The Narrow Bisexual
Hello again, LJers!
After about fifteen glasses of iced green tea over sushi this past evening, I find myself energized and unable to sleep. Also contributing to my insomnia tonight are thoughts about the conversation that accompanied said sushi. The conversation, at one point, turned to the typically excellent and not-at-all safe-for-work blog Toy With Me and an article posted this past October entitled "You Are Not Bi. You Are Just a Slut."
Most of the article is actually quite positive - it suggests that perhaps it's acceptable to have a couple out-of-character trysts without reframing your entire identity. I can dig it. How many people have had absolute crises after a drunken night of fun with a partner who's not their usual type? The real issue - the bit where I came to a screeching halt and blinked for a few minutes - was in the first paragraph:
"If you can picture yourself in a loving, sexual relationship with a person of either gender, then congratulations, you are an ACTUAL bisexual person."
So… What we are saying here is that in order to call yourself a bona-fide, grade-a bisexual, you can't just want to have sex with either of two different genders. You have to be able to picture yourself in a relationship with either. Not just a relationship, but a loving relationship. Now, as great as loving relationships can be with either of the two (also reduced and narrowed, but I won't go into that right now) genders, I have a problem with that statement. The problem is this:
Picture the stock character of "The Eternal Bachelor". He's never been in a long-term, loving relationship, and he's never shown any signs of wanting one. It's not that he's averse to sex, though - he goes through a woman a week, in fact! Can we say of this character: "Well, he's not heterosexual. He's just slutty!"
No. No we can't.
In fact, turn all his love interests into men for a moment. Don't be shy. Make him into the hilarious and oh-so-degrading caricature of the promiscuous flamer. Try telling this man: "You're not gay."
Go on. I dare you.
The point is not that these characters are not, in their own rights, slutty people. The point is that they are slutty in addition to their respective preferences for the genders of their partners. But when this character starts doin' it with both men and women? All acknowledgement of preference goes out the window because clearly this dude will bang anything that walks.
Okay, not quite what the original article was saying, (In fact, the article was mostly concerned with female bisexuality. Male bisexuality, as we know, cannot exist because of some quantum-level heterosexuality-destroying singularity that occurs when balls touch.) but the implication appears to be there. Okay. Let's play with it a bit more, because I'm not done yet. As I said before, the article seems to be meant to reassure or somehow correct those who have had a couple extremely casual same-sex encounters. Fine. Whatever. Experimentation doesn't mean you have to change your "interested in" line on Facebook. But what about a gal who knows she likes to fuck people from both ends of the gender spectrum - craves it, in fact - but can only really conceive of having long-term loving relationships with one? What if she - for whatever reason - simply gets along better with people who have more estrogen than testosterone pumping through their veins? But she still - because of breaks between loving relationships or polyamory or whatever - enjoys occasional romps with men. What then? Ah, now we've reached the strange secondary colors of the orientation spectrum. Those twilight zones between hetero and bi, bi and homo. Those in our number that may, to clarify, call themselves homo- or hetero-flexible; bi-curious; gay or straight with exceptions; or just queer. Or, more likely, they choose from the three mainstream labels available.
The root of the problem, as I see it, is (once again, and say it with me, kids!) dichotomous thinking. People have such a need to make a clear black and white that all the shades of grey get sorted until they are manageable chunks of "light" and "dark". Whittle it down enough, and you're left with one strip of grey, infinitesimally narrow, that is smack-dab at 50%. Congratulations! If you can walk this narrow line of desire at all times then YOU, my friend, have the privilege and honor of declaring yourself an ACTUAL bisexual person. Stray but a little and you will fall, junk-first, into a morass of people telling you that your definition of self is incorrect and always has been.
There's more I could say, but I think I've finally worn myself out. Tell me your thoughts, because holy shit it's been a while, LJ! What's up!?
After about fifteen glasses of iced green tea over sushi this past evening, I find myself energized and unable to sleep. Also contributing to my insomnia tonight are thoughts about the conversation that accompanied said sushi. The conversation, at one point, turned to the typically excellent and not-at-all safe-for-work blog Toy With Me and an article posted this past October entitled "You Are Not Bi. You Are Just a Slut."
Most of the article is actually quite positive - it suggests that perhaps it's acceptable to have a couple out-of-character trysts without reframing your entire identity. I can dig it. How many people have had absolute crises after a drunken night of fun with a partner who's not their usual type? The real issue - the bit where I came to a screeching halt and blinked for a few minutes - was in the first paragraph:
"If you can picture yourself in a loving, sexual relationship with a person of either gender, then congratulations, you are an ACTUAL bisexual person."
So… What we are saying here is that in order to call yourself a bona-fide, grade-a bisexual, you can't just want to have sex with either of two different genders. You have to be able to picture yourself in a relationship with either. Not just a relationship, but a loving relationship. Now, as great as loving relationships can be with either of the two (also reduced and narrowed, but I won't go into that right now) genders, I have a problem with that statement. The problem is this:
Picture the stock character of "The Eternal Bachelor". He's never been in a long-term, loving relationship, and he's never shown any signs of wanting one. It's not that he's averse to sex, though - he goes through a woman a week, in fact! Can we say of this character: "Well, he's not heterosexual. He's just slutty!"
No. No we can't.
In fact, turn all his love interests into men for a moment. Don't be shy. Make him into the hilarious and oh-so-degrading caricature of the promiscuous flamer. Try telling this man: "You're not gay."
Go on. I dare you.
The point is not that these characters are not, in their own rights, slutty people. The point is that they are slutty in addition to their respective preferences for the genders of their partners. But when this character starts doin' it with both men and women? All acknowledgement of preference goes out the window because clearly this dude will bang anything that walks.
Okay, not quite what the original article was saying, (In fact, the article was mostly concerned with female bisexuality. Male bisexuality, as we know, cannot exist because of some quantum-level heterosexuality-destroying singularity that occurs when balls touch.) but the implication appears to be there. Okay. Let's play with it a bit more, because I'm not done yet. As I said before, the article seems to be meant to reassure or somehow correct those who have had a couple extremely casual same-sex encounters. Fine. Whatever. Experimentation doesn't mean you have to change your "interested in" line on Facebook. But what about a gal who knows she likes to fuck people from both ends of the gender spectrum - craves it, in fact - but can only really conceive of having long-term loving relationships with one? What if she - for whatever reason - simply gets along better with people who have more estrogen than testosterone pumping through their veins? But she still - because of breaks between loving relationships or polyamory or whatever - enjoys occasional romps with men. What then? Ah, now we've reached the strange secondary colors of the orientation spectrum. Those twilight zones between hetero and bi, bi and homo. Those in our number that may, to clarify, call themselves homo- or hetero-flexible; bi-curious; gay or straight with exceptions; or just queer. Or, more likely, they choose from the three mainstream labels available.
The root of the problem, as I see it, is (once again, and say it with me, kids!) dichotomous thinking. People have such a need to make a clear black and white that all the shades of grey get sorted until they are manageable chunks of "light" and "dark". Whittle it down enough, and you're left with one strip of grey, infinitesimally narrow, that is smack-dab at 50%. Congratulations! If you can walk this narrow line of desire at all times then YOU, my friend, have the privilege and honor of declaring yourself an ACTUAL bisexual person. Stray but a little and you will fall, junk-first, into a morass of people telling you that your definition of self is incorrect and always has been.
There's more I could say, but I think I've finally worn myself out. Tell me your thoughts, because holy shit it's been a while, LJ! What's up!?