|
|
|
#41
09-01-2007, 11:30 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Actually would it would be rather typical if many of the most virulent anti-gays turn out to be gay or bisexual themselves. Denying an inherent trait that is shared with a socially despised group is a pattern that re-appears throughout social history. So is the minority oppressing the majority. Look at European history. I don't expect to be faulted for having dropped out of activism for a couple years. Most of my friends never get involved in the first place! I was sharing the fact that there have been times when the biphobia in the community was enough of an issue to me that I threw up my hands and walked away thinking, okay folks, I'm outta here. 'Bye. As to it informing activism, we aren't going to have that answer (to an adversary's personal struggles or internalized homophobia) up front, so the best anyone can do is frame the issue appropriately all the time. Homophobia is a problem that needs to be solved. Do our best to solve it, generally speaking. I don't see how knowing for a fact if Dobson or whomever has had feelings for men could possibly change our responses to his actions, since we have to respond to action, not presumed thoughts. Muddy 'nough?
__________________
*** Never linger too long with the ignorant, throw stones at their talk. Walk only with the lovers, the mirror of the soul gets rusty when dipped in muddy water. -Rumi 
|
|
#42
09-01-2007, 12:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I know for a fact by having a great amount of bi friends that there are alot more bi people that do not mention their sexuality at all. They are with oposite sex partners, so the subject does not come up. I think what gives bi people a bad name are the ones that go out on their partners and cheat and have sex with others but claim they "arn't gay". The fact that they are CHEATERS and UNTRUSTWORTHY gives all bi people a bad name, especially those whom are faithful and happy with their mate. It makes them seem that they cant commit. That is bullcrap in my opinion. It saddens me that the younger bi kids are stuck with this society based lable that they have to date both sexes to be "really" bi, or have 2 relationships at once, or cheat on their partner or sleep around etc to fit with what society has told them is truly bisexual. The best thing for all of our community would be for STRONG and SECURE bisexual people to come out and show them that the stereotypes are NOT right. Show that they have monogomous unions, are decent people in society and raise children as functional (or dysfunctional) as the straight community. The bi portion of our community has a long way to go, they are where the gay/lesbian community was 20 years ago. It would only help to have the support of other gay/lesbian people also. How can WE forget how it was for us when people thought all gay men had AIDS and were promiscous, that all lesbians were Stone Butches that played sports and didnt want children, and we could not raise kids, be well adjusted etc. We have been there and it is unforgiveable that we would exclude others based on the same prejudged ideas we ourselves have faced. I feel here(the forum) at least it is better than the gay community at large, but I live in Grand Rapids, Mich. and we are years out of touch with the times! We need to stop looking at the SEX of whom we love and more into the soul of the ONES we love.
|
|
#43
09-02-2007, 06:09 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
And even though you are of course correct in sying we may never be sure, in our own activism, who is and who isn't bisexual (or gay), I may begin to make that presumption.... It will inform my activism if I view opposing voices as being borne out of tortured souls... and coming from people who may have more lifestyle choices than they're readily to willingly admit. It will inform my activism in that I may recognize the futility of debating "choice" at all (though "choice" will certainly remain among their most vocalized issues with us). It will also inform my activism in my very understanding of the fact that they may have these choices they claim we all have. I believe that, in any debate, the motivation of one's "opponent" is the single most valuable bit of information in forming a response. This may not be so remarkable to others, but for me it is fundamental. Undestanding this dynamic changes much in my understanding of our struggle for equality and it is simply this: That the voices speaking against my rights are in reality speaking in order to maintain and preserve the personal walls and masks that protect the speakers' own families! The "Family Values" we hear so much about may very well involve the specific preservation of the personal families of people like James Dobson... so that he doesn't suffer the fate of people like Senator Craig. Of course their families are "under attack." But they are not under attack by us... they are under attack by their own impulses and attractions and... ultimately.. by their own systems of ultra-conservative enforcements. Like I said... all this may be "old hat" to many... but to me it seems like a beam of sunshine through the fog... illuminating much about the "conservative agenda" that I've never quite understood.
