If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Bisexual woman tired of stereotypes that try to force her into a box   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 291
    More: Interesting, Bisexual woman, closet cases, stereotypes, Sexuality and gender identity-based cultures, Girls Gone Wild, bisexuals, New York Times Magazine, trans people  
•       •       •

8530 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Mar 2014 at 11:31 AM (16 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



291 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-31 02:08:55 PM

illannoyin: Nobody cares who you like to have sex with.



Orly? Looks to me like a whole bunch of people care a whole lot.
 
2014-03-31 02:10:01 PM

wingedkat: Clever Neologism: wingedkat:
There's nothing wrong with being polyamorous, but no one has the right to be a lying sh*t about it.

Much like someone posted above, and much like political orientation, one axis of sexuality is not sufficient.  You need at least three:

Biological sexual preference: homosexual -> bisexual -> heterosexual
Gender sexual preference: feminine -> neuter -> masculine
Multiplicity preference: monogomous -> "open relationship" (circumstantially polyamorous) -> polyamorous

Thus, your stereotypical homosexual bear-chaser would be a homosexual, masculine, and polyamorous (thus the chaser part).

Thinking like this would make it clear that bisexuality does not imply promiscuity.

However, once you get to this point, labels cease to be informative and become confusing... and then you start mistakenly reifying adjectives into hard categories.  That way lies madness and no-true-Scotsman genital waving.

hmm.  yes, this does get a bit too complicated for anything outside  sociology or gender studies theories.

For one thing, "chasing"  says nothing about polyamory.  A "chaser" expresses a type preference that neither excludes monogamy nor requires love.  

You also need something that describes sex without love or commitment.


See, this is where I've had problems with polyamory. It tends to get over-thought and over-analyzed until the fun is sapped out of it. But that's just my personal experience. Much like bisexuality, not all attitudes and experiences are the same.
 
2014-03-31 02:11:30 PM

Clever Neologism: SquiggsIN:
I would correct you on one point.  Polyamorous does not mean promiscuous and vice-versa.

I guess that's technically true.  Promiscuous means, apart from any pejorative connotation, both multitude and variety.  Polyamorous only means many... so I guess one could be polyamorous and always be with the same stereotype or something.

Something tells me, though, that you were immediately reacting to the pejorative sense of promiscuous.  I want to take that word back, like "slut" (but not porch-monkey).   I think sexually expressing yourself with many people, *and* a wide variety of people, is a good thing.  Life is exploration.


You're taking it back for the community.  Bravo!  (I never heard the term until i saw that movie)

To me polyamory means what the words roots mean.  poly = many, amor = love.  To me polyamory is the ability and desire to have multiple, committed relationships regardless of the genders involved.  Promiscuity is about (forgive me ladies) getting your rocks off.  Again, these are my interpretation.
 
2014-03-31 02:13:22 PM
There's no such thing as "bisexual", just slutty women who want to impress guys and gay men who are hedging their bets.
 
2014-03-31 02:16:12 PM

JesusJuice: There's no such thing as "bisexual", just slutty women who want to impress guys and gay men who are hedging their bets.


The words "dropping a deuce" come to mind.
 
2014-03-31 02:16:28 PM

Shadowknight: ciberido: dragonchild: Lady J: sexuality is a continuum, imo, from solely fancying men at one end to solely fancying women at the other (im sure im not the first person to say it). some people are right at one end, others are in the middle. most are a lot nearer one end than the other, but with a bit of wriggle room. there's more women drifting towards the middke than men, as they care less about people thinking they're gay (oh n0es!), and let's face it, buttsecks is pretty intrusive

The spectrum itself is rather misleading.  The one thing that struck me about bisexuals is just how diverse they are.  I mean it makes sense if you think about it, but if you're a switch hitter you have two entirely different sets of preferences and it's almost never portrayed accurately.

There's also a distinction you can draw between bisexuals and pansexuals, if you want to talk about differences.

As I understand it, a "not-pansexual bisexual" likes their men to be "manly" and their women to be "womanly," with less attraction to androgyny.

The analogy I sometimes use is: "I love steak and I love ice cream, but I don't want steak à la mode"

And this is what I meant with the confusing category thing. It can't just be a preference you have, you have to name yourself as a subculture.


"Have to"?  No.  Dragonchild made a comment about the diversity of bisexuality and I expanded a bit on it.  I don't go around introducing myself as "a non-pansexual bisexual" or go to "non-pansexual" support groups or anything.
 
2014-03-31 02:23:25 PM

Clever Neologism: SquiggsIN:
I would correct you on one point.  Polyamorous does not mean promiscuous and vice-versa.

I guess that's technically true.  Promiscuous means, apart from any pejorative connotation, both multitude and variety.  Polyamorous only means many... so I guess one could be polyamorous and always be with the same stereotype or something.

Something tells me, though, that you were immediately reacting to the pejorative sense of promiscuous.  I want to take that word back, like "slut" (but not porch-monkey).   I think sexually expressing yourself with many people, *and* a wide variety of people, is a good thing.  Life is exploration.


Generally speaking, promiscuous implies that your partners don't necessarily know each other, nor are they necessarily consenting to you sleeping with other people. In a polyamorous one, all involved parties should know and be consenting.
 
2014-03-31 02:24:59 PM

Clever Neologism: wingedkat: SquiggsIN: I've seen it dozens of times.  It seems that many lesbians and gay men don't want bisexual partners because they are afraid of being cheated on with a member of the opposite gender more than a member of the same gender.  I've seen potentially great relationships halted by the revelation that some one has "dated on both sides in the past."

It is pretty frustrating.  Since coming out as bi, I have felt unwelcome in the gay scene and as a consequence I almost never meet women I can date.  So I don't date women, confirming the stereotype that bi women "always" end up with men.
 I'm of of the opinion it's damn near impossible to find a non-bisexual person truly comfortable with a bisexual partner.
Thus, bisexual males also mostly end up with females, and just don't express their bisexuality.  It's also why there's no "culture" for us... because we *can* "blend-in" in a psycho-sexual-social sense, we take the path of least resistance, and settle for less-than-fully-fulfilled sex lives with occasional nice surprises.Also, I have this theory:Relatively unenlightened hetero and homo people can abstractly understand one another: they are both attracted to one sex exclusively.  Even the dullest hetero man can understand homosexuality on the level of "he likes guys, in the same way girls like guys."  They might think it's wrong, but at least they understand it as something built-in: they didn't choose to like girls, and homos don't choose to like guys.


Many people see see being bisexual as being both gay and straight, but some people see bisexuality as being a "third orientation," neither heterosexual nor homosexual.  I have to admit there are times when I feel exclusively-gay and exclusively-heterosexual people have more in common with each other than either group does with bisexuals.  Being only attracted to the same sex and being only attracted to the opposite sex seem equally "weird" to me.
 
2014-03-31 02:27:13 PM

Shadowknight: Voiceofreason01: Or people could, I don't know, grow the fark up and stop trying to put neat little labels on everything and forcing everyone else to fit into their tiny preconceived notion of how the world works. Also "slut shaming"....stop it, that shiat is not cool.

I'm with you on the slut shaming thing, but humans have always wanted things labeled. It's how we understand our world. Especially something like sexuality and gender assignment, which is traditionally rather binary.


0           l
0          /
0       ―
0    ―
0 ―

/Binary makes me hot
 
2014-03-31 02:27:51 PM
wingedkat:

For one thing, "chasing"  says nothing about polyamory.  A "chaser" expresses a type preference that neither excludes monogamy nor requires love.

Bad example for the first reason (might be serial monogamist), but not the second.    It was hard to find a pithy description of a person that incorporated all three axes.

I am using polyamory without any supposition as to love, despite the roots in the word.  It's simply descriptive sexual behavior.

There doesn't seem to be a good, basic word for the strict opposite of "monogamous".  Polygamous is restricted to 1-to-many male to female (and also ties into marital structure and not just sexual behavior).  I got dinged for promiscuous earlier too.  The polys don't like you using polyamorous in that sense, because they want to distinguish themselves from other people who "just want a lot of sex" (as if that isn't enough of a reason, or somehow less worthy of respect).

Again, this is a byproduct of labels.  When you make a common adjective a label, you prevent other people from talking about the subject area using those adjectives without being *extremely* careful about exactly who is listening, what assumptions they might make, etc.  Especially in a public forum where everyone can respond.

If you use *any* adjective related to sexual behavior, *someone* isn't going to like how you are using it, probably because they identify with that adjective, have made it part of themselves, and not by using it wrong, you are in effect misusing *them*.

