation into abnormal violent sex offenders' psychological pathologies. That's where the anti-gay churches such as LDS got the idea to do this awful thing. I should not have assumed you knew. My fault entirely.

http://www.affirmation.org/learning/therapy.shtml

Read Jayce Cox's experience in a 2000 interview with a psychotherapist: http://www.isu.edu/~schorona/jayce2.htm

--kev

[dsdrane]

The original subject of this thread has been lost.

As there is obviously enough information -- and passion -- here to justify at least one or two additional threads, I suggest new threads be created.

[dsdrane]

You honestly don't know about this?

It is going on right now in secret institutes like Evergreen and others that have no official footprint -- the Mormon anti-gay "conversive therapy" arm of the church since BYU couldn't do it any more after 1979.

The plethsmography sphygmomanometer is the primary signal initiating device to administer the shocks.

Seems to have been plenty accurate for 50 years or so.

That was my point.

Would you like to know where the electrodes are placed? It's graphic and medeival. The shocks aren't dangerous but the permanent mental trauma is.

Sorry, but this makes me furious that human beings could do something so monstrous to other human beings. These studies began as an investigation into abnormal violent sex offenders' psychological pathologies. That's where the anti-gay churches such as LDS got the idea to do this awful thing. I should not have assumed you knew. My fault entirely.

http://www.affirmation.org/learning/therapy.shtml

This must be stopped. Somehow.

--kev


Kev --

It occurs to me that your rhetorical ship is running aground on two different levels: on the one hand, your arguments trend esoteric, where you assume common knowledge or understanding where there is none (or little); on the other hand, your discourse can be read as condescending, blithely stating information that we collectively know all too well.

Whereas I admire your zeal and obvious enthusiasm, you must remember the audience you're addressing; we've all been around the block more times than we'd care to mention. If you'd like to participate fully on this site, you might want to approach people here with the kind of respect you'd expect to receive yourself.

[archyboi]

My point, exactly. Can we move this discussion to another thread if you continue to be interested, Brent?

I was interested in bisexual expereince both male and female. I didn't intend this spinning so out of control. I am fascinated by the posts on the topic and learning so much.

Brent, you may not agree with what I have said but you haven't done the prerequisite reading to argue further. Do the reading then we'll talk on another thread, if you like.

Please.

--kev

[u-dog]

Brent, you may not agree with what I have said but you haven't done the prerequisite reading to argue further. Do the reading then we'll talk on another thread, if you like.

Please.

--kev

This is quite possibly the rudest, most arrogant, and least respectful thing I've ever read. Kev... are you autistic or aspergers or something cuz your social skills are like... I don't know ... zero?

[Zerbie]

I get you. But the problem is this. The reason I cited Born Gay is that the studies do not bear your thesis out. Turns out that a 1999 study showed this. 38 self-identified straight males, 35 self-identified gay males and 33 self-identified bi males were asked to participate which they did.

All of the males were pre-interviewed with standardized questions assessing their level of comfort with the subject of homosexuality.

The gay males expressed no anti-gay sentiments. So did the bi males. But of the straight males who expressed no anti-gay bias and the others who did a VERY interesting result was observed.

All of the males who expressed no anti-gay sentiments physiogenically responded only to the female/female soft erotic stimuli and not at all to the male/male stimuli. As expected.

Guess what the other "straight" males responded to??!! Hmmm?

Exclusively to the male/male stimuli and not at to the female/female stimuli.

That's fascinating. Most males who expresses anti-gay sentiments are actually gay denying their true sexual identity, fabricating a false straight sexual identity and lying to cover this over with anti-gay rhetoric. So watch what people say. Ted Haggard is a classic closetcase. Have you seen Jesus Camp? I have. See it. His vitriolic & virulent anti-gay rant goes to such extremes that he is actually frothing at the mouth and sprays his audience. That's interesting. I have read his resignation letter -- it is pitiful & pathetic.

The gay males responded as expected of course.

But here's the REALLY interesting result. Of the self-identified bi males only a couple responded equally to both female/female & male/male stimuli. All of the remainder responded exclusively to the male/male stimuli and NOT at all to the female/female stimuli.

Why?

Because many males who are actually gay are so terrified of self-identifying as "gay" or exclusively "homosexual" that the furthest they can comfortably go is to self-identify as bi.

That's interesting.

So, I am sorry to use hot-botton language but my thesis remains true. That's all I was saying.

Thanks, baby!

--kev

Hi Kev,

The interesting thing is you say your readings "don't bear my thesis out," but, erm, yes they do. :p I said essentially the same thing you said, with the caveat that we're getting into dangerous territory (assumption) with the assertion that male bisexuals are "a myth." I bet there are some, there are all kinds in this world.

I believe I have heard about the study cited in the book. This is the one with the (what IS the word? plethysmograph?) equipment measuring men's physiological response to erotic stimuli. The findings you cite sound really familiar.

I'd be leary of making universal assumptions based on one study. I'm sure they have real sociological relevance, and I'm not surprised by them. But there is always someone around who breaks the rule. You might even say a phrase my husband often uses, that they are "the exception that proves the rule." It doesn't mean some folks who fit the "exception" category are not out there. I'm sure they are.

I think it is likely quite correct that 50-50% male bisexuals are rare. I don't think I've ever met one, to my knowledge. Then again, who says that bisexuality is ever always 50-50? My own responses have changed with time, at some times responding more to women, at other times more to men. Fluid. I have felt genuinely that I'm straight at a time or two, and genuinely felt that I was lesbian at still others. Again, I do observe that fluidity to be far more common of females than males. But that's just personal experience, which is by necessity limited.

Anyway Kev, the point is, I don't believe that we're arguing. :D

[BrentRichards]

My point, exactly. Can we move this discussion to another thread if you continue to be interested, Brent?

I was interested in bisexual expereince both male and female. I didn't intend this spinning so out of control. I am fascinated by the posts on the topic and learning so much.

Brent, you may not agree with what I have said but you haven't done the prerequisite reading to argue further. Do the reading then we'll talk on another thread, if you like.

Please.

--kev

As a matter of fact, I don't like, thanks. I'll certainly look at the research with interest, for my own sake. I don't think I'll be discussing it any further with you. Your manner and replies to me thus far have come across as very condescending, and I'll admit I haven't got the patience to deal with that, thanks. Have an enjoyable stay on the forums.

[Zerbie]

I identified as Bi for about 10 years, I guess. I was on my own with this, so no witnesses to confirm. And actually, my feeling was/is opposite than the "studies." I would much rather say I'm "gay" or "straight" than "bi." Bi means everyone has a reason to reject you :D!

I thought and feared this same way for a few years. I then decided to turn it on its head and say: Everyone has a reason to accept me. I have a sexuality in common with the straight folk AND the gay folk. I know what both "orientations" feel like because I live both of them simultaneously. So luv me darnit. ;)


It's easy to see how bi people get the reputation they get, they have no "community," or flag, .

Actually, Paul, we DO have a flag. Don't feel out of the loop for not knowing. I've been involved in gay activism since like, '95. I just found out we bisexuals have our own flag about a year ago. :p If I remember correctly, it's lavender, with blue on one side and pink on the other, then mixed into lavender in the middle. :D

[archyboi]

I did not mean to be condescending.

You don't agree with my statements. You think you are right and I am wrong.

I am not wrong. The evidence is compelling and I have done the requisite research and represented it as accurately as I am able.

I also said regardless of the empirical evidence I am committed that no one's experience is invalid for them or me -- Honour Bright.

Didn't you read this? When I got a little forward with Paul he and I let our guard down, got vulnerble with each other and we saw the truth from our perspectives for our own experience. It was a great exchange and I learned so much from him. I think he did from me too. That is so very satisfying.