__________________
-- "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -- Mohandas Gandhi
|
|
#44
09-02-2007, 09:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think that what the conservatives are worried about (in terms of the people that I respect) are the other causes that have, in a way, used the gay community. For instance, as I've said before, many of the organizations that help gay people also support things like giving parents less say in what their children are exposed to at school, getting rid of any kind of religious expression in the public sphere, etc. In responding to that, the conservative approach has been to take what they've observed and assume that the gay community agrees with other causes that they definitely (and, I feel, legitimately) don't want-ever. So, basically, what I think people are afraid of is that gay rights will become a pawn for individuals who want to force what some call a "secular progressive" way of life on America. I think that one of the major ways for the gay community to combat this is to make it clear that many hold conservative principles and don't want to see our culture go that way, either. I think that once more conservatives see people in the gay community as allies in preserving notions of basic right and wrong, the better off everyone will be. That's one of the reasons that I wish that, for instance, James Dobson had sat down with the people who went to Focus on the Family this year. That could have sparked some serious and helpful discussion between the two, but Dobson chose to forgo that opportunity and have the two people arrested, which is too bad.
|
|
#45
09-07-2007, 02:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thanks to everyone here for once again helping to work through the proverbial tip of what may very well be a GLBT iceberg. Here's the current version, for your approval. I'd like to especially thank those who, like Zerbie and u-dog, were so generous as to offer the benefit of doubt and the kindness of gentle advice.
Thanks also to Zerbie for opening a separate and needed discussion about bisexuality -- the fruits of which may ultimately help many of us to better understand the issues of this huge and hugely misunderstood segment of our population. Note: This essay, in its original form, caused quite a stir among members of our community -- and has been dramatically revised since its creation. I would like to apologize to those who found the original language to be divisive or offensive. It was, in retrospect, overly broad and oversimplified. In particular, words such as “choice,” “lifestyle,” and “orientation” seem to have different – even contradictory – uses and meanings within our own community, and become quickly divisive. I therefore ask the reader grant some leeway to the current incarnation, with the understanding that it may ultimately be impossible to please all of us. To be clear, this is an essay about hypocrisy, and as such is about the few and not the many. Further discussion about it has widened my own perception of bisexuality and the plights of our often-divided community. Our understanding of bisexuality and all the issues it entails; along with our unflagging insistence on complete inclusion of bisexual people -- can only serve to bolster our numbers, thereby strengthening our position in the quest for complete equality and recognition as human beings with human rights. Bisexuality and the Conservative Agenda Much of the rhetoric surrounding the issues of LGBT equality has to do with the topic of “choice.” Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there remains a large vein of extreme conservatism (the Religious Right and the Republican Party) who insist that a person’s sexual orientation is determined by a decision made by each individual. How can that be? How can so many so-called intelligent people simply ignore all that evidence and all of our sworn statements and all of our testimonials that we, too, would have probably “chosen” to be straight… if that had only been an option for us. The idea that any persecuted class of citizen would “choose” to be persecuted is itself such a ludicrous proposition that it begs the question, “Why are we still arguing about choice?” “Choice” is, after all, a central tenet to continued denial of human rights. The “choice” between straight and gay becomes, in the minds of conservatives, the choice between good and evil, and becomes therefore the singular point from which they are empowered to deny our civil liberties. Take away the issue of “choice,” and you take away their rationale for punishment. Take away the issue of “choice,” and they would have to start treating us like human beings. The LGBT community, in all our activities and lobbying efforts, seem to pay little attention to the “B” in “LGBT.” I’ve heard some bisexuals refer to themselves as “invisible,” and many seem to feel (and perhaps they are) mistreated within our community as the “stepchildren” of the current equal rights movement. To be fair, many of us seem to have our own issues of prejudice and have difficulty “placing” bisexuality in the realm of loyalties. This divisive trend makes little sense to me, since I’ve found bisexual people to be among the strongest advocates of the LGBT movement. In 1948, noted biologist and entomologist Alfred Kinsey introduced the “Kinsey Scale” suggesting that human sexuality can be measured on a continuum that ranges from 0 (completely heterosexual) to 7 (completely gay/lesbian), with the numbers 1 through 6 representing varying