[DomLuka] Dennis, Dom and Bisexuality

[Jaydee]

What I'm trying to work out is what Dom thinks about bisexuality... and what he intends to convey with Dennis. I think that it is a foregone conclusion that sooner or later Dennis is going to be out to more people in the story. I don't know if he will ever be out to his parents. But, I'm wondering what 'I like girls' means to Dennis. I think that chapter 24 and 25 of ITFB emphasized the point that Travis was insecure with Dennis and it does have something to do with Dennis liking girls. I am wondering about this myself. If Dennis likes girls (just as much as he likes guys) then isn't he ultimately going to leave Travis for a girl? That is a much easier life to lead. But, the 'How Does Dennis Like It?' poll shows that most of us, including myself, think that Dennis likes to bottom.

 

So, in my convoluted way, I am wondering whether Dennis is one of these 'bisexuals'. If he is in fact a bottom or if he is eagerly versatile, then I don't know if he can be properly bisexual, can he? I mean, there is something that a guy can do for him that a girl can't without a strap on... does that mean that he prefers guys to girls? If so, by how much? Would he miss having a dick up his butt if he got married, had kids and "called it a life" (Jude, TOU)?

 

Now, for the bigger question... do bisexuals exist? When I was younger, I really thought that I was bisexual. I got really turned on by girls, had a couple girlfriends and even did the sex thing with them. It wasn't horrible. But, I never drooled over them like I did over some of the guys. I just assumed my school was blessed with guys that I happened to be attracted to and girls that weren't quite my type. I think I must have been a stupider child than my grades suggested. I eventually got to a point where I think that I am no longer physically able to have sex with a girl... well, thats not true. But, I don't want to. And I know I sure as hell am NOT bisexual.

I always used to imagine sexuality as a standard analog dial that had flamer at the bottom and absolutely straight at the top (forgive the pun-ful description).. the middle would be bisexual. That seems like a gross oversimplification to me lately. And, I am pretty sure that the vast majority of people that are on the boundary would just try and be straight. In any case, being a bisexual is like hitting the line on the dartboard... it is technically possible to hit that middle space perfectly, but it's statistically improbable. People PREFER the look and feel of a guy or a girl. I look at middle aged women and think 'eww'. But when I look at middle-aged men, I think 'maybe when I'm older'...

 

Maybe I am still missing something pretty key in all this... but I think that this a very big point that Dom is going to play with. If nothing else, he isn't usually shy about describing sex scenes.. and he is certainly avoiding them in ITFB.

 

Thoughts?

[Nephylim]

I have always considered that bisexuality is a human's default state. In times gone by it was wholly recognised as being completely natural. For example I have a huge affinity with the iron age. I have been known to spend my weekends running around a field with a sword in my hand... the writings of he time make mention more than once that the celts liked it both ways so to speak. They married, had wives and children but they (especially the warriors) did the male bonding thing quite regularly and were known to bathe together and have sex while doing it. Similarly when the men went off to war the women turned to each other not just for comfort but for pleasure.

 

Roman soldiers who spent years on campaign, often in foreign countries often had lovers amongst themselves and Roman society was known for all kinds of sexual practives.

 

In the Middle East it was common for older men to take young boys under their wings in more ways than one. An uncle of mine was in the Palestine police during the war and they had a saying.... A woman for breeding, a goat for relief but, for sheer pleasure a boy.

 

My personal mantra is..... love comes seldom enough when it comes never turn it way no matter how it is packaged.

 

 

[AFriendlyFace]

Wow! I completely disagree with you on almost all points! No harm done since civil discord can breed very enlightening conversations.

 

 

What I'm trying to work out is what Dom thinks about bisexuality... and what he intends to convey with Dennis.

I think it's difficult to guess. It would be much easier and more reliable to simply ask Dom, but I think guessing creates too many unknowns. For example in my own stories I very often take views that are antithetical to how I actually believe and present them in a favourable light. However, sometimes I don't. I think many/most authors do this and without knowing more information about Dom's history and private life I don't think we can make reliable guesses.

 

I think that it is a foregone conclusion that sooner or later Dennis is going to be out to more people in the story. I don't know if he will ever be out to his parents. But, I'm wondering what 'I like girls' means to Dennis. I think that chapter 24 and 25 of ITFB emphasized the point that Travis was insecure with Dennis and it does have something to do with Dennis liking girls. I am wondering about this myself. If Dennis likes girls (just as much as he likes guys) then isn't he ultimately going to leave Travis for a girl? That is a much easier life to lead.

I find it very difficult not to be offended by that statement, but I'm going to see if I can pull it off nonetheless. I find it offensive as a bisexual and as a gay person (and yeah, I identify as both. :wacko: ). It seems to presume a couple of pretty negative things about both groups. Let me tackle the gay side first.

 

It seems to imply that no one would be gay if they had a "choice." I find that very offensive and untrue. I find gay life, gay culture, and gay existence in general to be extremely rewarding and satisfying and consider it to be one of the biggest (indeed perhaps the biggest) blessing in my life. I wouldn't dream of trading it to live some cookie cutter heterosexual existence. My life as a gay person has provided me with a wealth of friends, interests, hobbies, life goals, philosophies, and ethics that I strongly doubt I'd have had as a completely straight individual. A strong part of my identity is as a non-conforming, egalitarian activist who challenges homophobia and gender roles. Basically all of my main educational, career, and intellectual ambitions are related in some way to being gay. Nearly All of my friends are GLBT/Allies and most of the social and recreational activities in which I partake are in some way related to GLBT life. To think that I would trade all of that so that I can conform straight, heterosexist society is unthinkable for me.

 

However, I find those comments completely untrue, and bordering on offensive, as a bisexual as well. I'm a very sexual person with a very wide range of tastes and desires and a pretty strong drive. My interests don't feel neatly into any boxes. There are lots of things about women that I find very sexually appealing. I'm certainly predominantly homosexual but there is certainly a notable degree of bisexuality as well. I've changed my identification from "gay" to "bisexual" and back many times over the course of my life. Right now I consider myself culturally gay, but sexually bisexual. Regardless, I feel that bisexuals are some of the least understood, more feared and hated segments of the population. Gays and lesbians as a whole don't like or trust them; straights as a whole don't like or trust them. To make matters worse bisexuals don't have a very strong community of their own. I think life as a bisexual can be extremely difficult and it's precisely this attitude of "well he'll leave me for a woman" or "well he'll cheat on me with a man" that makes things so difficult and painful. The majority of bisexuals I've encountered have been of the attitude that the gender is less important than the person and that any number of things about an individual are sexy. Are you attracted to more than one type of guy? If so then does that mean that if you were dating type X you'd inevitably have to leave him for, or fool around with, type Y?

