What Bisexuality means to me

[marutidas]

On my other thread 10 Ways to Fight Hate, Zerbie and Wanderer had this to say about when people talk about their sexuality...

Originally Posted by Zerbie

I still often run into stupidities regarding bisexuality. For instance, people who think if a bisexual person has a monogamous partner, then s/he is not bisexual because "she isn't practicing." Like, you're only gay when you f***?

Originally Posted by Wanderer

I've been running around the Web recently, and there's a lot of stupidity out there. Now, stupidity from the likes of Fred Phelps is one thing; apparently, that's par for the course. It's not good, but at least it's not surprising.

What's under my skin is the stupidity that comes from other gay men. How can any gay man rationalize the claim that bisexuals "are really closeted gays." True, a lot of gay men, on their way out of the closet, do use the term "bisexual" as a way of getting used to come out to others as *gay.* But that's no reason to invalidate the entire idea of actually having a bisexual orientation.

I've run into similar remarks about asexuals. ("How is asexuality a sexual orientation at all?" some seem to ask.) Okay, asexuality by definition is a lack of sexual attraction. Fine. But that doesn't mean that it's somehow invalid to use the phrase "sexual orientation" to describe it; it's just an orientation away from all sex, rather than an orientation towards some variety of sex. Big deal. We should still be able to make common cause with asexuals. Another objection is that asexuals don't face the kinds of discrimination that we do. Again: big deal. Asexuals themselves will tell you as much. Just because their goals are different (recognition as asexuals, rather than, say, celibates or closeted gays; and inclusion in education about, and research concerning, the various queer communities) doesn't mean that we can't help them, and they help us.

I know that this is a bit more of a rant than anything else, but is anyone else out there running into this kind of nonsense *within* the gay community?

Wanderer

I invite all our Bi brothers and sisters to weigh in on their sexuality and what it means to them.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by marutidas

I invite all our Bi brothers and sisters to weigh in on their sexuality and what it means to them.

Kinda nothing. It just is, that's all.

[BrianB]

What bisexuality means to me is sexual attraction to both males and females. It does not necessarily mean having sex concurrently with males and females. I've also been attracted to transgender people. Is there a label for that? Bisexual just seems to be the closest description I can find.

[antiochian]

Oh yes, I've heard my share of anti-bi slander, and mainly by gay men. They seem afraid that were they to get serious with a bi man, he'd run off and leave them in the dust for a woman. I pointed out to one friend that even if such *could* happen, why is it any worse than a gay partner jumping ship to sail with the next guy who catches his fancy (that *does* happen!).

I label myself gay, but have had the occasional opposite-sex attraction. The human spectrum of sexuality is so diverse, and I think it's a matter of accepting that as one of nature's wonders.

One friend of mine believes that everyone is bisexual to some extent; that is a hypothesis I will not touch, because I can't speak for universal human experience. I can certainly see the benefits of bisexuality--much better dating prospects!

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by antiochian

I can certainly see the benefits of bisexuality--much better dating prospects!

This assumption is one of the things that ticks me off. It's completely untrue.

My experience was that dating prospects are far less substantial if you say you're bi, because members of both sexes respond by assuming this means you won't stay interested. Not to mention, after you sift through all the gay people who think you are a straight person playing games, then you have to sift through all the straight people who think you're exotic, before you find someone who responds normally.

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by antiochian

One friend of mine believes that everyone is bisexual to some extent.....

I'm not sure this is always the case.

If I'm walking down the street and I see a good looking straight couple, my eyes always land on the man. If I see a beautiful woman driving a hot car, my eyes always land on the car. If I see a man and a woman having sex, my eyes search for the fast-forward button.

Rick

[BrianB]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

This assumption is one of the things that ticks me off. It's completely untrue.

My experience was that dating prospects are far less substantial if you say you're bi, because members of both sexes respond by assuming this means you won't stay interested. Not to mention, after you sift through all the gay people who think you are a straight person playing games, then you have to sift through all the straight people who think you're exotic, before you find someone who responds normally.

Amen to that!!! What has happened in my experience is that I end up with another bi' person. Gay people think you're just in a phase. Straight people think you just took a detour on the "wild" side.

[Alecto]

Originally Posted by BrianB

What bisexuality means to me is sexual attraction to both males and females. It does not necessarily mean having sex concurrently with males and females. I've also been attracted to transgender people. Is there a label for that? Bisexual just seems to be the closest description I can find.

"Pansexual" (or, less commonly, "omnisexual") refers to people who are unlimited by gender in their attractions. They allow for inclusion of transfolks, as well as for the concept that there are more than two ("bi") genders.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Alecto

"Pansexual" (or, less commonly, "omnisexual") refers to people who are unlimited by gender in their attractions. They allow for inclusion of transfolks, as well as for the concept that there are more than two ("bi") genders.

Welcome to why I loathe labels. Sorry but Pansexual makes me think of everything from the ancient god, Pan, to being so pan-sexual that one humps everything including mailboxes and parking meters, to frying pans. Omni-sexual doesn't sound much better.