degrees of bisexuality. It isn’t surprising, therefore, that some have suggested that the majority of all people may be described as “bisexual,” dividing our ranks into approximately 10% gays/ lesbians/transgendered people, 10% completely straight people, and 80% bisexuals. While there may never be a way to know for sure, this 80% estimate for bisexuality may provide us with some important questions. Firstly, if our bisexual numbers ring in at anywhere near 80%, why would any sane activist try to alienate such a powerhouse of a demographic? Perhaps rather than view bisexuals as “stepchildren,” we would more prudently fully embrace all the dynamics surrounding bisexuality. Secondly, this realization makes me wonder how 90% of our population (the sum total of the LGBT community) could be so long and so well oppressed by the remaining 10%! This second question provides the meat for the remainder of this essay. So I asked myself why this might be – how can so many be subdued by so few -- and the answer takes us right back to the topic of “choice.” To follow me on this point, you’re going to have to crawl with me into the conscience of the ultra-conservatives, because they don’t see “choice” the same way we do. We see “choice” as the ability to choose a sexual orientation – and of course we know this is nonsense. But the conservatives, claiming they don’t believe in “sexual orientations,” use the word “lifestyle” instead. This simple exchanging of words already hints that choice is an option, because “lifestyle” sounds easier to change than “orientation,” which sounds more permanent. It then becomes a simple matter to use the word “choice” as the ability to choose which “lifestyle” to lead, straight or gay (read “good” or “evil”). About 20 years ago, I began to become politically astute – a process that involved paying closer attention to the news, and discovered the following trend: Every few months, another “straight” conservative, antigay bigot would get busted for some type of homosexual activity. These cases are always remarkable for their hypocrisy, because it seems the louder they scream against gay rights, the worse kind of homosexual turmoil that follows. As is the most recent case with Senator Craig, they are leaders, either political or religious; they are family men (or women); and they are extremely anti-gay (up until the day they’re busted, that is). So what’s the deal? What’s really going on here? Are they gay or are they straight? Perhaps they’re part of the larger (80%) demographic. And while this may seem repugnant to some (if I was bisexual, I wouldn’t want to claim them, either), if you’ll humor me for a few moments… I think I can make a good case for this possibility. In a perfect world, it would likely be healthiest for all of us to accept that many (perhaps most) people DO have some degree of flexibility -- a dual sexual orientation that encompasses both gay and straight sensibilities. While few people (and certainly not me) would suggest anyone can choose who they will ultimately love, some bisexuals may nonetheless have the luxury to “pick” which sexual orientation to practice, whether to live as a practicing homosexual or a practicing heterosexual – or both at once. Think about it… if you had a choice… if you were bisexual, and could chose between full equality (opposite-sex partner) or being a member of the persecuted class (same-sex partner), which would you choose? Of course, none of this is intended to detract from the many, many bisexual people who are among our ranks, nor is it an indictment of any person who chooses for her/himself the kinder, gentler path... yet it does provide a possible reason why we don’t have more bisexuals among our ranks, joining in the good fight for equality. Maybe it is because it was easier for many to simply to make the choice to act “straight,” and voila… the issue no longer affects them… they become immune to the slings and arrows and religious and social and even physical violence directed toward the LGBT community. Once I recognized this dynamic, an even more amazing truth hit me so squarely between the eyes, that it almost knocked me out of my chair! I was sitting here, wondering about those people who – in spite of all this overwhelming evidence – continue to insist that being gay is a choice. These people are terrified that recognizing gay humanity will cause in our country a gay “epidemic”… where all sorts of formerly “straight” people will begin “choosing” to act “gay.” The fear that making gay “ok” will therefore destroy the very fabric of the American family… that we’ll all start running around naked and making love in the streets… that cats and dogs will start sleeping together… “It’ll be anarchy, I tell you!” Who would think such a thing? Who would honestly believe that it’s a simple matter of choice in spite of all the evidence? Well, I believe the most likely candidates may be found among the ranks of the near-forgotten “B” in “GLBT,” among our bisexual brothers and sisters. Who else could “know” beyond a shadow of doubt that our “apparent orientation” is a choice but those among us for whom it actually IS a choice? It is ironic to me that, in spite of our inclusion of bisexuals in our ongoing struggle toward freedom, that a few bisexual people, in addition to choosing the “straight” path, have also chosen to be among our most prolific adversaries – spewing hate from pulpit and judicial bench, from pen and from stage… perhaps even bringing themselves to believe that we are all, like them, blessed with the ability