 

As someone who could easily enjoy sex and a relationship with a woman, let me assure you that I have no intention of opting for this option "because it's easier." That's subjective anyway. As immersed as I am in gay life and gay culture it would be much harder for me to date a woman. Regardless, I'm not crossing any options off my list. Most likely I shall either remain by myself or settle down with a guy. I'd be perfectly happy doing either. I see the possibility of settling down with a woman as far less likely, but it's fine if it happens and I'm sure I could be happy that way as well. In all of the three scenarios though I intend to maintain my identity and involvement in gay life as a culturally gay male.

 

But, the 'How Does Dennis Like It?' poll shows that most of us, including myself, think that Dennis likes to bottom.

 

So, in my convoluted way, I am wondering whether Dennis is one of these 'bisexuals'. If he is in fact a bottom or if he is eagerly versatile, then I don't know if he can be properly bisexual, can he? I mean, there is something that a guy can do for him that a girl can't without a strap on... does that mean that he prefers guys to girls? If so, by how much? Would he miss having a dick up his butt if he got married, had kids and "called it a life" (Jude, TOU)?

 

I think that's a pretty narrow view of sexuality as well. Perhaps I'm in the minority, I get the impression that the whole Top Vs. Bottom thing is a big deal to most guys who have sex with guys, but I think that's just silly. My attraction and involvement with a guy is certainly not based on this one sexual act. I don't need to "top" or "bottom" to feel sexually satisfied. Honestly my preference truly is for versatile intercourse, but I can easily enjoy either of the other two possibilities as well. Indeed, I can enjoy my sexuality without any of these three. There are so many ways to be sexual and find sexual release with another person that I think keeping this focus exclusively on penetrative sex is tragically limiting. If Denis frees his mind to his sexual expression he can enjoy his penile or anal desires regardless of his partner's penile/vaginal/anal configuration or preference.

 

Now, for the bigger question... do bisexuals exist?

Obviously it depends on your definition. I would say yes.

 

When I was younger, I really thought that I was bisexual. I got really turned on by girls, had a couple girlfriends and even did the sex thing with them. It wasn't horrible. But, I never drooled over them like I did over some of the guys. I just assumed my school was blessed with guys that I happened to be attracted to and girls that weren't quite my type. I think I must have been a stupider child than my grades suggested. I eventually got to a point where I think that I am no longer physically able to have sex with a girl... well, thats not true. But, I don't want to. And I know I sure as hell am NOT bisexual.

That is your "sexuality journey" but I think other people's is often very different. Personally, when I was first becoming aware of my sexuality it was very heterosexually oriented. I had no template for same sex sexuality or expression because as a young child in the conservative south it isn't something that was readily visible to me. I did have some attraction to females so I was fine with expressing my interests in them. By the time I was older, preteen and early teenager, I was beginning to understand that there were other options, but the social pressure to conform to heterosexuality, combined with the abundant hormones of youth, meant that I had no trouble focusing on girls. By the time I was a mid-late teenager, I considered myself pretty bisexual and my interests gradually tapered from mostly girls to mostly guys. By the time I was in my early twenties I considered myself exclusively gay and "forgot" that girls were an option as I enjoyed and explored my homosexuality. Recently, I've accepted that while my lifestyle is very gay, and while interest in girls only confuses things, I'd be lying, and not being true to myself, to pretend that I didn't have some heterosexual interest and desire as well. It most definitely is not as strong, frequent, or diverse as my homosexual interest and desire, but it's still there, and I'm not going to deny it when I'm sure that embracing it can be a positive, enriching experience. Personally, my own sexuality is heavily influenced by my sociopolitical interests and ambitions. I won't pretend that being gay/bi doesn't conform nicely with my general values, concept of self, and broad social agenda.

 

I always used to imagine sexuality as a standard analog dial that had flamer at the bottom and absolutely straight at the top (forgive the pun-ful description).. the middle would be bisexual.

I see sexuality as occurring on (at least) two separate scales one for interest in males and one for interest in females. I think it's possible to be extremely interested in both, not particularly interested in either, or any other combination and configuration.

 

That seems like a gross oversimplification to me lately. And, I am pretty sure that the vast majority of people that are on the boundary would just try and be straight.

 

Again, I find that sad and fairly offensive. It implies that there is something intrinsically inferior about being gay, and as I said, I find that pretty unpalatable. I think that quite on the contrary, without all the damn baggage and prejudices that existed in society most people with any degree of bisexuality would happily express it. I think that it would create a boarder, richer, more fulfilling sexual experience. It also simply makes sense to pursue the possibility of life with either males or females since this greatly increases the pool of possible suitors and the wealth of experiences available.

 

As things stand, I think many bisexual are forced to choose between gay or straight life and I think that's really sad. Don't get me wrong, I think it's completely fine, normal, and desirable for a bisexual to settle down with either a male OR a female and to remain true exclusively to that person. That's great. What isn't great is denying one's sexuality in itself. I don't think being bisexual means you have to engage in sexual activity with both genders. What it does mean though is that you should enjoy the full range of sexual feelings, fantasies, and identifications, even if the sexual activity is confined to only person. This is comparable to how any other individual settles down with a partner of their preferred gender but continues to acknowledge and experience attraction to other similarly gendered people even if they don't act on their attraction. It would be ludicrous to pretend that a partnered straight guy doesn't find other women attractive and interesting or that a partnered gay male doesn't find other males attractive and interesting. In that way I think it's pretty sad when a partnered bisexual male is forced to pretend that they don't find the gender they aren't partnered with attractive or interesting.

 

 

In any case, being a bisexual is like hitting the line on the dartboard... it is technically possible to hit that middle space perfectly, but it's statistically improbable. People PREFER the look and feel of a guy or a girl. I look at middle aged women and think 'eww'. But when I look at middle-aged men, I think 'maybe when I'm older'...

Well, personally I generally find older women more attractive than older men. A lady over fifty probably does more for me than a guy over fifty. I am hoping that with guys "maybe when I'm older" will be the case, but in all honesty it seems less likely than with the lady. On the other hand, I male under thirty does a lot more for me than a female under thirty. I'm assuming it's a moot point. By the time I'm older if I have a partner - regardless of their gender - I'm confident that I'll be able to continue to be faithful to them and to enjoy my sex life with them while still acknowledging attraction to younger people (but not acting on it). If I'm older and I don't have a partner, well then chances are I'll pursue younger people, and probably guys. I think that would be my prerogative as a single person. Of course that might all change as I get older, but that's what I suspect would happen as things stand now.

 

Maybe I am still missing something pretty key in all this... but I think that this a very big point that Dom is going to play with. If nothing else, he isn't usually shy about describing sex scenes.. and he is certainly avoiding them in ITFB.

 

Thoughts?

 

I think I've said enough

 

 

Fascinating topic

-Kevin

Edited July 6, 2009 by AFriendlyFace

[Daisy]

 

My personal mantra is..... love comes seldom enough when it comes never turn it way no matter how it is packaged.

