rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (08/19/85)
In article <1302@hound.UUCP> psh@hound.UUCP (P.HANSON) writes: > > Is being bisexual never >to be happy? To satisfy both sexual preferences nearly eliminates the >possibility of a monogamous relationship. And to have a monogamous >relationship implies a sort of celebacy. Or does it? It seems to me that there could logically be two sorts of bisexuals:: 1. A person who has separate sexual desires for males and females, which is what Hanson assumes above. 2. A person with a single sexual desire that can be satisfied by both males and females. [For the purposes of this discussion, by "bisexual" I mean a person who has SIGNIFICANT sexual attraction to both females and males. To leave out the "significant" would, if Kinsey is right, mean including nearly everyone under the category "bisexual". And of course, there must be plenty of bisexuals even under this narrower definition, but out of homophobia or whatever, they chose to get married and not deal with their homosexual desires.] Any bisexual netters out there? Are you of type 1 or of type 2 above? -- +--------------+-------------------------------+ | Rob Bernardo | Pacific Bell | +--------------+ 2600 Camino Ramon, Room 4E700 | | 415-823-2417 | San Ramon, California 94583 | +--------------+-------------------------------+---------+ | ihnp4!ptsfa!rob | | {nsc,ucbvax,decwrl,amd,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob | +--------------------------------------------------------+
ps101@sdcc13.UUCP (ps101) (08/21/85)
In my own experience, it appears that it is extremely difficult for
people to make the bisexual option as they are forced to choose
between the gay or straight options due to pressure. I have known a
few people who claimed to be bisexual and I felt after talking to
most of them that they were really gay but couldn't admit it to
themselves (ie. I'm bisexual and the inference is that I am only
half "wrong"-- this of course assumes that they find difficulty in
recognizing their true feelings and they believe they are less
"wrong" than being outright gay.)
I have also known a few men who were exclusively homosexual (and in
applying the term I refer only their patterns of sexual behavior)
and they at so point decided to get involved in heterosexual
relationships exclusively. All of the people who I know in this
situation (a limited group of about ten persons) eventually returned
to the gay lifestlye in a matter of one to three years.
I feel that although it is possible to be bisexual the major
problems that these people encounter are
1) Pressure to choose between gay and straight,
2) The assumption on most peoples part that bisexuality
precludes the possibility of a long-term manogamous relationship,
3) That few organized support groups exist that recognize
and support this group.
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (08/26/85)
Anon. asked me to post this for her: > 1. A person who has separate sexual desires for males and females, > which is what Hanson assumes above. > 2. A person with a single sexual desire that can be satisfied by > both males and females. ^^^^ ^^^ [you mean "either...or"?] > Any bisexual netters out there? Are you of type 1 or of type 2 above? It's a difficult question; I watch attractive members of both sexes in much the same way, but when I daydream about going to _bed_ with someone, rather than just admiring aesthetics, I have totally different feelings. This might be because I have very limited gay experience, and might be because I tend to think in terms of "relationships" and I would find it difficult to form a long-term relationship with a woman (as I get older and want children more and more immediately, I tend to concentrate on the _men_ I am attracted to). I think that speaking strictly sexually, I am a type 2; but since my sexuality is so bound up with concerns of attachments, I consider my desires for men and for women in a totally different light. -- +--------------+-------------------------------+ | Rob Bernardo | Pacific Bell | +--------------+ 2600 Camino Ramon, Room 4E700 | | 415-823-2417 | San Ramon, California 94583 | +--------------+-------------------------------+---------+ | ihnp4!ptsfa!rob | | {nsc,ucbvax,decwrl,amd,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob | +--------------------------------------------------------+
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (08/26/85)
In article <294@sdcc13.UUCP> ps101@sdcc13.UUCP (ps101) writes: > I feel that although it is possible to be bisexual the major >problems that these people encounter are > 1) Pressure to choose between gay and straight, > 2) The assumption on most peoples part that bisexuality >precludes the possibility of a long-term manogamous relationship, > 3) That few organized support groups exist that recognize >and support this group. I don't really understand point #1. Unless one assumes that relationships will be stereotypical, the pressure to choose between gay and straight is simply pressure to choose (or not) between different individuals, i.e. pressure to choose between monogamy or not. I think that if one is not satisfied with either the "gay" or "straight" life, then maybe this simply means that one is not satisfied with the individuals that have come to represent this life. I don't think that my life would be THAT different if my partner was a woman rather than a man. I'd have new worries: being accepted by society, how to have children. I'd also be rid of certain other worries: birth control, wondering whether inequalities in our relationship are sex-based. I think that the main difference in the relationship would be because I'd be with a different person rather than with a person of a different sex. One would hope that most of the joys and struggles inherent in a relationship have more to do with the personalities of the people involved than with their sexes. This discussion in net.motss puzzles me somewhat. How easily factionalised people can become! one would think, that since homosexuals have had such a hard time explaining to heterosexuals that *really* people are pretty much the same, no matter what their sexual orientation is, that they would apply this reasonning to another group of people with a different sexual orientation. Yet I hear some claims of not "trusting" bisexuals, of bisexuals being in both "camps". Not trusting what? what camps are we talking about? is there a war going on here between homosexuals and heterosexuals with bisexuals as double-spies? is that what love is all about for some of you? give us a break! -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
alix@mit-hector.UUCP (Alix Vasilatos) (08/31/85)
"The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. Not all things are black nor all things white. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories. Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into separated pigeon-holes. The living world is a con- tinuum in each and every one of its aspects. The sooner we learn this concerning human sexual behavior the sooner we shall reach a sound understanding of the realities of sex." -Alfred Kinsey, _Sexual_Behavior_in_the_Human Male_, 1948 The scale that Kinsey used: 0. Exclusively hetersexual 1. Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual 2. Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual 3. Equally heterosexual and homosexual 4. Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual 5. Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual 6. Exclusively homosexual I don't have the exact statistics that he collected, but as I recall there was a bimodal distribution with the humps around 1,2 and 4,5. This is old information. I don't think making moral judgments about people on the basis of where they appear in the distribution makes sense. "Hi, I'm gay." "Oh yeah, where do you fall in the Kinsey distribution?" "4 or 5, I guess." "That's not gay, that's bisexual. Bisexuals can't be trusted." "B-b-b-b-ut..." "See ya later, traitor." Alix Vasilatos