to make our “apparent orientation” a simple matter of choice. So some of the people we are trying to help liberate are also the same people who are “hell-bent” on subduing our liberty. The dynamic is all around us, as we see preachers and “straight” Republican congressmen getting busted for illicit gay sex acts in airport restrooms, we can’t help but start to ask why those who shout most loudly against our liberties seem to be trying foremost to keep their own “demons” at bay…. Perhaps I was one of the few people who hadn't already presumed that the strongest ant-gay voices might be borne out of their own personal struggles with what they consider to be "aberrant" same-sex attractions. But even though we may never be sure, in our own activism, who is and who isn't bisexual (or gay), I may begin to make that presumption.... It will inform my activism if I view opposing voices as being born out of tortured souls... and coming from people who may have more choices than they're readily to willingly admit. It will inform my activism in that I may recognize the futility of debating "choice" at all (though "choice" will certainly remain among their most vocalized issues with us). It will also inform my activism in my understanding of the fact that they may have the choices they claim we all have. I believe that, in any debate, the motivation of one's "opponent" is the single most valuable bit of information in forming a response. This may not be so remarkable to others, but for me it is fundamental. Understanding this dynamic changes much in my understanding of our struggle for equality -- and it is simply this: That the voices speaking against my rights are in reality speaking in order to maintain and preserve the personal walls and masks that protect the speakers' own families! The "Family Values" we hear so much about may very well involve the specific preservation of the personal families of people like James Dobson (Focus on the Family)... so that he doesn't suffer the fate of people like Senator Craig. Of course, their families are "under attack." But they are not under attack by us... they are under attack by their own impulses and attractions and… ultimately… by their own systems of ultra-conservative enforcements. I say, “Enough!” I happen to be a gay man, but I don’t presume to believe or preach the ridiculous notion that all men are therefore gay. So if you happen to be a conservative, repressed bisexual, we’re simply asking that you don’t make the ludicrous assumption that all humans are similarly oriented. I’ll make a deal with you, Senator Craig and James Dobson… I’ll accept your bisexuality – I’ll accept the notion that you really can choose – if you accept the fact that I can’t. How’s that for a deal? Maybe if more of us can start to accept the notion that humans are created with a variety of qualities, we can all start to get along better. -- Troy Carlyle This article also available in the tridd Library: http://www.tridd.com/index_files/inf...nt_library.htm
__________________
-- "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -- Mohandas Gandhi
|
|
#46
09-07-2007, 11:09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hiya Troy.
 I like your additions. Best, I liked the change to your final paragraph (that was the one line that made me respond to the original as I did.) I've heard of "bisexual guilt," that is, where the bi person feels like, hey it's so unfair to my gay/lesbian friends that I get heterosexual privilege! so they throw themselves deeply into activism projects. I guess one can go either way about going either way, huh? 
__________________
*** Never linger too long with the ignorant, throw stones at their talk. Walk only with the lovers, the mirror of the soul gets rusty when dipped in muddy water. -Rumi
|
|
#47
09-08-2007, 12:27 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 , mostly not anyway ). I DO have a lot of catching up to do still. Finally coming out to myself a few short years ago made me feel like Dorothy waking up in Munchkin land. Everything was in beautiful living 3D Kodak color! I'm still soaking it all in.Thanks for such a great thread on bisexuality. I think you all did a great job of sharing your feelings and emotions on this, and educating us. I sometimes think that bisexuals (gosh, sounds like a label here???) have the whole world as their oyster. Men AND women! But then, when I listen to my bisexual friends here, I realize that they are no less accustomed to the same stresses, fears, hurt and prejudice that we are. Even more so. Sharing each other like this helps us all to realize that we aren't labels, stereotypes or a figment of someone's imagination. We are all real, unique, worthy and beautiful individuals no matter where our sexual attractions and orientation might lie. This is why it is so important that ALL OF US take an active part in activism, even if it means sharing yourself with others. We have to make it real, sometimes even to ourselves and our community (all GLBT). I'm so glad for everyone here, and thanks for sharing such intimate emotions and experiences to help everyone be more enlightened. Sailaway, don't worry about getting it right now. Just keepin readin'. Sometimes, there's really nothing to figure out, you just reach a point where you accept, approve, love and don't have to understand every nuance.  Not to change the subject, but I just had a thought - has anyone heard from Vanessa lately? I know she is very busy and said she wouldn't have much time for computering...just wondering how V is doing... 
__________________
"Struggle is a never ending process. Freedom is never really won, you earn it and win it in every generation." Coretta Scott King
|
|
#48
05-29-2008, 06:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I love my guy on guy action. I admit it. If they look good and are cute to boot, double fun! I even had to tell Ellie that I get to keep Wolverine on X-men(Hugh Jackman is hot as Wolverine, maybe it's the leather) I just enjoy looking. I enjoy looking at a beautiful woman(Kristina Loken) and I don't get that tingle with men like I do when I see a beautiful woman, so that's how I decided I was lesbian not Bi. My ex-girlfriend said she would not label herself, she could not guarantee that she would never date a man again nor have sex with one.(no one can guarantee things in life) but she considered herself a lesbian and did not go looking for men to sleep with. I think that is why I find it amazing that some gay people say that "bi's have a choice, and hetero priveledge" and also "bi is not gay" As far as I am concerned, you desire and are attracted to your own sex, you are gay!
__________________
Don't be afraid, it's only love!
|
|
#49
05-30-2008, 02:21 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 Lately, I've been saying I'm bi-curious. I know I'm mostly gay, but an itsy bit bi... I'm very hesitant to explore the bisexuality aspect because I am really in touch with how overwhelmingly gay... (I know, I know)... I am. Would it be fair/right/ethical to explore that with a woman when I KNOW that I am much more powerfully/romantically/sexually drawn to men? However, I've been reading.... My latest book is on bisexual spirituality called "Blessed Bi Spirit." It's fascinating, but of 30 or so chapters only three are written by men, so I'm looking for more balanced bi books.Interesting stuff, huh?
|
|
#50
05-30-2008, 07:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yes, it is "interesting stuff." One of the things I find most interesting is how reality will often call 'truth' into question. As a person who came from a very strict fundamentalist Christian way of thinking, my modus operandi had always been to try and fit reality into the one size fits all fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. But, I found I kept coming up against reality. What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Well, mostly bisexuality flies in the face of monogamy... yet another sacred cow to slay. It's not so much of a problem for me since I no longer try to fit "stuff" into a fundamentalist mindset, indeed, I consider the Bible one of many sacred texts written by people trying to figure life out, just as we are. I find I am much more at peace about accepting reality when I don't have laws carved in stone. The rule of love, alive vs. static, works very well I think. I think if we could all live by it, things like bisexuality wouldn't get us all conflicted with ourselves and others. paul
__________________
You are the world Krishnamurti
|
|
#51
05-30-2008, 09:24 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Nate, I think you are totally brave to discuss this openly. The only thing I can think of being unfair would be if you kept a partner in the dark about this sort of question being on your mind, which I cannot imagine you doing. Exploring relationship only makes sense. I dated both men and women when I was single. Y'know what? I wish I had understood at the time that, yes, I was bisexual. Instead I flip-flopped, coming out as lesbian when I dated girls and pretending to be (or thinking I had been confused, and really *was*) straight when I dated boys. That ultimately didn't turn out to work so great, in hindsight, - but I was young and scared out of my mind. You have a great deal more maturity and courage than that. You will know what is fair and what is ethical. I trust that about you, Nate. Quote:
You and I talked privately about whether there might be two "types" of bisexuals. Perhaps that point needs to be raised and considered publicly as well. (I"m really close to biting off the head of the next person who suggests that if I'm not having sex with women outside my marriage to my husband, that I am not really bisexual because I am not "practicing." (That word out to evoke shades of right-wingers labeling some "practicing" homosexuals."  )
__________________
*** Never linger too long with the ignorant, throw stones at their talk. Walk only with the lovers, the mirror of the soul gets rusty when dipped in muddy water. -Rumi
|
|
#52
05-30-2008, 11:03 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
please don't bite my head off Zerbie Ohhhh, I knew I should have edited that. Okay. One can be gay and married to the opposite sex, one can be bi and married to the same or opposite sex, in an exclusive, "monogamous" relationship with someone. I know you are not a "practicing" bisexual... you're a professional . Being GLBT is about much more than sex, who we are sleeping with. In my book, sex is the smaller percentage of the equation, though honestly, it can make the most noise sometimes when I'm horny.