 

That's how I see it with Dennis. For all the other questions about Dennis, I think they are irrelevant, or at least not priority, because he is falling in love with Travis and dependent on him as a social being that it is about his bond with Travis and whether it is something he can't ignore or deny. Ok, so some of the questions are relevant, I just see that pull as much stronger and of sole importance.

 

As to bisexuality, have a look in the soapbox and on a few blogs because this has been debated before. Me, my views and opinions and emotions are too changeable at the moment to give an answer. It's a complicated thing, but overall I agree with that statement above even if I never get a solid answer any other way. (but then thinking about it, there are issues about what is love - I can think of many when it wasn't healthy, and where I would be reluctant to use that mantra without thinking about it further).

 

celia

Edited July 6, 2009 by Smarties

[Toneils]

I think what Dom is trying to convey about sexuality and bisexuality is... pretty much the opposite of the assumptions you have just made. I see sexuality as a very very broad, multi-dimentional spectrum. Anyone can be attracted to a man or a woman, tall or short, thin or obese, blonde or ginger, or anything in between any of those. How LIKELY you're going to be attracted to any of those depends entirely on your preferences, but even those are fluid. If you meet the right person, it really doesn't matter if you previously considered yourself straight or gay or whatever other labels people choose for themselves, all of that tends to generally fly out the window, unless you're really stubborn or thick headed and let the opportunity pass you by because they happen to be the wrong gender (or the wrong height, or have the wrong hair color, or have a disability or an oddity, or whatever.)

 

In Dennis's case, he's not labeling himself, which I really admire Dom for trying to convey. He likes girls, as in he has been attracted to girls and likes sex with girls and if he met the right girl could spend the rest of his life with her and be happy, but that doesn't, in any way, shape or form, undermine his attraction to or relationship with Travis. He certainly wouldn't leave Travis, the individual, for the generic concept of "female" just because it would be "easier," as you seem to be suggesting. If humans chose who to date based on what's "easier," I don't think anyone would have romantic relationships at all. Now, if there was another character, say a chick named Emily, who completely swept Dennis off his feet and made him forget all about Travis, then yeah, sure, he could leave Travis for a girl. But then it wouldn't be a case of Dennis leaving Travis for a girl, it would be a matter of Dennis leaving Travis for Emily, who happens to be a girl. See what I mean?

 

In the same way, I don't see Dennis being a "top" or a "bottom" as an exclusive label. Maybe, with Travis, he likes to bottom. How does that mean he wouldn't be able to enjoy sex with a girl? I don't think it would even remotely imply that he would "miss" what a guy can do to him and a girl can't. There is certainly a lot a girl can do for him that a guy wouldn't be able to, and that's not stopping him from dating Travis, either. It could be equally possible that in the future he would date a guy that he really loves to top with.

 

(Not to mention, if he got married and had a couple of kids, why COULDN'T his wife put on a strap-on and satisfy that craving for him, if he indeed had it?)

 

Basically, I see sexual attraction as being much broader than you've classified it to be, but relationships are ultimately interactions between individuals. Dennis's and Travis's relationship is an interaction between Dennis and Travis, and really, for this story, I don't think any other attractions they have or have had or will have in the future really are going to change that. (though they certainly could add interesting plot twists.)

 

Edit: I just read Kevin's (AFriendlyFace) reply and found that he said exactly what I'm trying to say but much much much more eloquently. Bravo

Edited July 6, 2009 by Toneils

[Jaydee]

Wow.

 

I am so glad that I can get a rich and well thought out set of responses on this forum.

 

Kevin, I am really sorry about how rash I was. I am usually more diplomatic about things I know so little about. And clearly, I am severely misinformed about bisexuality. I didn't mean to be offensive or overly flippant.

 

I have to rush to sleep, so I can't really do a proper response right now. I will. But, I just wanted to apologize asap.

[AFriendlyFace]

Wow.

 

I am so glad that I can get a rich and well thought out set of responses on this forum.

 

Kevin, I am really sorry about how rash I was. I am usually more diplomatic about things I know so little about. And clearly, I am severely misinformed about bisexuality. I didn't mean to be offensive or overly flippant.

 

I have to rush to sleep, so I can't really do a proper response right now. I will. But, I just wanted to apologize asap.

 

No need to apologize to me (but thanks for the thoughtfulness ) If I were in an irritable mood I'd have probably gotten ticked off, but as it was I was trying to be more rational and was feeling cheerful so I wasn't actually upset. I just wanted to clarify my own position

 

Anyway, as I said, I think differences of opinion can spur on some really good debates and discussions, and I think this one certainly has already, and I'm really looking forward to hearing what everyone else has to say

 

Also, I think Celia and Toneils made some very good points that I hadn't thought of or properly expressed.

 

Anyway, great conversation,

 

Kevin

Edited July 6, 2009 by AFriendlyFace

[bodgy]

To be honest, I just accept that Dennis is part of a story and 'go with the flow' , but then I have to admit this particular story doesn't 'grab' me in the same way The Other Side of Me, The Ordinary Us and With Trust (in that order).

 

Having said that, I feel that I have to then come into the real world. First, I personally dislike the let's put you in a category type thing of Hetero, Bi, Homo/sexual - these are nothing but labels thought up in the late Victorian era, and those were originally used in a scientific concept to explain a serries of behaviours (I use that term in it's scientific sense) - before then you'd would have heard about Mollies from whence the verb to mollycuddle someone is derived as well as 'Inverts' and various others. Sexuality like the rest of life is to my way of thinking not clear cut and going on from my view that ones sexual preferences are of no one elses concern apart from the person I'm might be attracted to.

 

From the above statement it follows that I believe we are just sexual beings, which is what I reply on the rare occasion I'm asked 'I'm just sexual!' There are many people who would identify themselves as straight, conveniantly forgetting, escapades at boarding school, the games that are played in some of the mess halls (soggy sago is played in the army/navy/airforce/boarding schools/church camps etc), however society tries to ignore this by stating that 'they are just experimenting' the fact is people can be 100% committed to a opposite sex relationship and suddenly one of them can find themselves inexplicably attracted to someone of the same sex - it might be just one time and then they go back to their former life. I know of three people who are now in a same sex relationship and also have had one or two opposite sex marriages and in one case has four children all adults now.

 

As has been mentioned (sort of) the idea of sexuality is the result of culture and society - the Japanese up until the late 1700's were not fazed by the idea of marriage just to produce heirs and same sex relationships for love - this was certainly practised in depth by the Warrior Class (they also wore make up into battle as well) and it was only the pressure of Portugese Missionaries that altered societies view.

 

Off the West Indies is a culture where men have a significant male bonding friend, they do everything together, women only come into the frame for producing children and looking after the pigs - they would be flummoxed by this idea of hetero/bi/homo sexuality.

