On Topic Discussion What do you think about bisexuals?

[xbuzzerx]

A quasi-"Wizard of Oz" reference! I guess I can't be straight for knowing that.

You're Kiensexual. All other sexualities must band together to destroy you.

 

[otters]

A quasi-"Wizard of Oz" reference! I guess I can't be straight for knowing that.

LOL, and this:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/11/0...es-more-likely-to-not-believe-in-bisexuality/

Study: Straight men are ‘three times more likely’ to not believe in bisexuality
[my emphasis]

According to a new US study, men who identify as heterosexual are three times more likely to classify bisexuality as “not a legitimate sexual orientation.”

 

[dereperez]

LOL, and this:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/11/0...es-more-likely-to-not-believe-in-bisexuality/

Study: Straight men are ‘three times more likely’ to not believe in bisexuality
[my emphasis]

Thanks for sharing.

Though..lol @ this groundbreaking study:

Additionally, the survey found that it was male bisexuals who suffered more stigma than female bisexuals.

 

[Kyanimal]

What truly amazes me is how most folks are so interested in, and critical of, Everyone else's sexual identification, self described labels, rather than attending to their Own comfort level of where they might "stand" themselves!

For the first half of my life, I had a bisexual history leaning more toward Females! However, I now identify as Gay! The last, or more recent, half has been all Guys, by deliberate choice!

In other words, before spouting, please take a moment to look in the mirror.

And, of course ... No Matter What ...

Keep Smilin'!!
Chaz

 

[Rolyo85]

Why did you "choose" to stop doing things with girls?

 

[bankside]

On those two:

1. No, you're not "now" anything. You were always that, you just didn't know/recognize/accept it. And you will remain so, whether you know/recognize/accept it or not, and however you decide to call yourself instead. Which has been my point the entire time. While people may lay claims to identities, those identities are ultimately a thing about them that exists independently from how they label it. If you're bi, you're bi, whether you'll call yourself straight or not. If you're gay, you're gay, whether you want to call yourself bi or not.

2. My apologies. In the entire mashup of half-arguments and responses to points I'd never made, I failed to notice that he's trans. I was wondering what that whole spiel about transsexuals was, now it makes more sense. And I withdraw what I said - the straight guys thing makes sense too.

I can't accept that sexuality is as innate and immutable as would be necessary to sustain that argument. I don't think I have to either, by most well-developed theories of human sexuality. As much as our capacity for sexuality and sexual orientation might be innate, it is to some not insignificant extent built on our experiences and our opportunities.

For this reason, I actually think bi-curious is a valid sexuality in its own right. With a bit of experience, it resolves into bisexuality, homosexuality or heterosexuality. But I don't think it is a mislabelling of some underlying sexuality: it's fine to stand alone as an accurate marker of a person's sexuality.

So if someone is quite confident about and at ease with and enthusiastic in his heterosexual attractions, and uncertain or tentative or selective or situational with his homosexual attractions, he can legitimately call himself a bi-curious straight guy for a very long time. It's when he explores that curiosity and validates it with experience that its time for a new label.

The point is, throughout this thread, I agree with you that people don't get to pick their own labels: the label should describe their willing behaviours (and their compelling fantasies) and "how they feel like identifying" doesn't matter any more than "how they feel about gravity." I don't "identify" as gay; I am gay. I'm gay whether I call myself that or not.

But where I differ from you and buzzer is on the proportions. I don't think it is legitimate to round down 10, 20, 30 percent of someone's sexuality and force them into a sexuality binary of gay/straight. Or "gay/straight/bisexual unicorn whose so rare lets just stop kidding ourselves it's either gay or straight." Not even 5% to be honest. And I also don't think we can infer from someone's present-day sexuality that it was always like that and they just didn't know it; there was no guarantee it would work out that way.

 

[luckynumbah7]

As someone else said... this isn't rocket science.

There are gay guys who identify as straight.

There are gay guys who identify as bi.

Both of these aren't telling the truth, they are picking a different label for a variety of motivations.

Saying the first is a "well, duh." Saying the 2nd produces a shit fit on demand, reliably. But it's a case of people yelling at you to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I guess we're all supposed to pretend he isn't there.

I think where you're going wrong is the idea of truth. People are harping on it as if there is one. There isn't an objective truth because identity is a subjective experience.

There is objective truth regarding actions, though. But the self-professed identity (someone saying they're bi, for instance) that you're trying to label as gay by ignoring two of the three differing means of understanding someone's sexual identity is only one third of the issue. An often lazy third since it's easily viewable. I'm not arguing that someone who does one thing (or a mix of several things, or does one thing and feels another, the list is extensive and exhausting) doesn't exist. Far from it. But I am saying people are taking a narrow view of identifying and understanding information received when focusing on identity and its various politics.

The word is not the concept. It's merely a representation of it - usually a stunted representation because other concepts are always involved, like what constitutes sex and what is gender. You can't define 'gay man' without knowing what make up the various definitions of gay and man, and man/male is a particularly shifty concept, especially when going outside western culture.

I do think some people do have some weird fucking definitions and concepts for words that involve identity, even if they are asinine in nature and few if any people could see how such could possibly have come to that conclusion in a logical manner. Still, they're definitions and concepts that must be included in the data for the whole to make sense.

And no, it isn't rocket science. I'd recognize that, it's what one of my brothers does for a living. Irritating physicists. We've differing fields of interest, makes for some damn argumentative conversation around the holidays.

 

[luckynumbah7]

The point is, throughout this thread, I agree with you that people don't get to pick their own labels: the label should describe their willing behaviours (and their compelling fantasies) and "how they feel like identifying" doesn't matter any more than "how they feel about gravity." I don't "identify" as gay; I am gay. I'm gay whether I call myself that or not.

Eh, I don't believe labelling self identity is the same as labeling someone's actions. You'd think they would be but I've met much too many people who, well, say one thing and do three different others. The end result is still the same. "Matt identifies as bi but is sexually attracted to women exclusively - he just finds some men aesthetically pleasing." You still get all the information and in an accurate manner. Saying "Matt's straight" doesn't really tell you much of what the little shit is co-opting. The former brings everything into the open.

 

[xbuzzerx]

For this reason, I actually think bi-curious is a valid sexuality in its own right. With a bit of experience, it resolves into bisexuality, homosexuality or heterosexuality. But I don't think it is a mislabelling of some underlying sexuality: it's fine to stand alone as an accurate marker of a person's sexuality.

I think bi-curious and "bisexual identity" are separate things, though. Bi-curious inherently implies an "I'm not really sure yet/I'm trying it out." That said, I also never really see it used outside of hookup advertisements.

But where I differ from you and buzzer is on the proportions. I don't think it is legitimate to round down 10, 20, 30 percent of someone's sexuality and force them into a sexuality binary of gay/straight. Or "gay/straight/bisexual unicorn whose so rare lets just stop kidding ourselves it's either gay or straight." Not even 5% to be honest. And I also don't think we can infer from someone's present-day sexuality that it was always like that and they just didn't know it; there was no guarantee it would work out that way.

There really isn't a magic number. The numbers are just used for point of discussion. It's a hell of a lot easier to find straight women than gay men, so if a bi male only pursues men, ::shrug: What is it they'd think anyone would conclude?

 

[xbuzzerx]

"Matt identifies as bi but is sexually attracted to women exclusively - he just finds some men aesthetically pleasing."

The problem with Matt's self-label in relation to the basis upon which it's made is that those could apply to an inordinate number of straight men.

Are people concerned with the integrity/recognition of the "bi identity" really okay with everyone just making up whatever totally different parameters they want? That doesn't seem like a very coherent identity, if that's the case.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Are people concerned with the integrity/recognition of the "bi identity" really okay with everyone just making up whatever totally different parameters they want? That doesn't seem like a very coherent identity, if that's the case.

I doubt people are okay with it. Granted, the example I gave was modified - he was originally an old roommate who pulled the same shit only with the trans/cis labels. Picked a gender neutral pronoun to use in the house because he said he didn't want to have privilege over anyone. Except that's not how privilege works, so.

Personally, I liked the bit where an actual description of self identity while describing someone's actions is more useful than policing how identities themselves are expressed.

I also haven't found integrity in definitions since language is fluid. Some people use bi to mean attracted to two sexes, not necessarily male and female, Some use it to mean attracted to two genders, not necessarily man or woman, some use it to mean male and female, some use it as a stand-in for pansexual, and some ignore the 'liking more than one sex or gender' altogether and pretend aesthetics is sexual attraction. The fucking irritating thing about definitions is they all rely on yet more definitions. Which change depending on science and various bits o'cultural ....thingies. So when you find a single definition of an identity qualifier, get back to me, willya? I wanna have that bastard framed.

 

[Rolyo85]

@ bankside:

I can't accept that sexuality is as innate and immutable as would be necessary to sustain that argument. I don't think I have to either, by most well-developed theories of human sexuality. As much as our capacity for sexuality and sexual orientation might be innate, it is to some not insignificant extent built on our experiences and our opportunities.