__________________
You are the world Krishnamurti
|
|
#53
05-30-2008, 11:46 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Where's an emoticon for covering one's ears?) Just kiddin' ya. I understand.
__________________
*** Never linger too long with the ignorant, throw stones at their talk. Walk only with the lovers, the mirror of the soul gets rusty when dipped in muddy water. -Rumi
|
|
#54
06-08-2008, 07:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't know if this adds to the conversation.
I read Troy's initial post and was intrigued. I saw some of the early comments and understood both the support for and the critique of what had been written. I felt decidedly unqualified to enter into the mix on this, though. And, now, I wonder why I felt that way. Many others have said it before, but I think part of the problem is the "sexual" part of the identifiers - actually, it may be that identifiers are used period.
A long time ago, I wrote a little bit about the "continuum" and how I perceived it. For refresher, if it's of any interest, see here: http://www.soulforce.org/forums/show...3&postcount=30 That seems like such a long time ago now and some thoughts have developed. Even if we consider the continuum concept to be accurate, which I do, by understanding it in terms of sexuality we still carve out “moral” territories within the continuum. If we consider just the sexual, then I think we have the following: At one end, we have people who are decidedly straight. At the other those who are decidedly gay/lesbian. These are those of us who only get sexually aroused by the kind of partner that fits our place in the continuum. Then, it seems obvious, that those dead smack in the middle are truly bisexual - they can be freely aroused by either gender. We are more than penis and vagina, however. Heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual are labels that, by name, categorize us by our genitalia and what we do with them. Now, I know, sex is 90% what happens in your head and 10% what happens in your organs. But most people, even if they know this, consider sex to be physical - it is foreplay (for the lucky ones), arousal, intercourse of some description (even if its autoerotic) and orgasm (well, hopefully ). Now, considering that social mores have long had a hard-on for things sexual, people become judged by that which much of the population, with its basically puritanical anal-retentiveness about sex, considers at least a little "dirty" and "secret" - and, therefore, titillating (which just adds to the dirty, secret thing). While there will be exceptions, how many of us have good, long, graphic discussions with our parents about what our moms and/or dads did with their particular genitals and where they put them, in what positions, how often, and the qualities of their orgasms? "Hey, mom, tell me again how you like it when [dad or mom] flicks you clitoris with the tip of his/her tongue." "Hey, dad, would you show me how to use that anal stimulator you've talked about so often?" "Sally, sit down, let me tell you about how your dad made me orgasm five times when we played Geronimo coming through the pass." (OMG, I'm gonna throw up - so, now, who's puritanical? ) For most of us, I think, this ain't happening. Heterosexuals DO NOT generally refer to themselves as heterosexuals – as oriented genitals - they refer to themselves as people with multi-facetted lives - usually in terms of what they do, but not in terms of what they do with their genitals unless the issue of sexuality is broached. "I am a carpenter/teacher/whatever." "I enjoy gardening/sewing/whatever." "I am a Christian/Buddhist/whatever." What we don’t hear generally is Billy Bob Joe Salesman walking into a crowd of people and saying, “Hi! I’m Billy Bob. I’m heterosexual.” People would move away like there was a bad odor. Heterosexuals DO, however, refer to, and think about, others by what they do with their genitals. "He's homosexual." "She's bisexual". In the minds of most, these terms immediately transfer to images of what someone does with their penis, vagina, tongue, anus, nipples, belly button (oops, sorry - I don't know how that got in there) or whatever. So, when we have been raised to be so inhibited that we don't want to imagine dad blowing a load into mom or dad, or mom squealing with delight in rapturous orgasm, or either one of them wanting to even remotely insinuate to their kids that these things happen, we use identifiers that immediately raise the specter of dirty, erotic, titillating, and oh so enjoyable (damn, honey, you're gonna have to whip me again for being a bad boy - we should close the windows, though) sex. Now, where was I - I am sure there was more of a point to this than just being comic relief. Oh, yeah! Most have been socialized to think that sex is a very private, very secret, and (for many) dirty thing. And in this environment, if we go telling people that they fall on a continuum of bisexuality - well, I think, there's gonna be a strong knee-jerk reaction - just like the strong knee-jerk reaction that GLBT people experience from the anal majority. I, for one, while I know I fall somewhere on the continuum of sexuality, am not sexually aroused by men. Sorry guys, no insult intended. I've even been curious and checked out some websites that should have aroused me if I was arouse-able by men - and, nope, it ain't happening. I realize this isn’t scientific, but I’m not in the practice of putting electrodes on my private parts – so anecdotal will have to do. That said, I can be and have been intimately close emotionally with men. There are men I dearly love. There are men I have, or would be comfortable, holding in an embrace when they are in need of comfort or closeness. There are men that "arouse" me emotionally and mentally, "stimulate" me in many ways - just not genitally. Does that make me purely 100% heterosexual - I personally don't think so. I am more than my penis. I am capable of – actually, I need – emotion involvement with people of the same and opposite gender. I think that is true for most. But, if I was socialized in a more puritanical way, considering this as an indicator of bisexuality would scare the shit out of me - I would probably be rampant in my denial and quite possibly engage in verbal, or even physical, abuse of those who even remotely reminded myself that I was a little "off center". Oh, wait a minute - I DID DO THAT in my previous "life" because I WAS socialized that way. This even works within the GLBT community. Considering things sexual – with the titillating aspects, but also the intimate aspects that so easily raise specters of vulnerability and rejection – leaves bisexual people in something of a “no-man’s land” with regard to moral territorial norms for those who believe they are distinctly homosexual. Despite having come to terms (possibly) with our puritanical puckering about our own sexuality, we are faced with people who can be aroused by people who match our particular criteria and, most importantly, those who DON’T. We all have our ICK factors. I believe this has the same root as heterosexual judgment. It is a bias, based still on socialization, which has to be overcome by the person holding the bias. I don’t really know if I’ve made any salient points or added to the conversation in any way, but these are thoughts bubbling up from this discussion so far.
__________________
www.revandylittle.com - Andy's blog Sins are always worse when they're different than mine
|
|
#55
06-08-2008, 11:38 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
OMG Andy!!!!!!
How did I fail to absorb any of that when it was originally posted?! (Referring to the previous post you linked us to.) Oh how awful. How logical. It explains everything. And it's another illustration on the importance of creating positive, uplifting thoughts and emotions in the people around us. Otherwise, we feed into more of the kind of thing you were caught in, and as we react in those traps, we escalate the traps that other people are caught in. . . . icky yucky nasty downward cycle. These things are essential to understand. Thank you for sharing that (again), Andy. 
__________________
*** Never linger too long with the ignorant, throw stones at their talk. Walk only with the lovers, the mirror of the soul gets rusty when dipped in muddy water. -Rumi
|
|
#56
06-08-2008, 03:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What you say, and what we hear and see.
Quote:
|
|
#57
06-08-2008, 03:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Tolerate one another, just as I have tolerated you.- Jesus Christ?
|
|
#58
06-08-2008, 03:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
(Trying not to type in all capital letters. . . . )
It is the straight community that has the hubris (and irrationality) to pronounce that gay kids are straight. The straight community recruits gay people all the time, not just youngsters. Everyone I have yet encountered in the gay community with whom I have had such a conversation is FAR MORE hesitant about having young people label their sexuality or come out than the youngsters themselves often are. What one usually hears from the gay community is something like: Don't be in a hurry to make a conclusion about who you are. If you're gay, we love you. If you're straight, we love you. It's not an orientation that matters. It is the heart of the person that matters. That heart which must be respected, validated, and sadly all too often, protected.