 

The sooner the world forgets about who and how one boinks someone else (along with some other things) the sooner the world can get on with far more important things.

[Daisy]

you're genuine and open to learning are all that matters , most people aren't.

 

I thought I'd post a link to this blog entry by AdamP:

https://www.gayauthors.org/forums/blog/205/entry-9009-sexual-labels-2-bisexuality/

 

I would recommend reading his other entries too as well as go to his yahoo group and read his story called CrossCurrents which is also an amazing story about bisexuality.

 

I point to this entry because although I agree in part with some sentiments that bisexuals often are attracted to people not genders I don't think that is entirely accurate, or certainly can't be used as a rule, as I am sure wasn't intended. (I am not contesting the idea that Dennis' attraction to Travis for the most part could only be undermined or rather truly superseded by a strong(er) attraction to some other person, whether boy or girl (add in all things life throws at us)). I'm not saying either way really how Adam describes his bisexuality but I think his account here adds to the debate from his own experience. Other that than I am drawing from other friends and myself. So far I see this issue as so complicated, because well humans and nature and society are so complicated, that understanding it really is difficult and often we are stabbing in the dark even when we think we own all the truths.

 

here is the other in the set on labels and bisexuality:

https://www.gayauthors.org/forums/blog/205/entry-9005-sexual-labels-i-love-em-so-much-1/

 

celia

 

Wow.

 

I am so glad that I can get a rich and well thought out set of responses on this forum.

 

Kevin, I am really sorry about how rash I was. I am usually more diplomatic about things I know so little about. And clearly, I am severely misinformed about bisexuality. I didn't mean to be offensive or overly flippant.

 

I have to rush to sleep, so I can't really do a proper response right now. I will. But, I just wanted to apologize asap.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Smarties

[NaperVic]

Hmmm, lot's of goodies in your post and lots of good replies. I'll only focus on a couple points...

 

What I'm trying to work out is what Dom thinks about bisexuality... and what he intends to convey with Dennis.

 

I don't think you're going to garner much about Dom's personal thoughs on bisexuality from his characters.

 

I remember back when TLW & TOU were coming out, some fans thought Dom had to have terrible parents in order to write about Owen, Quinn, Dennis, & Aiden's experience with some of their parents .

 

Dom later posted that his mom was a saint.

 

If nothing else, he isn't usually shy about describing sex scenes.. and he is certainly avoiding them in ITFB.

 

Thoughts?

Dom's later writing include less graphic sex and I don't think he'll be returning to the erotica filled days of TLW (*exaggerated sigh*). There are a couple of good threads on this topic. Here's the link to the Sex Scenes thread.

Edited July 6, 2009 by NaperVic

[canundra]

I find it very difficult not to be offended by that statement, but I'm going to see if I can pull it off nonetheless. I find it offensive as a bisexual and as a gay person (and yeah, I identify as both. :wacko: ). It seems to presume a couple of pretty negative things about both groups. Let me tackle the gay side first.

 

It seems to imply that no one would be gay if they had a "choice." I find that very offensive and untrue. I find gay life, gay culture, and gay existence in general to be extremely rewarding and satisfying and consider it to be one of the biggest (indeed perhaps the biggest) blessing in my life. I wouldn't dream of trading it to live some cookie cutter heterosexual existence. My life as a gay person has provided me with a wealth of friends, interests, hobbies, life goals, philosophies, and ethics that I strongly doubt I'd have had as a completely straight individual. A strong part of my identity is as a non-conforming, egalitarian activist who challenges homophobia and gender roles. Basically all of my main educational, career, and intellectual ambitions are related in some way to being gay. Nearly All of my friends are GLBT/Allies and most of the social and recreational activities in which I partake are in some way related to GLBT life. To think that I would trade all of that so that I can conform straight, heterosexist society is unthinkable for me.

 

...

 

As someone who could easily enjoy sex and a relationship with a woman, let me assure you that I have no intention of opting for this option "because it's easier." That's subjective anyway. As immersed as I am in gay life and gay culture it would be much harder for me to date a woman. Regardless, I'm not crossing any options off my list. Most likely I shall either remain by myself or settle down with a guy. I'd be perfectly happy doing either. I see the possibility of settling down with a woman as far less likely, but it's fine if it happens and I'm sure I could be happy that way as well. In all of the three scenarios though I intend to maintain my identity and involvement in gay life as a culturally gay male.

 

...

 

Again, I find that sad and fairly offensive. It implies that there is something intrinsically inferior about being gay, and as I said, I find that pretty unpalatable. I think that quite on the contrary, without all the damn baggage and prejudices that existed in society most people with any degree of bisexuality would happily express it. I think that it would create a boarder, richer, more fulfilling sexual experience. It also simply makes sense to pursue the possibility of life with either males or females since this greatly increases the pool of possible suitors and the wealth of experiences available.

 

I don't think the OP means to imply that homosexuality is a choice, or rather, that everyone, if given the chance, would choose to "be" straight. You're proof that this is not the case. However, I think some of his points have some merit. In particular, the existence of a choice.

 

Inherent in every lifestyle is a choice. The choice to lead a certain lifestyle, or to lead another. We don't choose to be homosexual, but we choose to lead homosexual lives. We choose to be true to ourselves, instead of living lies. I myself would never make the latter choice because being gay is all I know. I have never had any attraction towards someone of the opposite sex. There were times in high school when I thought I did, but always, in the back of my mind, I knew that it was not possible.

 

That's not to say that there aren't others who would make that choice. While there are many who are comfortable with being gay, there are just as many who aren't. Take my roommate, for instance. He came out to me last year, and one of the few things he said to me regarding his sexuality was that he hated it. It was very clear to me that he did not want to be gay. It complicated his life immensely. Left him in fear of what his family, friends, neighbors would think. For him, there too exists this choice: to lie, and lead a "straight" life or to accept his sexuality. Lately it seems that he's chosen the latter, but there are many more like him who have chosen the former.

 

Is it easier to live a "straight" lifestyle? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Like you said, the concept of "easier" is very subjective. While the nation is trending towards acceptance of homosexuality, there are still huge swaths of society that don't accept it. Perhaps for some it may be easier to lead a straight life. Whether or not that is the best choice for them is irrelevant. This "damn baggage" and prejudices that exist in society are the reasons why many see the straight lifestyle easier. Many of us went through our own personal struggles that resulted from our sexuality. Straight men and women don't struggle with theirs (keep in mind, this observation is coming from someone who has never had any heterosexual urges).