I really think Dr. Reames makes a strong case that labels of any kind for today are inappropriate for 2,400 years ago. I take it further. Labels of any kind are boxes that imprison something that cannot be contained and shouldn't. No one is summed up by a simplistic label -- regardless of any time period. Labeling Alexander the Great and Hephaistion as "GAY" and "LOVERS," "BISEXUAL" or denying it is inappropriate. They would never have recognized themselves as such. It is far more complicated. They loved each other like their own souls but that does not equate with them being merely their plumbing or "behavior". Hephaistion told Alexander he would never allow shame and dishonor to shadow Alexander's good reputation. He'd rather die than do that. But these guys trained in battle school together. They were tutored by Aristotle together with their friends. They were strong, healthy, vital young men with raging hormones and strong emotions. They thought of themslelves as the reincarnation of Achilles and Patroclus. I am positive they were intimate BUT that does not mean the same things today as it did then. Olympias said she was worried that Alexander wasn't the least bit interested in the fairer sex. She confronted him with: "Perhaps it is time you tell your father the King that it is a husband he should present to you, not a wife." WHOA!!! When Alexander vanquished Darius II decisively he and Hephaistion went to Darius' mother. She prostrated herself before -- not Alexander -- but Hephaistion -- he was the taller and more than equally as handsome. The Queen Mother's error was said her by her handmaiden and she blanched mortified by her affrontery. Alexander in genuine courtesy and great generosity said, "Be not troubled, Mother. He, too, is Alexander." Alexander never fathered a child yet married 5 times until after Hephaistion's tragic death -- 1 murdered, 1 survived born 4 months postumously of Alexander's death. You do the math.

You read Reichen Lehmkuhl's book, Here's What We'll Say and you will see connections you never knew existed.

Some are highly senstive to my initial terms: "myth" & "fiction".

Let it go. I very likely was speaking too technically.

You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. But neither of us are entitled to our own facts. I have investigated the facts. You by your own admission have not. This is not condescending. This is treating you like an adult and holding both of us accountable.

Now, please, let's not distract this thread any more with our argument.

Let's let it go and move on.

Can you respect me and me respect you in our mutual agreement to disagree? I hope so. I do care for you and would never disparage anyone or be unjust.

Accept my apologies, everyone.

--kev

[archyboi]

Your annecdotal evidence matchs up with the empirical evidence -- sooooo that's COOL!

My whole point in bringing it up wasn't to push a personal agenda to label anyone.

What was interesting to me were two things.

1. That women and men really are different in so many ways and so we should respect and honor each other's mutually exclusive traits and support a rapport between us that never imposes standards for one that would harm the other, but rather open a supportive, empowering dialog.

2. That men who express anti-gay sentiments or behaviors are actually closeted gays who deny their real sexual identity, fabricate a ficticious heterosexual identity and then cover it up with the anti-gay stuff.

There's an exception to this. Many Republican politicians and conservative religious leaders opportunistically use anti-gay tactics to curry favor for majority-rule tyrranical excercise of power and may or may not actually be gay -- although the last 2 years seems to support the notion that more often than not they are.

Thanks, sweety!

--kev

[u-dog]

I did not mean to be condescending.

You don't agree with my statements. You think you are right and I am wrong.

I am not wrong. The evidence is compelling and I have done the requisite research and represented it as accurately as I am able.

I also said regardless of the empirical evidence I am committed that no one's experience is invalid for them or me -- Honour Bright.

Didn't you read this? When I got a little forward with Paul he and I let our guard down, got vulnerble with each other and we saw the truth from our perspectives for our own experience. It was a great exchange and I learned so much from him. I think he did from me too. That is so very satisfying. I really think Dr. Reames makes a strong case that labels of any kind for today are inappropriate for 2,400 years ago. I take it further. Labels of any kind are boxes that imprison something that cannot be contained and shouldn't. No one is summed up by a simplistic label.

Some are highly senstive to my initial terms: "myth" & "fiction".Let it go. I very likely was speaking too technically.

You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. But neither of us are entitled to our own facts. I have investigated the facts. You by your own admission have not. This is not condescending. This is treating you like an adult and holding both of us accountable. Now, please, let's not distract this thread any more with our argument.
Let's let it go and move on.

Can you respect me and me respect you in our mutual agreement to disagree? I hope so. I do care for you and would never disparage anyone or be unjust.
Accept my apologies, everyone.

--kev


He makes my teeth itch :(


just for the record: here is the definintion of "Condescend"

Main Entry: con·de·scend
Pronunciation: "kän-di-'send
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French condescendre, from Late Latin condescendere, from Latin com- + descendere to descend
1 a : to descend to a less formal or dignified level : UNBEND b : to waive the privileges of rank
2 : to assume an air of superiority

Just to be helpful I have marked all the phrases in red where your interaction with Brent is characterized by "an air of superiority". If you are ever in doubt about what "condescending" means, just refer back to your post. it is precisely what "condescending" looks like.