__________________
*** Never linger too long with the ignorant, throw stones at their talk. Walk only with the lovers, the mirror of the soul gets rusty when dipped in muddy water. -Rumi
|
|
#59
06-08-2008, 06:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Secondly, yep, there's an abstinence section of the gaychristian.net site. Weird that it took me a whole two seconds to find, but you've just been supposing it doesn't exist because we all know how The Gays are always having sex sex sex. If there aren't any kids around, sometimes They even do it with each other!!! Also, it's important to note that The Gays are usually excluded by design, since state funding is currently given only for an abstinence-until-marriage program and we can't get married in the first place. Bills to close this loophole have been dead in committee for some time. Interesting Catch-22, isn't it?
|
|
#60
06-08-2008, 08:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Wet T-shirt contests Beach Bikii contests Spring Break (Including the one I went to 35 years ago) Strip Clubs Sex Clubs Now let's also address your insinuation that in gay bars "a man or a woman will have sex with dozens and dozens of different people in one night." Okay, Donny - head's up time. Flashback to 1975 when I got divorced from my first wife. I was 21 at the time. This was in Columbus OH - not exactly hedonism central - and friends invited me to go clubbing with them to get me laid. The place, which no longer exists, was called Jericho and it was the earliest of the disco hot spots in Columbus (strike number one). I went three times before striking this kind of place of my list. Night one - a man I worked with left four times ith different woman and had sex in cars with each of them. Night two - there was an impromptu blow-job contest on the dance floor. Night three - going because I was asked "What? Are you a fa--ot or something?" - the wet t-shirt contest got carried away, until the contestants were not just naked, but striking the most exposing poses to win the "big prize." These weren't GLBT folk- these were self-declared straight Christians who took me to this hell-hole - not just Christians, but three belonged to the Church of God. Hedonism is a human trait - not universal, but certainly not due to GLBT infiltration. Hell, in Columbus OH at that time, you wouldn't catch a gay person being out and proud in public - it was too damn dangerous. And I was one of the perople who made it dangerous. I surmise from what you have said that you would find all of this disgusting - I surmise, but maybe I'm wrong. But, I'll tell you what, if you blame this slippery slope on the GLBT community you are either grossly - and I mean grossly - misinformed, or you are one of the biggest liars there has ever been. Also, with regard to gay bars, I have been to many having been invited by gay friends. I have NEVER seen anyone having sex in a gay bar - NEVER. I've seen strippers; I've seen drag queens; I've been hit on and been treated with great respect after telling them was straight. I ain't never been raped in a gay bar; I've never been "recruited"; I've never been baced into a corner. I'm not saying it's never happened, but I've seen these things way more often in straight bars. The image you have in your head about gay bars is part of your sickness, Donny, not the GLBT community's. Quote:
Quote:
Some of the noteworthy survey results: Evangelical, pentecostal and liberal Christians share very similar divorce rates, fueled by very similar rates of infidelity. Evangelical, pentecostal and liberal teenagers share very similar rates of premarital sex, unprotected sex, sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancies. From the AIDS Council of NE NY comes the news that the highesty risk group for getting HIV/AIDS is young teen girls who have unprotected sex. Why do they have unprotected sex? Because they have been taught abstinence only and they'v rejected it, but have no solid sex-ed to know how to protect themselves. when they do. They are also just as likely to be from conservative religious families as liberal ones. Get your head out of the sand, Donny. Including abstinence in conjunction with "recruitment of youth", "pedastery" and GLBT is about a disengenuous and intentionally deception as one could get. Your's is a very sick mind. The problem is, Donny, that you perceive society to be going to hell in a handbasket amd you need someone else to blame. You don't want to look at the complicity of your own ilk and acknowledge that your church-goers are as f'd up and responsible as anyone else. GLBT folk are your scapegoats. You want to pack your sins on their backs, along with the sins of the rest of society, pat them on their ass and send them off into the desert in the hope that society will all of a sudden clean itself up. That's self-denial and ludicrous - and the longer you play that game the more people will die and the worse society will get. If you want to be part of the solution, quit lying to yourself about the source of the problem.
__________________
www.revandylittle.com - Andy's blog Sins are always worse when they're different than mine
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
(Gee, for some reason this website doesn't have many violent emoticons. . . 
Linear Mode