 

As for sexuality, I see it as an fluid scale, and again, you are proof of this. You say you switched sexual identities many times, from gay to bisexual, and vice versa. I myself have always been stuck on gay, but I do appreciate looking at a beautiful woman. Whereas there are some gays who think women are gross. These three labels (gay/lesbian, bi, straight) do not by themselves encompass the wide range of sexualities that exist in this world. Who knows, maybe when I grow older, I'll become attracted to women. (I hope not. That would just open up a whole new can of worms )

 

It was mentioned in a previous post, but I'll mention it here again. The concept of sexuality, of labeling things, is a result of society. To explain different behaviors. To separate those who are considered "normal," from those who aren't.

 

I'm still figuring out whether all these labels are good or bad. At one point, I thought they were detrimental. Now, I'm not so sure. We are all different, and we should all celebrate our differences. These labels help us do this. At the same time, these labels also help fuel the fears of people who are scared of different. Who are happy with the same.

[Jaydee]

OK..... time for a healthy response.

 

 

Nephylim:

 

I wholly agree with your broader outlook. Find someone you're attracted to, fall in love and if it happens to be of the same or opposite sex, it really shouldn't matter. I like that. I'm not too sure I agree with the goat thing... joking.

 

 

Kevin:

 

In working out what Dom thinks about sexuality, the point that I am trying to get to is that Dom always conveys something deep and meaningful to me in all of his stories. I'm just trying to jump the gun a bit. I have a feeling that it is going to have something to do with sexual orientation, society, bisexuality and this general theme because it has arisen under "I like girls" a few times. I think that this is building to something.

 

I again apologize for coming off as being offensive with the statement that Dennis might ultimately leave Travis for a girl because it is an easier life to lead. I guess I have fallen into the trap of presuming it is an easier life because all the gay people I know on and offline have had problems resulting from their sexuality. I come from a very small, relatively xenophobic subset of an Indian culture. There are roughly 2-3 million of my people left in the world and it is considered abominable to marry outside of the culture. One of my mom's best friends didn't attend her son's wedding and doesn't acknowledge his baby fully because he married a white girl. In my language, there is only one word for gay and it translates as.... well.... 'f*g**t'. It's tough for me... it's really tough, actually. One of the most important people in my life is my cousin who I grew up with and he boasted to me about having punched a scrawny gay guy... I really wish I could have a life like yours. And I shouldn't have made such a cut and dry statement that 'it is an easier life to lead'.

My presumption was that it would be easier for Dennis to be with a girl. I really do not understand the ins and outs of falling in love. I don't know if Dennis is in love with Travis. So, I wasn't making a statement about fidelity... I don't think Dennis would cheat on Travis. I don't know if being comfortable in a relationship, so much so that Dennis and his partner can be open with their relationship, helps garner love and therefore would make it that much easier for Dennis to fall in love with a girl. Dennis' upbringing definitely had an effect on Dennis' social perspective on the non-straight lifestyle (notice my political correctness). He is afraid for himself and the people around him that he cannot protect. Lyle's pervasive threat is the manifestation of this fear. I just don't understand 'love' well enough to get into it. I'm not even sure that I could ever find love. That is a whole separate issue, altogether.

 

Now, regarding the Top Vs Bottom debate... I am really not equipped to talk about it since I have neither topped nor bottomed a guy yet. (Anybody making offers? I'm cute... I swear!) I guess I should have kept my mouth shut regarding this. What's that saying.... something like... its better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.... something like that. But then again, I figure I am not bisexual, so it really isn't something that I will be equipped to answer for bisexuals. The impression I'm getting from you, Kevin, is that it is a completely different thing to think like a bisexual than to think like a gay guy... particularly involving things like penetration.

 

Where I said that I used to think of sexuality as an analogue dial and that the middle group would probably choose to be with the opposite sex, I also said that this is a gross oversimplification. The point I was getting at was that it is a gross oversimplification BECAUSE it doesn't appear to be the case that people simply say "Nah. It's too much work to be be in a relationship with a guy. I'll do girls instead." So, in this respect I think there was a misunderstanding.

 

Besides a few poorly thought out statements, I think that you might have read more into what I was saying than I was. I really don't seek to be offensive and I really don't understand a whole lot. But, I'm a good guy.

 

 

Toneils:

 

Likewise, I think I addressed above a lot of the comments you made. I wasn't intimating that Dennis would leave Travis for any generic girl. Just because Travis came first doesn't mean to say Dennis might not be faced with say having to choose between Travis and a girl who has all the things that Dennis likes about Travis, but in a girl's body. If I was faced with choosing between a generic form of a guy and my best friend who I dearly love and know I could be happy with, despite her being a girl, I would choose her, ironically. I would be missing some sexual things. But, I know she is in love with me and I know that we could be very happy together. If I were to lose all the other non-sexual things, I would be losing more. So, I guess I didn't explain myself properly here.

I agree that the whole institution of sexual attraction is broader than what I was putting forward.... hence, the use of the phrase "gross oversimplification". I really wasn't attesting to being correct.

 

 

It is at this point that I would actually say that I am quite hurt that a couple of you seem to think that I am out to be offensive, narrow minded and an overall asshole. I'm not. I just don't have much sexual experience. But then again, I guess you guys are used to having to defend your attitudes aggressively and you really don't know me...

 

 

Bodgy:

 

I also agree with you for the most part. I think that more historical attitudes about sexuality were open and didn't require quite so much labeling. I really want to say something incredibly crude to exemplify how the simplicity of people having no regard for sexual labeling reduces the complexity of sexuality to a non-issue... but the nature of this thread seems to have advanced too far beyond my childishness.

The only reason that I am curious about the nature of bisexuality (something I am regretting already) is because people label themselves. Whether they want to or not, they are labelled, whether or not it is a fluid label. I don't think that any label will ever suffice: gay, bi, straight, 37% gay/63% straight, etc... No word or collection of words explains my current sexual feelings perfectly. I never expected it to do so for anyone. I may consider myself gay, but I find something extremely powerful in naked women, not that I want to have sex with them anymore. I also know that the intensity and type of my attractions to guys is completely different to those of my gay friends.

I don't believe that words can do justice to many things in life. I find the limitations of words to be very freeing when reading books and stories, because I'm reinventing and reinterpreting the story as it goes along. I am curious about bisexuality because it has a very vague meaning in my mind. I understand the mechanics of being bisexual when the individual does meet someone and wants to be with them. But, its the baser things like how many straight vs gay vids on xtube does a bisexual guy watch (ignoring the possibility of 3+ partners)? Do bisexual people simply have no exact preference for what physical features they are attracted to? Is it mostly psychological with them? I always assumed it was a superior thing to be able to identify oneself as bisexual... I really did think it was mainly psychological attraction that bisexuals had to whomever they were with, which is why I'm so damn curious about it. Being able to look beyond the physical characteristics and appendages to stimulate sexual, physical attraction really feels superior to me... superior to being either gay or straight, where there are some exclusions to who we want to be sexually active with. And again, to explain myself more clearly, the thing that is superior is simply having twice as many people available that one can fall in love with. I don't feel shame for being gay. I'm afraid of the world.. but I know there is nothing wrong with me. Getting back to a point Kevin was making, I don't think there is anything inferior about being gay, which is what was being claimed as my assertion. It is on par with being straight, if not more difficult for me. But, I romanticisize the idea of a completely uninhibited and unqualified society where anybody could fall head over heels in love with anybody. Before I started this thread, I would have thought that people that consider themselves bisexual were an elite minority that had it all.

