Bisexuality--AGAIN

[Adam Phillips]

I have a Yahoo group where readers of my stories and just long-time cyberfriends gather and talk about all kinds of things (You're welcome to join.). And one of them sent me a link to an article from the New York Times  on bisexuality:

 

The Scientific Quest To Prove Bisexuality Exists

 

I have to say that this is the most significant "popular" essay I've seen on bisexuality, and it succeeds on a number of levels. As a practicing bisexual, I can validate--at least anecdotally--much of what the article claims

 

I have a reservation or two. For one, when an establishment created to advocate for bisexuals funds research into bisexuality, there's cause for at least a raised eyebrow. And secondly, I wish that the article had spent some time focusing on the specifics of Fritz Klein's work, since it mentions him so much. If it had done that, it might have provided even greater illumination for the author regarding his own reported sexual responses.

 

But in spite of those two caveats, the article is the best thing I've seen on bisexuality in years.

 

If there are some of you interested enough in the topic to give this LONG article a look and the careful reading I believe it deserves, I'd be very interested in your thoughts.

[Palantir]

The title of the link caught my attention - it seemed on a par with saying something like - 'The Scientific Quest To Prove Water Exists.'

 

'some of the worst discrimination and minimization comes from the gay community.' - This was the statement that surprised and most disappointed me.

 

A long time ago I decided I liked the Kinsey idea of human sexuality as a continuum and that the various labels are a pointer, indicating where a person might be in a given situation or time of their life.

[JamesSavik]

I was once asked by a religious nut: are you a  practicing homosexual?

 

I told him, with all due humility, "I've practiced enough. I'm pretty good at it by now."  

[joann414]

The article is very enlightening.  A couple of years ago, i saw one of my gay friends for the first time in 25 years.  We talked for hours, catching up.  At the end of the conversation, she said, "You're so gay".  I just smiled and said, "No, just enjoyed the best of the best worlds until I met my hubby."  

 

I know at times I come across as gay because of bashers.  It infuriates me, so I have to try to keep a lid on it.  Otherwise, hubby would kill someone:P

 

Bisexual to me is picking the person.  I dated men and women and when the right one came alone, done. I still love female eye candy and my hubby knows it and has no problem with it.

[Adam Phillips]

I was once asked by a religious nut: are you a  practicing homosexual?

 

I told him, with all due humility, "I've practiced enough. I'm pretty good at it by now."  

 

Everybody always told me practice makes perfect. I'm just trying to take that seriously.

[Sasha Distan]

Bisexual to me is picking the person.  I dated men and women and when the right one came alone, done. I still love female eye candy and my hubby knows it and has no problem with it.

 

I like Kitt says, it's the person not the parts.

[Ron]

I have a Yahoo group where readers of my stories and just long-time cyberfriends gather and talk about all kinds of things (You're welcome to join.). And one of them sent me a link to an article from the New York Times  on bisexuality:

 

The Scientific Quest To Prove Bisexuality Exists

 

I have to say that this is the most significant "popular" essay I've seen on bisexuality, and it succeeds on a number of levels. As a practicing bisexual, I can validate--at least anecdotally--much of what the article claims

This article is now the cover story for today's, The New York Times Magazine, for anyone who wants a hard copy. I haven't read the article yet but I plan to soon.

[Cia]

Bisexuality for women isn't as looked down upon as it is for men, thankfully. For me, having been with the same man for so long, my attraction to women is a somewhat abstract concept. I like looking at women, clothed and unclothed. I enjoyed the things I did with them before I bet my husband. I'm equally as happy with things I do with him. It's the relationship that matters to me.

 

It would be nice if other people could understand that, certainly. I have to disagree with Adam in regards to the study funding though. All sorts of societies and groups who support things fund research. Now, there must be controls in place to ensure the data collected and analyzed is done so independently of any oversight by supporters, of course, but if interested parties didn't fund research... how would it get going?

[Adam Phillips]

I have to disagree with Adam in regards to the study funding though. All sorts of societies and groups who support things fund research. Now, there must be controls in place to ensure the data collected and analyzed is done so independently of any oversight by supporters, of course, but if interested parties didn't fund research... how would it get going?