[dsdrane]

You read Reichen Lehmkuhl's book, Here's What We'll Say and you will see connections you never knew existed.

If you don't stop quoting this book, I think I'll never stop vomiting.

You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. But neither of us are entitled to our own facts. I have investigated the facts. You by your own admission have not. This is not condescending. This is treating you like an adult and holding both of us accountable.

Really?

You seem to have a very high regard for your own investigatory abilities.

If you bothered to check, you are not the only one with graduate, post-graduate, and/or professional degrees on this forum, though you seem to be the most willing to trumpet your own graduate/professional work.

This is a non-violent site, and others here are either too nice or too respectful of the ideology of this site to say what I will gladly say (with all deference to u-dog):

I find you rude, and I find you obnoxious. You are a bully, too drunk with your own pomposity to recognize that you're shooting yourself in the rhetorical foot.

What exactly is your agenda?

[tdogg]

BTW: love the sliver surfer avatar but too bad the movie sucked so bad, eh?
--kev

Ummm, as a fan of the Fantastic Four, including the Silver Surfer, including the first and the most recent movies - I loved them both. ESPECIALLY the Return of the Silver Surfer. I'm not a professional movie critic, but if you are looking for enough action and hot bodies to justify spending the price of a movie ticket, this one shouldn't disappoint.

If you are looking for scientific evidence of the possibility of the existence of the actual characters or those with like abilities, then no, you would not care for this movie.

By the way, Jessica Alba is steaming! :sing::love::rainbow::oNo way I'm bi, not that there's anything wrong with it! :lol: I think this one got off track a ways back, just trying to make it real again.

Welcome Kev, you might want to be a bit more personal and not so robotic in your dialogue...just a thought, I found much of your posts to be barely readable in their formality. Anyway, welcome to you.

[archyboi]

I'll work on it. I have two modes. Fun, silly kev and rapier-hyper-accurate kev. It's a situational thing. If someone gets in my face I get in theirs. It's arrogant. I admit it. I'll sit this one out for a bit. I get really excited by new, radical ideas whether or not they topple sacred cows. That can get out of hand as it did here. My heart's in the right place though.

I do have a serious pet peev. I won't remove or substantly alter previous posts. I consider that dishonest and I have no attachment to looking good. So, you can count on me being real even if I don't look so good in the process. At least I'm honest. You can hold me to account for it.

I apologized. How 'bout some love over here?

--kev

[Zerbie]

I sense you are really trying to get along.

Play gently.

[paul]

I'll work on it. I have two modes. Fun, silly kev and rapier-hyper-accurate kev. It's a situational thing. If someone gets in my face I get in theirs. It's arrogant. I admit it. I'll sit this one out for a bit. I get really excited by new, radical ideas whether or not they topple sacred cows. That can get out of hand as it did here. My heart's in the right place though.

I do have a serious pet peev. I won't remove or substantly alter previous posts. I consider that dishonest and I have no attachment to looking good. So, you can count on me being real even if I don't look so good in the process. At least I'm honest. You can hold me to account for it.

I apologized. How 'bout some love over here?

--kev

Hey Dear Kev,

I've been reading through all these posts alternately laughing and grimacing. My first response to you when you introduced yourself over in "hello my name is land..." was, "to bad you don't have any energy." Twas a joke. You come on like gang busters.

It seems to me that you want what everyone wants, love. To my way of thinking, one of the primary components of loving someone is to recognize and acknowledge their value. We all want to be recognized and acknowledged for our brilliance, insights and deep understanding. I think sometimes, if we've gone without love...which a lot of gay people have (you can't love someone you don't see because they're in a closet), we end up with a love vacuum. We go around trying to make people see how wonderful we are so they'll love us. It's no crime to want to be loved, but it's kind of violent to put a gun to someones head in an effort to make them love us.

There are some wonderful, brilliant, sensitive, loving people here. I know you're not used to that, it's rare, especially in cyberland, but it's true. You don't have to make us love you. You don't have to prove a damn thing to us. But maybe you could try and give us time to get to know you just by being you. Rather than telling us who you are, let us discover on our own. You don't have to be fancy to have our love, even if it turns out that you are fancy. Am I making a bit of sense?
:love:
paul