I am tempted to delete that last paragraph because I believe it makes me out to be even more of an idiot than I've made myself out to be thus far... but, it describes the idiotic attitude that I held for a great deal of my youth and if someone has more insight than what has been posed so far, I would love to hear it. I really don't like being wrong. But, I hate not being corrected.

 

 

 

Smarties:

 

Thank you for your words. They are very much appreciated. I think I read about Cross Currents in 'It Started with Brian'. That story is a story about a bisexual guy.. and his story sparked much of my curiosity of bisexuality. I emailed the author once before he died... he was really a nice guy. Cross Currents is definitely on my list. Since its summer, I have some time to read a lot more than usual.. so I plan on getting to it soon.

That post by Adam was really really good. I think it has done the most to round off my understanding and I certainly find his first hand experience very informative. I would recommend everyone read it.

Adam had made it clear that he believes he will be denying himself something he finds incredibly sexually satisfying if/when he settles on one gender and, I guess, falls in love. He seemed to be very disheartened about this. However, it does answer a lot of my curiosity about what its like to be a bisexual in today's society... and it isn't quite as pure and amazing as I had thought.

 

 

Vic:

 

As always, thanks for your input. I kinda like the less graphic nature of Dom's more recent work. It's more subtle. Every sex scene he gets into or alludes to seems that much more perfect when it eventually comes up. Other stories and other authors sprinkle sex all over the place... and it's nice. But, when that happens it often feels like it takes all the air out of the story's underlying direction. Dom's balance is pretty ideal to me.

I really won't know what I will be able to tell about Dom's inner thoughts from his characters... Maybe I shouldn't have said it like that, because I am really more concerned with what he is trying to say rather than what he is saying about himself. With TLW, Dom was delicately carving a picture of the ramifications of parents like Owen's... he really didn't get into the 'why' of them. The faults of the parents are often the starting point for Dom... like in TOU, Quinn's mom had her views and they were strong, but the story was about Quinn and how her views effected Quinn. We really didn't hear anything about why she had her beliefs that gays were terrible people. With TLW, we know that religion sparked it... but beyond chapter 1, Owen's parents and their motivations for their heinous beliefs are put aside, while Owen deals with the ramifications of their beliefs. Likewise with Aiden.. His mom chose drink over her son... whether alcoholism is a disease or whatever is besides the point. Aiden's situation is so very similar to mine that I am glad Dom didn't delve into the mother too much.. it would have taken away from the story to do so. Dom's attitude towards bisexuality might or might not come out in ITFB... I don't really mind either way. But, I think he'll say something on the issue in some way, shape or form.

 

 

Canundra:

 

Thank you so much for your comment! I think that you understand where I was going the best. I also think I think like you...

Are the labels good or bad...? I don't know. My inclination is to think that they have had a detrimental effect on modern society... but there are lots of things wrong with modern society and the arrival of such numerous labels might be indicative of society's problems rather than something that society would be better without. I like to think about the phrase 'It has to get worse before it gets better' in regard to societal attitudes to sexuality... The progressives are pulling the world in a better direction and I think it will ultimately lead to a world better for all sexual orientiations, labelled or not, in the near future.

[Jaydee]

by the by, Canundra.... I love your sig. Sapere aude is one of my favorite quotes.

[Daisy]

OK..... time for a healthy response. Smarties: Thank you for your words. They are very much appreciated. I think I read about Cross Currents in 'It Started with Brian'. That story is a story about a bisexual guy.. and his story sparked much of my curiosity of bisexuality. I emailed the author once before he died... he was really a nice guy. Cross Currents is definitely on my list. Since its summer, I have some time to read a lot more than usual.. so I plan on getting to it soon. That post by Adam was really really good. I think it has done the most to round off my understanding and I certainly find his first hand experience very informative. I would recommend everyone read it. Adam had made it clear that he believes he will be denying himself something he finds incredibly sexually satisfying if/when he settles on one gender and, I guess, falls in love. He seemed to be very disheartened about this. However, it does answer a lot of my curiosity about what its like to be a bisexual in today's society... and it isn't quite as pure and amazing as I had thought.

 

Ok. I really should quote more of what you said, but I am lazy . I really really like your post. I am sorry that you felt jumped on. I think it just came with the topic, and of course not knowing more about you and your extended thought processes you have eloquently outlined, but really more to do with the topic bisexuality and as you saw in Adam's blog post it is something which bisexual people are coming up against a lot, even from among themselves rather than that you were offensive. i have pretty much all the same questions that you do. why I couldn't articulate an answer myself on my 'whys and hows etc etc' of bisexuality, or even anything to do with human relations and love . I have doubts all over the place as more things happen that make me question my younger assumptions and my so felt well reasoned and good intentioned ideas. but overall as you have said, this topic is so much bigger than the idea of bisexuality as clinical thing. I do not think that these issues can be separated out neatly and they cross-impact. I also think that limiting these discussions to 'bisexual' people is a problem too. As you neatly showed yourself with the example of your bestfriend things aren't black and white, but also why does that have to be excluded from this discussion - it is very relevant - maybe uniquely important. With the discussion of labels at heart here too. Another effect of labels is parameters they set up - not just on what we do but how we think and how we analyse and assume. and what we think is important. we will never get rid of labels. can you imagine never having words or categories or something to describe something. talk about confusing. we need a way of understanding the world and ourselves and this is how we do it. especially when we find something puzzling. and if things change, good grief, like our emotions or memory do how can we fix something down permanently. it helps steady the ever dizzying world of us. but at the same time they will never be perfect, they are full of faults by design it seems. everywhere. like you said with the words thing. and that's also how misunderstandings happen. we use different definitions of things, we read into things and we also, in my case, write things that have written in assumptions of buil-in meaning that isn't obvious to anyone else but me. so communication is flawed. how can a thing ever be captured. I'm thinking it can't. have a look at the philosophers Derrida, Deleuze and Foucault btw. especially Derrida about that word thing. back to love, again, I have the same questions.

 

but also with bisexuals you mention you thought they maybe about the psychological connection. as with the Adam blog post - I don't think that it is that - or rather it may not be for all, or even maybe the majority (who knows). But that is something related to the love thing and why that this discussion is much wider than limited to bisexuals. Adam from his other posts- falls in love as well as wants sex with people or finds many people attractive. and that is all about the psychological as well as physical connection - but where exactly they separate and how they do for each one, again I don't know. but also the psychological thing, you also said that you had thought that bisexuals may have a better chance of finding something. well again, my first instinct with that is it would actually be Harder to meet someone even if both genders are available. but then again, this depends on the personality of the person we are talking about and other factors I think. for me I think it is harder to meet someone because I do go for this, but I also have faults where I put barriers up to stop people getting close - I really need to stop that . also this connection maybe different, some people - I can think of a few celebrities and friends who are very I suppose err spiritual and those 'connections' and just being with people are very important to their very life and functioning and happen very easily. but also of course, the psychological to me seems to be inseparable from the concept of love, at least the way I define it.

 

back to what I said about not always going with love. there are various things that I thought of. One being, what is a 'true and healthy' love that qualifies? Also I couldn't help but think about my mum who was in love or so she said, I think it was more something else to do with her, but I have no clue, but this guy was a bastard and thankg he is for the most part out of her life. but I had to play a pivotal role in getting rid of him adn I don't regret doing it, and neither does she. but at the time and after I was so conflicted because I was telling her who she could go out with and live with. however there were many more issues here than her telling me she loved him in a way. far too many. and he proved it afterwards even more. he became a dangerous stalker among other things. i can't really analyse the guy, to me he is so confusing, and now no longer worth me thinking about much, but in my nicer moments I do think that he did feel something for my mum in his own way. however he was a user most of all. then there is one of my best friends, she says she is really in love with this guy - I have taken a step back recently from judging her which I was. I thought it was more about her neediness and lack of self worth and ability to dump him. they weren't suited and she didn't want to be alone. but is that a bad thing? she is also a depressive prone person. and he is a lifeline to her, but at the same time the cause of so much of her unhappiness (more details here). I don't think he is the nicest of persons and I am wary of him, especially for some of the things he has done to her. however leaving him may also ruin her, at least combined with all the other problems in her life happening simultaneously to kind of trap her (it is not all hopeless there is room to manoeuvre if she just would do some simple things). most recently though she described her love as being comfortable and (except when they argue, which is frequent) the only times she feels at peace from her life demons. so is that just something about human relations and something she is just missing elsewhere (she is lonely and shy, and in London with a newish job she hates and isolated from friends) or is it 'love' for her. I'm thinking a bit of both. (again here, having never been in love, I am struggling). there are other theoretical questions. what would you do if you were in love with someone who was say a murderer? etc etc.

 

also, I have read It started with Brian, it is a moving story. The reason that you have heard about crosscurrents with it is because AdamP, the blogger, has been ghost-writing the end for Sam, he started before he died. And one of the stories that is mentioned in the It started with Brian is Adam's CrossCurrents, although he uses a pseudo name. (I think, I hope, he won't mind me saying that here). this btw is Adam's yahoo group - I recommend joining as much for the discussions they have as the story itself. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adamstories/

 

I probably had other things to say, but I've forgotten. Oh, I wanted to clarify what I said about Dennis . I think what you said about difficulties and choice is true. I thought there was truth in that question you had in the initial post, and as you further elaborated, I'm sorry you are faced with such problems, but you sound in control. I also understand facing such problems, at least to a degree.

 

In my post, I was really laying out my analysis of Dennis. I think that for him there isn't really much of a case here. Although his life will be difficult potentially coming out or not even doing that just going out with Travis for whatever reasons, I think for him being with Travis has altered his life radically, whether or not I am right/wrong about him being 'in love'. I see it as currently at least he is dependent on him and he can't go back to his old life. and I think he is realising that Travis has become very important in his life in a vital-ish sort of way that where he will struggle without him there. Some of that could be, as well as of course his need for him socially, but as a partner he has become that important. But then again he could have an epiphany from the experience from Travis that means he grows as a person and gets those social things etc that he needs to live happily and healthily without needing Travis. who knows. there is likely and room for lots more trouble to brew and Dom to throw in curveballs. I think though that Dom has sent a 'message' in this story already. of course I don't mean message, but there are elements of this theme that I see in the story. and it is about this labels thing. and well just living. even if Dennis does turn out to be 'gayer' and more and more attracted to guys. Travis' reaction to it has shown those things too, as well as his reactions to himself needing to self-proclaim etc what he is to friends and more. as well as the concept of love and how relationships can develop, and what some people need out of them etc or even just shown another dynamic about them in a very interesting way. basically I think this story is great because of the way Dom is exploring human dynamics in every aspect. and showing a unique aspect or certainly a fresh way of writing or story-telling. So I can completely understand your interest in examining it. To add, to add to all the questions is that about the whole one-person love and causal relationships, and how our emotions work and how we often do contradictory things . it is a huge subject that I feel I am only on the edge of.

 

well, its long. and I haven't got time to check it. so mistakes and contradictions, and likely not explaining myself well and missing bits out, here you are

 

celia

Edited July 8, 2009 by Smarties

[MikeL]

I always used to imagine sexuality as a standard analog dial that had flamer at the bottom and absolutely straight at the top (forgive the pun-ful description).. the middle would be bisexual.

What you describe is an interesting idea. I don't know where you might find statistics on bisexuality. I suspect that your qualitative arrangement, from the most homosexual to the most heterosexual, is significantly different from what a quantitative arrangement would be. I think we all accept that gays are significantly outnumbered by straights. But, statistically, bisexuals are probably outliers. That is to say true bisexuals are probably very few in number. Most straight men, happily married to a woman, may have experimented with other guys during their teens. They are not bi. They are not having sex with other men.

 

In other words, I don't know.

 

One thing I do know: Dennis is gay.

[AFriendlyFace]

Very thought-provoking conversation! I have indeed considered things from many new angles because of it.

 

Changing the direction my own line of reasoning had been going, I will say that I think the specific case of Dennis and his (bi)sexuality are certainly different from the situation of being (bi)sexual in a more general sense. I think it's hard to say how Dennis himself will react to the same sex side of his sexual attractions. Certainly I think he comes to the table with more baggage than a lot of bisexuals.

 

I think it's also the case that both psychological and physical characteristics play a role for Dennis. On the one hand I think he's legitimately attracted to both males and females and I also think he just generally enjoys the activities and experiences that go along with a sexual relationship. On the other hand, I think part of his attraction to Travis is definitely psychological. I think Dennis is able to relate to Travis differently than he relates to girls (and other guys for that matter) because I think he feels like there's a "kindred spirit" thing going on. Dennis and Travis are both loners who don't really "let anyone in" at least not very often and not to a very complete extent. I think they also have a lot in common with how they view life and themselves. Yet there are tons of differences as well and I think they can each understand the differences because they see enough of themselves in the other person for the differences to make sense and generally "work."