 

I don't know that that constitutes a disagreement, Cia. I didn't say that I thought the entire project was invalidated because it was tainted by "interested money." And I agree that, say, the American Dairy Council would have no reason at all to fund a study on bisexuality. All I'm saying is that whenever an entity funds a study whose conclusions could be advantageous it--and I'm talking about any study about anything, not just about sexuality--it creates room for some at least mild suspicion. I don't think I'm stating anything here that the average scientist might not also chime in on.

 

Edited March 23, 2014 by Adam Phillips

[Celethiel]

here i thought Adam philips was putting it out there that he decided he was going to be Bisexual "AGAIN"

making me wonder what he decided he was before

but no it's a study.

[Adam Phillips]

here i thought Adam philips was putting it out there that he decided he was going to be Bisexual "AGAIN"

making me wonder what he decided he was before

but no it's a study.

 

 

Yeah, it's a study. But I did decide I was going to be bisexual again. And again and again and again. Same as before.

[TetRefine]

So what percentage of sexual interest in the opposite or same sex constitutes bisexuality? Do it have to be like 70/30? 60/40? 50/50? I find some women sexually attractive, and I would probably sleep with the right one under the right circumstances. Yet I don't actively seek it out, nor would I be regretful if I slept with only guys my entire life. 

 

Does something like that qualify a person as bisexual, or just somewhat curious? 

[methodwriter85]

   It'd make you about Kinsey 4 or 5.

 

  I'm a straight-up 6. I can look at an attractive woman and appreciate her beauty like a painting, but I've never felt aroused by a woman.

 

  For me to call someone "bisexual" I think they'd have to be a bit beyond just "straight with some gay experiences" or "gay with some straight experiences"- I'd say at least an 80/20 split.

Edited March 25, 2014 by methodwriter85

[Sasha Distan]

personally I would say the act of fancying/being aroused by people of both genders would be the key factor in being bisexual.

Friend of mine is bi, he's a 25 year old virgin (gods, but i feel bad for him), but not having had sex doesn't make him not bi.

[Zombie]

...but not having had sex doesn't make him not bi.

 

my brain hurts

[Thorn Wilde]

  For me to call someone "bisexual" I think they'd have to be a bit beyond just "straight with some gay experiences" or "gay with some straight experiences"- I'd say at least an 80/20 split.

 

I hate to break it to you, buddy, but it's not really up to you to define someone's sexual identity; that's something they do for themselves. If a person has been in only straight relationships their entire life and never had a gay experience at all, that makes them no less bisexual if they're attracted to both sexes. Our sexual identity isn't based on our experiences but our attractions, and most importantly it's up to us how we choose to define ourselves. 

Edited March 28, 2014 by Thorn Wilde

[MJ85]

A response to the NYT article:

 

Bisexuality: What NYT and Slate Got Wrong

[C J]

For what purpose would I need to label someone based on their sexual preferences?   I don't need to for any reason, and I don't accept labels of any sort.  Labels limit people.  Labels are for things not people. 

 

"Oh look, there's that gay guy shopping for bananas hahaha!   I bet he buys some lotion too!  HAHAHA".   That's about how useful labels are.

 

If people were as smart and clever as they like to believe they are, they wouldn't even acknowledge labels.  It's not like a label is some sort of title,  like MBA or PhD or senator or manager or whatever.   Labels have no value either socially or otherwise.

 

People should be distiguished by their  self, their personality, not by what interests them sexually, and not really by what they do to make a living.  

 

I have had enough of the label game, and I'm not playing any more.  I'm a man who lives in the midwest.  If you happen to live in my neighborhood then you might know something else about me.  You might even know what I like sexually, but it's really none of your business, and I'm not going to go around identifying myself as a man who likes sex with other men by labeling myself "gay".   If that's the most important thing I have to offer then I shouldn't even be breathing.

 

It's simple really.  I'm a man, a person, and that's all the world needs to know.  If someone gets closer to me and I like them, I might let them know more.  Until then, I'm Chris, another person occupying this planet, and if that's not enough information for you, that's not my problem, it's yours.  Take yourself and your labels and bother someone else with your goofyness.   Life is too precious to spend it contemplating that level of tripe.