I vastly prefer to avoid labels. At least for me, all they seem to do is induce confusion instead of communication.

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

.....to being so pan-sexual that one humps everything including mailboxes and parking meters, to frying pans.

I've always had a hard time thinking of a good pick-up line for a mailbox. That's why I have an inflatable mailbox in my bedroom.

Rick

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Rick336

I've always had a hard time thinking of a good pick-up line for a mailbox. That's why I have an inflatable mailbox in my bedroom.

Rick

AAAAAAARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

AAAAAAARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!

Just joking of course. I have nothing inflatable in my bedroom. I just wanted to clear that up.

Rick

[tpdncr4christ]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Welcome to why I loathe labels. Sorry but Pansexual makes me think of everything from the ancient god, Pan, to being so pan-sexual that one humps everything including mailboxes and parking meters, to frying pans. Omni-sexual doesn't sound much better.

I vastly prefer to avoid labels. At least for me, all they seem to do is induce confusion instead of communication.

One of the favorite things I've ever heard was from a transsexual who was talking in my psychology class. He said, "It's not about the parts, its about the person. You fall in love with the person, not the parts." I always think that anyone who is bisexual isn't so much into the parts as they are the person.

[sauu4equality]

Originally Posted by tpdncr4christ

One of the favorite things I've ever heard was from a transsexual who was talking in my psychology class. He said, "It's not about the parts, its about the person. You fall in love with the person, not the parts." I always think that anyone who is bisexual isn't so much into the parts as they are the person.

I think this is true for many of us, including me. As others have stated, we are all different though. And I still really like the parts...I mean in some ways it is the parts...I just happen to like more parts than monosexuals.

As for more dating choices, I'm not so annoyed with the idea of having more choices. Because it is just about impossible to date anyone openly in San Antonio, TX, I kind of date both (I do tell those I'm dating fairly soon if there is a connection). So, I do technically have more options. But to agree with my fellow bi folks, being bi doesn't necessarily translate to more dating or more options which I think was their point. We are still bound by those we are attracted to and those we're not.

As for identity (label), I kind of like it. I think I identify with gays and lesbian's who have come to the conclusion that the opposite of pride is shame. So, I have pride in who I am. I did have a guy on a date go off on bisexuals once. That was one of the longest dates of my life. And needless to say there was no goodnight kiss and I haven't seen him since. I feel very comfortable with the label bisexual. It ties me to the GLBT community. But it certainly doesn't apply to everyone that fits a particular definition. Whether or not to label or what to label is a personal decision.

[Alecto]

I'm not one to try to force labels on anyone, but if someone's asking about what labels do exist, I think everyone should have that starting / reference point y'know? (Cause, yeah, I do remember hearing some people actually DID use one or the other of the two I provided to talk about like, loving clouds and rocks n stuff).

I want to one day marry a pansexual cause at least I know they'll really love cooking...

[BrianB]

Originally Posted by tpdncr4christ

One of the favorite things I've ever heard was from a transsexual who was talking in my psychology class. He said, "It's not about the parts, its about the person. You fall in love with the person, not the parts." I always think that anyone who is bisexual isn't so much into the parts as they are the person.

I like that! It's not about the parts it's about the person. That is a simple and clear way to say what I feel.

Alecto, thanks for the labels you suggested. Pansexual sounds to me like a person with a cookware fetish. Omnisexual sounds like a person that will have sex with whatever isn't moving. Not judging anyone but that isn't my thing.

[Wanderer]

Just to drive Zerbie up the wall...

...there is a label for...you guessed it...people who don't like labels. It's "pomosexual." The first two syllables come from the words "post modern."

Wanderer

P.S. to Zerbie: Just kidding about the "driving you up a wall" bit.

[alphie]

thanks to all for your insights into bisexuality - I have wondered about it.
Even though I know that, personally I am physically and emotionally attracted to women, I also know that there is a scale when it comes to sexual orientation. So thanks for helping me understand some things. I hope to learn and understand transgender folks also.
Peace.

[Jennifer5]

Originally Posted by tpdncr4christ

One of the favorite things I've ever heard was from a transsexual who was talking in my psychology class. He said, "It's not about the parts, its about the person. You fall in love with the person, not the parts." I always think that anyone who is bisexual isn't so much into the parts as they are the person.

I like that.

I find myself attracted to men, their looks and just the way they are. I feel like a understand men, something that most females can't say. I do however, like to believe that I could fall for a woman (as time goes on though, that feeling is fading).

[BruceChris]

Originally Posted by Zerbie, who said defensively

Welcome to why I loathe labels. Sorry but Pansexual makes me think of everything from the ancient god, Pan, to being so pan-sexual that one humps everything including mailboxes and parking meters, to frying pans. Omni-sexual doesn't sound much better.

I vastly prefer to avoid labels. At least for me, all they seem to do is induce confusion instead of communication.

Can I get away with labeling you a Passionate, Loving, Monogamous Woman?



"Gay? I used to be gay, but it wasn't me, and I've moved on" -- Richard Burton

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris