[net.motss] In defense of Ray's stance on bisexuality.

fisher@smiley.DEC (Gerry --- Terminally Inane) (09/05/85)

RE:  In defense of Ray's stance on bisexuality.


Yes, I agree that there were some bi-phobic comments in Ray's posting. 
Yes, I agree that there were some sexist comments in Ray's posting.  
However, I have to stand by his initial point, which is as follows:

>    ...I can't count the number of "Supposedly"
>bisexual men I've met. 

The key word is "supposedly."  My gripe is not with bisexual people; I 
feel that almost all human beings are, to some degree, bisexual.  I 
have noticed that I have been sexually attracted to all of 3 women 
since I have come out (3 years ago).  I know that that's not many, but 
I felt good that I wasn't an "exact" six on the ole Kinsey scale. :-)

My objections are reserved for the people who use the term "bisexual"
as a cover for their own sexual confusion and for their unwillingness to
stand up for same-sex, physical affection. For example, many of my gay
friends and I called ourselves "bisexual" before we came out as gay
men. I *know* that that was one of the most confused times of my life; 
I recognize this "phase" in others.

Let me attempt to clarify. 

I agree with Ray's critics who say that people should not commit to 
bi/straight/gay groups. However I do ask that a person...

1) Commit to an honesty about their sexual orientation and accompanying 
feelings

2) And if a person's orientation includes same-sex affection, 
commit to actively supporting the "Gay" movement


*Every* man I have met who has used the term "bisexual" to describe 
himself has been unwilling to ascribe to one or both of my personal 
requirements. (Ironically, the *only* woman bisexual I know ascribes 
to both; she has my utmost respect.)

It is not fair for me, as an openly gay man, to date the men who use
the label "bisexual" for their own cover.  Why should I have to put up
with his being afraid to do something "openly gay?"  What good
feelings can I possibly have about myself if I find out he is married
and he did not tell me?  How can I feel good about myself if I date
men who are embarrassed by my active support of gay causes? These are 
the risks when dating such men.

(For the record, gay men who do not ascribe to the above requirements are 
subjects for my contempt as well.)

The longer you see these men, the more the message becomes clear:
"you are my extra-ciricular thrill; if the going gets tough, I will fall
back on socially safe relationships with women."  If my same-sex
partner leaves me for another man, I can at least say that we were 
incompatible. If my same-sex partner used me for a
thrill and then leaves me for the safety of a woman, that is an
attack on my lifestyle and the lifestyles of all gay people. There is
an underlying message that I don't count because I am "living the
deviant lifestyle." 

These men may be bisexual; they may be primarily straight; or, they may 
be primarily gay.  It doesn't matter, the label "bisexuality" is their 
smokescreen.  

I wouldn't be so adamant about the subject if my experiences, and
those of my gay friends haven't been so consistently bad.  I guess my
basic gripe is against people who are dishonest when representing
bisexuality, and there are many of them. My only advice to *single*
bisexual people is not to make a big deal out of telling a gay person
that you are bisexual on a first meeting (if you are married, that 
issue needs to be aired).

When I meet the aforementioned "bisexual" men, they make a big deal 
about some aspect of their bisexuality.  They may say that women don't 
matter that much to them.   They may say that men don't matter that 
much to them.  They may talk a lot about the importance of "partying" 
and "having a good time," the old "if it feels good, do it" argument.  
But no matter what argument they present, there is an air of guilt, 
shame, and deceit about them.

Now, when I speak to my bisexual friend, she says, point-blank, "yeh, 
I'm bisexual."  Then, she smiles at me with a radiance that says, 
"what about it!"  She's incredible.  She's bisexual.  I love her.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Semantics Argument:

I have trouble with the following analogy:

>>Most were afraid to make such a committment and preferred to walk both
>>sides of the fence.
 
>Unless one is making a commitment to a particular person, why should one make
>a commitment to a particular sex?  Ray, listen to yourself for a while.  Try
>replacing everything you say in terms of race rather than sex and see how
>racist it becomes.  If one is attracted to both blacks and whites (say), why
>should one make a commitment to only ONE race?  that is simply stupid and
>racist.  What you are saying is sexist!  is it "walking both sides of the
>fence" to make love to a black man and a white man?  


All men are physically the same no matter their race and all women are 
the same physically no matter their race.  But, men and women are 
anatomically different.  If sexual attraction is at least in part
linked to physical attraction, wouldn't your sexual orientation be naturally
"sexist"?  Do I have to be physically attracted to women to be
non-sexist?  Or, is the point to not make any iron-clad commitments to
one sex or the other since most people are bisexual anyway? Any comments? 

			Gerry Fisher
                        ...decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-smiley!fisher
***************************************************************************
Nashua, NH: Where the men are men, and the sheep are nervous.

sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (09/09/85)

In article <313@decwrl.UUCP> fisher@smiley.DEC (Gerry --- Terminally Inane) writes:
>I agree with Ray's critics who say that people should not commit to 
>bi/straight/gay groups. However I do ask that a person...
>
>1) Commit to an honesty about their sexual orientation and accompanying 
>feelings
>
>2) And if a person's orientation includes same-sex affection, 
>commit to actively supporting the "Gay" movement
>
2) sounds reasonnable.  I am not sure what kind of "honesty" you are talking
about in 1).  If you are talking about personal honesty, I agree 100%.
If you are talking about public honesty, i.e coming out, I am not so
sure I agree.  I think that bisexuals might not want to come out in public
for the same reason that homosexuals might not want to come out in public:
they are scared of the repercussions.  Coming out takes a lot of courage
and there is no reason to expect bisexuals to have more of it than homosexuals.

>It is not fair for me, as an openly gay man, to date the men who use
>the label "bisexual" for their own cover.  Why should I have to put up
>with his being afraid to do something "openly gay?"

For the same reasons you might put up with someone (homosexual) who is
not out.  The only difference between closeted bisexuals and closeted
homosexuals is that probably bisexuals can pull it off a bit better.
That can probably be very frustrating if you've had a much harder time
of it, and I can understand how this might cause serious problems in a
relationship.  I would think that the main problem would be the fact
that you are out and the other person is not.

>What good
>feelings can I possibly have about myself if I find out he is married
>and he did not tell me?  How can I feel good about myself if I date
>men who are embarrassed by my active support of gay causes? These are 
>the risks when dating such men.

Yup, it's even worse if this means that not only are they scared to be
labelled homosexual, they are also ashamed of their relationship with you.
>
>The longer you see these men, the more the message becomes clear:
>"you are my extra-ciricular thrill; if the going gets tough, I will fall
>back on socially safe relationships with women."  If my same-sex
>partner leaves me for another man, I can at least say that we were 
>incompatible. If my same-sex partner used me for a
>thrill and then leaves me for the safety of a woman, that is an
>attack on my lifestyle and the lifestyles of all gay people. There is
>an underlying message that I don't count because I am "living the
>deviant lifestyle." 

Good point.  I think now I understand better why it would be considered
worse to be left for a opposite-sex partner rather than for another same-sex
one.

>Now, when I speak to my bisexual friend, she says, point-blank, "yeh, 
>I'm bisexual."  Then, she smiles at me with a radiance that says, 
>"what about it!"  She's incredible.  She's bisexual.  I love her.

Yes, the people I know (men and women) who are bisexual are like that too.
I've never known any of them to be ashamed of relationships they've had
simply based on the sex of the person involved (sometimes one is ashamed of
certain relationships based on *who* the person was <-:)

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Semantics Argument:
>
>I have trouble with the following analogy:
>
>>>Most were afraid to make such a committment and preferred to walk both
>>>sides of the fence.
> 
>>Unless one is making a commitment to a particular person, why should one make
>>a commitment to a particular sex?  Ray, listen to yourself for a while.  Try
>>replacing everything you say in terms of race rather than sex and see how
>>racist it becomes.  If one is attracted to both blacks and whites (say), why
>>should one make a commitment to only ONE race?  that is simply stupid and
>>racist.  What you are saying is sexist!  is it "walking both sides of the
>>fence" to make love to a black man and a white man?  
>
>All men are physically the same no matter their race and all women are 
>the same physically no matter their race.  But, men and women are 
>anatomically different.  If sexual attraction is at least in part
>linked to physical attraction, wouldn't your sexual orientation be naturally
>"sexist"?  Do I have to be physically attracted to women to be
>non-sexist?  Or, is the point to not make any iron-clad commitments to
>one sex or the other since most people are bisexual anyway? Any comments? 

To further my analogy, I woudln't think it racist that certain people are
attracted to one race only, just like I don't find it sexist that certain
people are attracted to one sex only.  I think it is sexist to ask of people
who are attracted to both sexes to "make a commitment to one sex" just like
I would find it racist to ask of people who are attracted to more than one race
to "make a commitment to one race".  I hope this explains my analogy a bit
better. 
-- 
Sophie Quigley
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie