On Topic Discussion What do you think about bisexuals?

[cgymike]

thanks sokker...should I publish your pm?

 

[sokker]

thanks sokker...should I publish your pm?

What PM? I'm confused.

 

[bankside]

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.

Are we saying that Matt would not enjoy experiencing or fantasizing about same-sex sexual contact?

Then what we could say is that "Matt is straight but pretending to be bi. We haven't quite worked out why he does that yet. We just nod and smile."

Then we might add "Last week a couple of us were out shopping with his girlfriend Laura, and we went into that sex shop on McLeod, you know, the one next to Cowboys? And Laura says 'Hey guys, check this out! A strap-on. I'm totally buying this because I love him but it's time for Matt to put up or shut up about how totally bi he is.' And we all laughed. And then Julie said, 'I don't know Laura - in my Queer Intersexionalities lecture last week, the professor was pointing out there is a difference between a het cis woman with a strap-on and a man with a cis penis!' And Laura said with a wicked grin, 'I know that Julie! But Matt doesn't!' And then we all laughed so hard we pissed ourselves!"

How Matt "identifies" is the least relevant thing to know about his sexuality if we actually want to understand what his sexuality is all about.

Also, there is nothing to co-opt anywhere in the universe. All ideas about culture and expression are free for anyone to own, claim, reorganise, etc. Ideas are the only thing I really get worked up into a socialist lather about.

 

[mikey3000]

I'd love to see/read your wife's version of this very post.

I did show her and she just laughed. Cooking for one more person is a non issue for her. I do his laundry too when i do hers and the kids and mine. He fits right in here. But that is becomming a problem for me now. I never expected my two worlds to mesh so well. A little too well actually and now i'm stuck in two domesticities.

 

[otters]

@ 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.

no answer, luckynumbah7?

 

[Jersey Domino]

Wow. This thread is a damn mess.

 

[pat grimshaw]

Wow. This thread is a damn mess.

The variety of people currently using the 'Bi label' is a damn mess.

Don't worry! The situation will be completely different in 30 years time.

 

[Gentleheart]

Wow. This thread is a damn mess.

a lot of people feel very strongly about this topic.

 

[xbuzzerx]

How Matt "identifies" is the least relevant thing to know about his sexuality if we actually want to understand what his sexuality is all about.

That's the problem with the 1/99 thing. Hearing that someone is gay or bi imparts, to me, nothing about them as a person. I don't suddenly understand "all sorts of things" about what kind of individual this is, or what they believe, or what their habits are. The purpose of such a label is to establish who someone is attracted to, often within the context of dating. With a gay label, that's done.

Also, there is nothing to co-opt anywhere in the universe. All ideas about culture and expression are free for anyone to own, claim, reorganise, etc. Ideas are the only thing I really get worked up into a socialist lather about.

Big fan of grave robbed Museum artifacts, ey?

 

[mikey3000]

a lot of people feel very strongly about this topic.

Sadly, even in such a segmented group as the LGBTTIQQ2SA community, minorities are shouted down and erased to strengthen the others. But that truth is the basis for all injustices throughout history, all around the world, the denial of rights to the lesser members. Why should it differ here?

 

[luckynumbah7]

no answer, luckynumbah7?

Actually, I've been ignoring this thread the past couple of days. One of the snakelings escaped into the lower apartment and we're lucky the guys didn't freak and try to stomp on the little bugger. He's only two feet and still an adolescent with not much experience and while he's nosy, he's also friendly as hell. Which is great so long as he doesn't end up in an apartment with people who are afraid of snakes. Turned out fine, he was found curled up in a binder.

In other words, instead of trying to explain how and why I explore and conceptualize identity, in this case bisexual, I've had better things to do. Snakeling comes first.

As for the Q's, internal truth is not objective. You don't see color the same way I do, for instance. No one sees the color of an object in quite the same shade. Well, perhaps twins, but that's iffy since the brains still differ, among other things. Same goes for other internal experiences, like the personal history one brings along in their brain which helps them interpret the world and influences actions. Since everyone has differing experiences, up to and including how their own personal history combines with various societal agreements, yes, there's going to be some fluidity of language used. That's how language works. And no, I'm not talking about the obvious where people have the same definition of words and yet lie like a rug.

So anyway, no, it isn't objective.

And your zones are off.

However, for the record, yet again; by what I've read of you I don't consider you worth talking with, at least so far. So I'm a little unclear as to why you're still attempting it. I'd ask you to elucidate but, well, as I said before - I don't give a shit. You'd have better luck attempting to poke someone else, particularly since I clicked this thread by accident. Hell, I surprised myself by taking five minutes to respond.

Which says something, considering I'll even chat with Grimshaw once in a blue moon. Can't think of when I've ever agreed with him, but pretty sure it's happened at least once since '08. Whereas with you, well. Stranger things have happened, I suppose.

 

[luckynumbah7]

I don't suddenly understand "all sorts of things" about what kind of individual this is, or what they believe, or what their habits are. The purpose of such a label is to establish who someone is attracted to, often within the context of dating. With a gay label, that's done.

Big fan of grave robbed Museum artifacts, ey?

Yes! Exactly. What I was trying to say was an extension of that up there^. The extended bit is when someone has differing definitions of a thing. They don't differ widely, but they do differ and it's usually because of personal history. Or culture, culture is a big one.

-back to cooking, if the thread is still here I'll check back in a few days. I'm in the middle of trying to keep my brain occupied with something constructive, which I'm afraid posting on forums generally doesn't count.

 

[The Fly]

Maybe we should all declare ourselves "someplace between straight and not"................

 

[xbuzzerx]

the denial of rights to the lesser members. Why should it differ here?

Yes. Because this entire thread has been about how bisexual people shouldn't have equal standing in society, or equal legal rights.

Might wanna tone down that melodrama just a tad.

 

[bankside]

With a gay label, that's done.

...as with the bi label...

Big fan of grave robbed Museum artifacts, ey?

If you can rob an idea from a grave, it's mine!

 

[xbuzzerx]

...as with the bi label...

Nope.

How Matt "identifies" is the least relevant thing to know about his sexuality if we actually want to understand what his sexuality is all about.

I agree with you.

If you can rob an idea from a grave, it's mine!

Since you've started this "there's no such concept whatsoever as any kind of cultural appropriation" thing in a few different discussions, maybe you should make a dedicated one. It's off topic here or else I'd engage it further.

 

[bankside]

Nope.

Not as it applies to "Matt;" but yes, of course the bi label offers as much insight as the gay one.

Since you've started this "there's no such concept whatsoever as any kind of cultural appropriation" thing in a few different discussions, maybe you should make a dedicated one. It's off topic here or else I'd engage it further.

I didn't start this concept; it was introduced by another poster in connection with this topic, and I refuted it as it applies to this topic.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Not as it applies to "Matt;" but yes, of course the bi label offers as much insight as the gay one.

Yeah but if you run into many "Matts", as I have at least in my offline experiences, then the scenario of learning nothing from the label isn't specific to "Matt."

I can't say I've run into a whole lot of gay guys who identified as gay and slept only with women.

 

[Rolyo85]

However, for the record, yet again; by what I've read of you I don't consider you worth talking with, at least so far. So I'm a little unclear as to why you're still attempting it. I'd ask you to elucidate but, well, as I said before - I don't give a shit. You'd have better luck attempting to poke someone else, particularly since I clicked this thread by accident. Hell, I surprised myself by taking five minutes to respond.

Bwahaha the moment the conversation becomes uncomfortable for you, I am suddenly not worth talking to, despite the fact that you've been answering all my posts religiously so far. You're adorable, truthfully

- - - Updated - - -

Sadly, even in such a segmented group as the LGBTTIQQ2SA community, minorities are shouted down and erased to strengthen the others. But that truth is the basis for all injustices throughout history, all around the world, the denial of rights to the lesser members. Why should it differ here?

If bisexuality is so easily erased that discussing it makes it disappear, maybe it's a little too fragile?

 

[luckynumbah7]

Double post