 

I think the essential "paradigm" that Dom is using here (and of course I'm totally speculating and may be completely wrong) is similar to that of the classic "accidental couple." The individuals who weren't interested in a relationship but spent time together and partook in certain recreations as a matter of convenience. The relationship just sort of crept up on them, and I don't think either one really knows what to do with it, or even whether or not he wants it to last. I think they're both OK without having a lot of commitment or expectation from the other person. I think they're both OK with sex for sex and spending time with each other just for kicks. However, I think it's precisely all these similarities, differences, and a good dose of external events (Travis' mom, Dennis' dad, etc.) that has kind of caused them to unintentionally deepen the relationship and care and invest in it more than they meant to.

 

Of course, this might all also be their undoing. It's tough to make a relationship work when neither party really knows what he wants or how to handle what he's got. I think they may very well "accidentally" brake up in the same fashion that they got together.

 

Anyway, is Dennis "bisexual?" Depends on how you define it I guess. Does he enjoy sexual stuff with both genders? I'd say so, but I don't think he gets too bogged down in the "whys" and their significance. Of course now I might be projecting. Does it really matter though? The whys and labels? It can be stimulating to think about, but when it comes down to it I think it's just about existing in the context. Here I am, with this person and I'm having fun, and I'm getting something I want and/or need, so isn't that enough? Does the other person's genitals really make that big a difference - either in what they've got or what they're doing with it? Personally I don't really think so.

 

People might say then that I am espousing this "love the person not the gender" sort of view. Maybe I am to some extent, but that's actually not really where I'm trying to go with this. Enjoy the dynamic and relationship, the interaction you've got going, and enjoy the simple activity of "sex" (whatever that becomes in the context).

 

One common view of bisexuals/bisexuality that I think is often taken very negatively, may indeed have an element of truth to it. I think it very often is the case that bisexuals are more "sexual" in general, that they often just sort of "go with the flow" when it comes to sex and sexual contexts. I don't think this mean they're "slutty" or "promiscuous" per se, but I think it does mean that they don't really respect the "boxes" of sexual identification and "expected" sexual behaviour. I think in a lot of instances they are more willing to just go with it and see what happens. I think this is the case, by and large, at all levels of "sexualness," be it simply enjoying 'lust' and good old fashioned attraction - physical, psychological, emotional, and fantasy based - as well being willing to enter into and negotiate new and varying romantic relationships, and finally being open to exploring new forms of sexual expression itself.

 

 

Anyway, just some more of my thoughts

 

Kevin

[Daisy]

Very thought-provoking conversation! I have indeed considered things from many new angles because of it.

 

Changing the direction my own line of reasoning had been going, I will say that I think the specific case of Dennis and his (bi)sexuality are certainly different from the situation of being (bi)sexual in a more general sense. I think it's hard to say how Dennis himself will react to the same sex side of his sexual attractions. Certainly I think he comes to the table with more baggage than a lot of bisexuals.

 

I think it's also the case that both psychological and physical characteristics play a role for Dennis. On the one hand I think he's legitimately attracted to both males and females and I also think he just generally enjoys the activities and experiences that go along with a sexual relationship. On the other hand, I think part of his attraction to Travis is definitely psychological. I think Dennis is able to relate to Travis differently than he relates to girls (and other guys for that matter) because I think he feels like there's a "kindred spirit" thing going on. Dennis and Travis are both loners who don't really "let anyone in" at least not very often and not to a very complete extent. I think they also have a lot in common with how they view life and themselves. Yet there are tons of differences as well and I think they can each understand the differences because they see enough of themselves in the other person for the differences to make sense and generally "work."

 

I think the essential "paradigm" that Dom is using here (and of course I'm totally speculating and may be completely wrong) is similar to that of the classic "accidental couple." The individuals who weren't interested in a relationship but spent time together and partook in certain recreations as a matter of convenience. The relationship just sort of crept up on them, and I don't think either one really knows what to do with it, or even whether or not he wants it to last. I think they're both OK without having a lot of commitment or expectation from the other person. I think they're both OK with sex for sex and spending time with each other just for kicks. However, I think it's precisely all these similarities, differences, and a good dose of external events (Travis' mom, Dennis' dad, etc.) that has kind of caused them to unintentionally deepen the relationship and care and invest in it more than they meant to.

 

Of course, this might all also be their undoing. It's tough to make a relationship work when neither party really knows what he wants or how to handle what he's got. I think they may very well "accidentally" brake up in the same fashion that they got together.

 

Anyway, is Dennis "bisexual?" Depends on how you define it I guess. Does he enjoy sexual stuff with both genders? I'd say so, but I don't think he gets too bogged down in the "whys" and their significance. Of course now I might be projecting. Does it really matter though? The whys and labels? It can be stimulating to think about, but when it comes down to it I think it's just about existing in the context. Here I am, with this person and I'm having fun, and I'm getting something I want and/or need, so isn't that enough? Does the other person's genitals really make that big a difference - either in what they've got or what they're doing with it? Personally I don't really think so.

 

People might say then that I am espousing this "love the person not the gender" sort of view. Maybe I am to some extent, but that's actually not really where I'm trying to go with this. Enjoy the dynamic and relationship, the interaction you've got going, and enjoy the simple activity of "sex" (whatever that becomes in the context).

 

One common view of bisexuals/bisexuality that I think is often taken very negatively, may indeed have an element of truth to it. I think it very often is the case that bisexuals are more "sexual" in general, that they often just sort of "go with the flow" when it comes to sex and sexual contexts. I don't think this mean they're "slutty" or "promiscuous" per se, but I think it does mean that they don't really respect the "boxes" of sexual identification and "expected" sexual behaviour. I think in a lot of instances they are more willing to just go with it and see what happens. I think this is the case, by and large, at all levels of "sexualness," be it simply enjoying 'lust' and good old fashioned attraction - physical, psychological, emotional, and fantasy based - as well being willing to enter into and negotiate new and varying romantic relationships, and finally being open to exploring new forms of sexual expression itself.

 

 

Anyway, just some more of my thoughts

 

Kevin

 

I think you are more likely right than me about Dennis. I think I'm being hopefull, but yeah I think both could walk away easily. but they could stay together too. So far it looks like both are trying. what you said about bisexuality at the end, one of my best friends is like that. she is just a lot more sexual or willing to get close to people and joke. but actually when it comes to people she really likes, that's another matter and a bit of a disaster. relationships and her don't really work - she really doesn't want them. but the one she is willing to try with she is running scared of approaching the idea with. in fact another girl I know, and dislike, is very fluid and just rolls into relationships and sex with no worries. so maybe it is true what you are saying, but then what about the people we don't know about in that way. very real possibility that a lot of people are missing from the radar.

 

celia

[Daisy]

I just read this and thought I'd add it to the collection of experiences about being bisexual and the journey to coming out. Duncan James is a member of UK boyband Blue who are about to stage a comeback. He came out publicly in this interview, its a good read:

 

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/showbiz/xs/402391/Blues-Duncan-James-I-have-flings-with-men.html

 

celia