Well, the reality of it is that those factors play a role either in the womb, or in your first few months. I firmly believe that and even if I wasn't 100% sure, I'd still support it because otherwise "born this way collapses", gays can turn straight and homosexuality is "just a deviant predisposition like alcoholism".


For this reason, I actually think bi-curious is a valid sexuality in its own right. With a bit of experience, it resolves into bisexuality, homosexuality or heterosexuality. But I don't think it is a mislabelling of some underlying sexuality: it's fine to stand alone as an accurate marker of a person's sexuality.

So if someone is quite confident about and at ease with and enthusiastic in his heterosexual attractions, and uncertain or tentative or selective or situational with his homosexual attractions, he can legitimately call himself a bi-curious straight guy for a very long time. It's when he explores that curiosity and validates it with experience that its time for a new label.

This is utterly absurd. First of all, being clueless, confused or curious isn't a sexuality, it's a mental state. Second, it can't even be a sexual identity because it's too unstable and transitional - it's a stage, often very short one if acted upon - to ever be a part of your "identity" (we are assuming your identity implies a certain level of self-awareness after all).

Second, you agree with me in the next paragraph, so why are you mixing labels with the actual sexuality?


The point is, throughout this thread, I agree with you that people don't get to pick their own labels: the label should describe their willing behaviours (and their compelling fantasies) and "how they feel like identifying" doesn't matter any more than "how they feel about gravity." I don't "identify" as gay; I am gay. I'm gay whether I call myself that or not.

But where I differ from you and buzzer is on the proportions. I don't think it is legitimate to round down 10, 20, 30 percent of someone's sexuality and force them into a sexuality binary of gay/straight. Or "gay/straight/bisexual unicorn whose so rare lets just stop kidding ourselves it's either gay or straight." Not even 5% to be honest. And I also don't think we can infer from someone's present-day sexuality that it was always like that and they just didn't know it; there was no guarantee it would work out that way.

I believe it does work out that way. I have never seen a confident gay guy turn straight, so I don't have any reason to believe that confident straight guys ever turn gay. Or for that matter, insecure ones either. I believe only awareness of what's already there changes, and that would account for the fact that in hetero cultures, the ONLY direction of change seems to be from pure straight to somewhere on the spectrum towards gay. If you have an alternate explanation of this phenomenon, I would really appreciate you include it in any further argument for why you disagree on this point.

And while I won't - nor can - "force" anyone to identify in a different way from how they have chosen to, sexuality identifications represent "zones".

The zone of heterosexuality includes things like swapping handjobs with other dudes for example, even experiencing a same-sex bj - most straight dudes have tried sucking their own dick and thought nothing about it, and all normal men do or have experience masturbation. It is therefore within the sphere of expected behavior for a straight guy to do the same with another guy in a certain situation. If that's as far as it goes, and it's an isolated incident, or a few of them within a small time-frame (like college, where these things generally happen), nobody would consider this person anything but straight, provided that he also fulfilled certain criteria for heterosexuality, like a strong interest for the opposite gender, both sexually and romantically.

Likewise, the zone of homosexuality includes things like having had girlfriends in high school, even having had sex with them, sometimes carrying on a hetero lie, complete with marriage and kids, into adult life. It also includes pronounced interest in forming sexual and romantic relationships with the same gender.

So why is it then, that we refuse to agree that bisexuality is also a zone and also has certain parameters, and if you are obviously and decidedly outside those, you can't expect people to take you seriously with your claim to be bi? Why is it offensive to point that out? I made the joke about being straight multiple times, and it was ignored, but it is an actual point that I am making - you cannot choose an identity that doesn't match your actions, and expect to be taken seriously.

And yes, bisexuality is a much murkier zone than hetero or homosexuality. But shouldn't we ask ourselves why that is so, and whose responsibility it is? And are we REALLY that culturally and psychologically blind, that we completely deny the EXTREME power of heteronormative culture, even without overt homophobia, to force homosexuals to attempt to "hide" under a bisexual hat?


---------

In this topic, I have EXCLUSIVELY argued general bisexuality and particular cultural and psychological aspects behind incorrect labeling. I haven't once denied anyone's sexuality on this forum. All I do is ask questions in order to receive more information. But instead of answers, I get outrage.

 

[Rolyo85]

@ luckynumbah7:

I think where you're going wrong is the idea of truth. People are harping on it as if there is one. There isn't an objective truth because identity is a subjective experience.

Disagree completely. Truth is an objective thing. The only subjective thing is how and what part of it we see. Nobody could claim a 100% access to the truth, but that doesn't make it more there. An while identity is definitely a subjective experience, the sexuality it rests on isn't.


There is objective truth regarding actions, though. But the self-professed identity (someone saying they're bi, for instance) that you're trying to label as gay by ignoring two of the three differing means of understanding someone's sexual identity is only one third of the issue. An often lazy third since it's easily viewable. I'm not arguing that someone who does one thing (or a mix of several things, or does one thing and feels another, the list is extensive and exhausting) doesn't exist. Far from it. But I am saying people are taking a narrow view of identifying and understanding information received when focusing on identity and its various politics.

Check out my post to bankside about the "zones" of sexuality, and tell me if it fits in any way to this paragraph. I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Rolyo85]

I think bi-curious and "bisexual identity" are separate things, though. Bi-curious inherently implies an "I'm not really sure yet/I'm trying it out." That said, I also never really see it used outside of hookup advertisements.

I have based the above response to bankside on the assumption that "bi-curiosity" is a real thing, for the sake of politeness. Frankly, I don't believe it exists. To me it's just another homophobic term trying to "protect" "totes straight" dudes from the horrifying "not straight" label. If you're just "curious", you're safe. Total bullshit.

There really isn't a magic number. The numbers are just used for point of discussion. It's a hell of a lot easier to find straight women than gay men, so if a bi male only pursues men, ::shrug: What is it they'd think anyone would conclude?

This. A good point that nobody has really addressed.

 

[Kyanimal]

Why did you "choose" to stop doing things with girls?

I always "knew" I was Gay, but was compelled to live up to my Public social expectations, i.e. dating, and frolicking with, Girls.

Since I was preoccupied with SEX, period, that wasn't what I'd exactly call a "strain". Besides, there were a few discrete Guys sprinkled into that mix, too.

Don't get me wrong. I did Love my Girls! Nearly married 5, or 6, of them. And, no!, not at the same time. I was, however, always aware that would be a big mistake for all involved.

In addition, my teens, and twenties, perfectly coincided with the 60s and 70s. "Free Love", "Flower Power", and all that other fun "Hippie Stuff". Experimental sex, and all kinds of other aspects, were not only accepted, butt also encouraged. It was considered Healthy to explore yourself, as well as others in entirety.

Naked was no big deal, in mixed company, or not. And if that evolved into Sex, all that much better. The occasional co-mingled orgy was not unheard of.

I "chose" to stop doing things with girls for several reasons. The first was I was always more interested in Guys. The second was, Guys proved to be so much easier to deal with.

I stopped getting close to the alter with "my" beloved females as soon as they began pounding in the tent pegs, trying to confine me to their ideas of "ownership".

Yeah! Guys can do that, too. However, it's not as confining, strictly defined. Guys don't tend to wield emotions as weapons, so much.

Besides, sex with dudes can be much more "raw", muscular, and powerful, than dealing with "fragile" females.

Don't underestimate the Girls, though. They can prove to be far more dangerous, and forceful, than Guys. Also more devious, plotting, and vengeful, too. They're just so much more complicated!

With Guys, most of the time, what you see is what you get.

With Girls? Well ... You can never be all that sure of where you stand. They're generally just too much of a guessing game.

Beside all that, I have always preferred Beef over Fish! I realize I'm going to get "pounded" for that comparison, butt it's just the way I'm wired!

 

[xbuzzerx]

And while I won't - nor can - "force" anyone to identify in a different way from how they have chosen to, sexuality identifications represent "zones".

The zone of heterosexuality includes things like swapping handjobs with other dudes for example, even experiencing a same-sex bj - most straight dudes have tried sucking their own dick and thought nothing about it, and all normal men do or have experience masturbation. It is therefore within the sphere of expected behavior for a straight guy to do the same with another guy in a certain situation. If that's as far as it goes, and it's an isolated incident, or a few of them within a small time-frame (like college, where these things generally happen), nobody would consider this person anything but straight, provided that he also fulfilled certain criteria for heterosexuality, like a strong interest for the opposite gender, both sexually and romantically.

Likewise, the zone of homosexuality includes things like having had girlfriends in high school, even having had sex with them, sometimes carrying on a hetero lie, complete with marriage and kids, into adult life. It also includes pronounced interest in forming sexual and romantic relationships with the same gender.

So why is it then, that we refuse to agree that bisexuality is also a zone and also has certain parameters, and if you are obviously and decidedly outside those, you can't expect people to take you seriously with your claim to be bi? Why is it offensive to point that out? I made the joke about being straight multiple times, and it was ignored, but it is an actual point that I am making - you cannot choose an identity that doesn't match your actions, and expect to be taken seriously.

Very well said. I can understand bisexual people wanting to "protect their identity." What I don't understand is going about that by simply going with "anyone who feels like labelling bi for any reason, is one of us, and any questioning of even the flimsiest use of our label will be defended as if questioning him is questioning that bisexuality exists at all."

I don't think that tactic does the bisexual identity any favors at all.

And yes, bisexuality is a much murkier zone than hetero or homosexuality. But shouldn't we ask ourselves why that is so, and whose responsibility it is? And are we REALLY that culturally and psychologically blind, that we completely deny the EXTREME power of heteronormative culture, even without overt homophobia, to force homosexuals to attempt to "hide" under a bisexual hat?


---------

In this topic, I have EXCLUSIVELY argued general bisexuality and particular cultural and psychological aspects behind incorrect labeling. I haven't once denied anyone's sexuality on this forum. All I do is ask questions in order to receive more information. But instead of answers, I get outrage.

There are very real reasons that any identity should want to "protect its borders", so to speak. Look at how heteros try to mass lump all pedophilia into the homosexual identity, for example. It doesn't make any sense to react as though any objective parameters, or discussing the lack of them, or pointing out that some people don't seem to fit any parameter at all, is tantamount to "personally attacking" any particular bisexual person either in this thread or at JUB. And it hints at a disturbingly fragile identity not only for someone to have that reaction, but for that to be almost the normal reaction to any discussion of the topic.

 

[dereperez]

I always "knew" I was Gay, but was compelled to live up to my Public social expectations, i.e. dating, and frolicking with, Girls.

Since I was preoccupied with SEX, period, that wasn't what I'd exactly call a "strain". Besides, there were a few discrete Guys sprinkled into that mix, too.

Don't get me wrong. I did Love my Girls! Nearly married 5, or 6, of them. And, no!, not at the same time. I was, however, always aware that would be a big mistake for all involved.

In addition, my teens, and twenties, perfectly coincided with the 60s and 70s. "Free Love", "Flower Power", and all that other fun "Hippie Stuff". Experimental sex, and all kinds of other aspects, were not only accepted, butt also encouraged. It was considered Healthy to explore yourself, as well as others in entirety.

Naked was no big deal, in mixed company, or not. And if that evolved into Sex, all that much better. The occasional co-mingled orgy was not unheard of.

I "chose" to stop doing things with girls for several reasons. The first was I was always more interested in Guys. The second was, Guys proved to be so much easier to deal with.

I stopped getting close to the alter with "my" beloved females as soon as they began pounding in the tent pegs, trying to confine me to their ideas of "ownership".

Yeah! Guys can do that, too. However, it's not as confining, strictly defined. Guys don't tend to wield emotions as weapons, so much.

Besides, sex with dudes can be much more "raw", muscular, and powerful, than dealing with "fragile" females.

Don't underestimate the Girls, though. They can prove to be far more dangerous, and forceful, than Guys. Also more devious, plotting, and vengeful, too. They're just so much more complicated!

With Guys, most of the time, what you see is what you get.

With Girls? Well ... You can never be all that sure of where you stand. They're generally just too much of a guessing game.

Beside all that, I have always preferred Beef over Fish! I realize I'm going to get "pounded" for that comparison, butt it's just the way I'm wired!

Amen, brotha.

 

[sokker]

That "burden" also allows moderately phobic friends neighbors relatives and coworkers to at least regard you as half-salvageable. If you can at least appear to be into pussy, there's a lot of straight guys who just regard gay men as completely alien who at least feel they can somewhat relate to you.

I can't go along with the idea that there's more intolerance or more stigma heaped on bisexuals than gays, even though that's a common theme of these threads. Or that more social doors are closed to bisexual people than to gay people. It's just the opposite.

Thank you! This is what I'm talking about. Bisexuals are not treated worse than gays, in many cases they're treated better because their parents, family and friends know there's always a chance for them to meet a nice girl to settle down with and have kids with. I definitely think many parents take it better if their kid comes out as bi instead of gay. I also know that many gay men come out as bi first (even if they identify as gay) because they think it's easier, like it's easier to get acceptance from your parents that way. I think that's one of the major reasons why some people don't think bisexuality exist (I'm not on of them btw). When gay men comes out as bi it becomes an issue. So many people seem to think all bi men who come out are gay, but in reality that isn't true at all.

 

[samsonb1]

OP-I'm jealous that they get to double dip

 

[medic1]

Mine has just left for work, now i have to spend all day worrying about him doing some muff diving..................