[Persinette]

For what purpose would I need to label someone based on their sexual preferences?   I don't need to for any reason, and I don't accept labels of any sort.  Labels limit people.  Labels are for things not people.

 

Labels are just tools - you can use a spanner to bash somebody's head in as easily as fix a car. The things themselves aren't evil; they're just a way to navigate people easier. Does calling myself a geek boil my entire personality down to one hobby? No, but it makes it easier to find fellow hobbyists. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[TetRefine]

Labels have no value either socially or otherwise.

 

If labels served no purpose of any kind, people would not engage in labeling. Labeling allows for people to easily identify what they believe is characteristics about that person. It helps them decide if they want to associate with that person or not, whether it be in a platonic or sexual manner. Its not always a positive thing, but to say it has no value isn't true. 

[Adam Phillips]

If labels served no purpose of any kind, people would not engage in labeling. Labeling allows for people to easily identify what they believe is characteristics about that person. It helps them decide if they want to associate with that person or not, whether it be in a platonic or sexual manner. Its not always a positive thing, but to say it has no value isn't true. 

 

Right. Labels have their legitimate uses in various contexts. The problem comes--when it comes at all, which it doesn't always--with assuming that a label, or what we believe it connotes, constitutes the whole story of a person's sexuality.

 

And the problem with the "bisexual" label, when it's problematic, is twofold. First, people see the word and assume things about it that aren't true. Second, the term "bisexual," as researchers Michael Storms and Fritz Klein have each in their own way demonstrated, doesn't designate one kind of sexual configuration. It's probably safer to say, in certain analytical contexts, that there are bisexualities. The diversity of configurations to bisexuality is one of the things that makes the notion of bisexuality controversial and confusing for gay, straight, and bi people alike.

 

 

And I'll agree with Ghostboy at least as far as saying that there are times and contexts when we should just get away from sexual-orientation labels altogether. For example, we do at times seem fixated on making someone define themselves for us sexually. When a person resists that labeling, I've seen people get aggressive, accusing, and hostile. That shouldn't be.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Adam Phillips

[C J]

Labels are just tools - you can use a spanner to bash somebody's head in as easily as fix a car. The things themselves aren't evil; they're just a way to navigate people easier. Does calling myself a geek boil my entire personality down to one hobby? No, but it makes it easier to find fellow hobbyists. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

I agree, labels are tools.  I'm perfectly willing to let you use labels however you want to.  Personally, I will use labels to find a can of beans or a box of cereal.  When I'm looking for a person the only label I need is their name.  My label is Chris, other people have other labels.   If you want to label me according to my sexual orientation, then I don't think you and me have anything of value in common.

[Persinette]

I agree, labels are tools.  I'm perfectly willing to let you use labels however you want to.  Personally, I will use labels to find a can of beans or a box of cereal.  When I'm looking for a person the only label I need is their name.  My label is Chris, other people have other labels.   If you want to label me according to my sexual orientation, then I don't think you and me have anything of value in common.

 

Oh, give over, kid.

 

I don't much care what you do or don't call yourself - you want to be known as The Chris Formally Known as Gaylord, I'll abbreviate it to something catchy. I'm just saying that labels aren't some dread creature come to suck the life and breath outta you; leaving but a shrivelled, cock-loving carcass where there was once a dude called Chris.

 

Basically: labels. Sometimes bad, sometimes good, sometimes useful. I really like it when people label me as 'black-pepper-allergic', because then they don't feed me stuff which makes my stomach do backflips. They're just ideas, man. A way to communicate shit.

[C J]

Oh, give over, kid.

 

I don't much care what you do or don't call yourself - you want to be known as The Chris Formally Known as Gaylord, I'll abbreviate it to something catchy. I'm just saying that labels aren't some dread creature come to suck the life and breath outta you; leaving but a shrivelled, cock-loving carcass where there was once a dude called Chris.

 

Basically: labels. Sometimes bad, sometimes good, sometimes useful. I really like it when people label me as 'black-pepper-allergic', because then they don't feed me stuff which makes my stomach do backflips. They're just ideas, man. A way to communicate shit.

 

Interesting way to go about agreeing with me. 

[Persinette]

Interesting way to go about agreeing with me. 

 

When'd I agree with you?

 

I understand your perspective, but I think you're being a bit daft.