At that point, respectful discourse becomes damn near impossible.  Trust me, my roommate and partner works for a Feminist Health Center, is as sexually enlightened as the best of us, is extremely careful with language, and has been in kink/poly/queer circles.  She *still* has trouble doing even basic interaction with the community on occasion, *especially* online.

You also need something that describes sex without love or commitment.

Sure.  That would be hard to objectively gauge though, especially love.  How about longevity of relationships?  That would probably serve as a useful proxy measurement.  There are serial monogamists and polyamorous networks that are deeply committed to their multiple partners over decades.

The choice of axes should be made based on what is important information for you.
 
2014-03-31 02:28:17 PM

ciberido: Shadowknight: ciberido: dragonchild: Lady J: sexuality is a continuum, imo, from solely fancying men at one end to solely fancying women at the other (im sure im not the first person to say it). some people are right at one end, others are in the middle. most are a lot nearer one end than the other, but with a bit of wriggle room. there's more women drifting towards the middke than men, as they care less about people thinking they're gay (oh n0es!), and let's face it, buttsecks is pretty intrusive

The spectrum itself is rather misleading.  The one thing that struck me about bisexuals is just how diverse they are.  I mean it makes sense if you think about it, but if you're a switch hitter you have two entirely different sets of preferences and it's almost never portrayed accurately.

There's also a distinction you can draw between bisexuals and pansexuals, if you want to talk about differences.

As I understand it, a "not-pansexual bisexual" likes their men to be "manly" and their women to be "womanly," with less attraction to androgyny.

The analogy I sometimes use is: "I love steak and I love ice cream, but I don't want steak à la mode"

And this is what I meant with the confusing category thing. It can't just be a preference you have, you have to name yourself as a subculture.

"Have to"?  No.  Dragonchild made a comment about the diversity of bisexuality and I expanded a bit on it.  I don't go around introducing myself as "a non-pansexual bisexual" or go to "non-pansexual" support groups or anything.


So if ones tastes included both Oysters and Snails, why would one limit themself to just men men and women women, I mean if you liked both wouldnt some nice T&C like Baily Jay be right up your alley?
 
2014-03-31 02:29:07 PM

Fafai: The thing is you can't really complain that people won't date you based on whatever reasons they like. We're not talking about systemic discrimination, just jealous and insecure people, so I can't get too mad. They have the right to date whoever based on whatever. If someone's going to dump you for that shiat then they're probably doing you a favor. It obviously wasn't going to work with such a disparity in open-mindedness anyhow.


Depends on what exactly "complaining" means.

In the sense of "Damn this sucks," yes, I can complain.

In the sense of "She's a biphobic bigoted judgmental ass for not dating me just because I'm bisexual," no I can't.
 
2014-03-31 02:33:21 PM

fredbox: I'm in the "it's none of my business who you find attractive unless (1) it's me or (2) there's pictures or videos of what you do on the internet" camp.

In my experience, (1) is less likely than (2). But in spite of this I've still have various kinds of fun in spite of growing up extremely repressed and being a solid 4/10 where attractiveness is concerned (although "eye of the beholder" does seem to be a thing. I don't try too hard to understand when someone wants me anyway.)

You want a clean, convenient label? "Freak". I'm too busy jamming your culture to belong to one myself.


Sure, I'm a freak.  But am I superfreak, that's the question.

/I do like incense, wine, and candles.
 
2014-03-31 02:33:50 PM

OtherLittleGuy: "You people and your quaint little categories."


At least he leaves the poodles alone unlike his dirty ex partner
 
2014-03-31 02:39:32 PM
I think this thread nicely shows that even among LGBT people terminology is a pain in the ass to master because certain people embrace a term and certain others view it as offensive.
 
2014-03-31 02:39:45 PM

wingedkat: Identifying as neither gay nor straight is important, because there is such confusion about it. For now, "bisexual" is the more general category, and really that's as much as anyone I'm not trying to ask out on a date needs to know.

I agree as far as someone you're not emotionally invested in; the conversation takes time so you might as well only get specific when there's something to be gained.  But a date?  What about just a friend who wants to get to know you better?  Not that you owe anyone here an explanation for anything; I'm just curious about where you're drawing the line and why.  The whole thread seems to be about how badly misunderstood bisexuals are, but that's going to perpetuate as long as bisexuals aren't taking the time to explain themselves even to people who aren't just looking for an excuse to judge them.
 
2014-03-31 02:44:41 PM

Clever Neologism: wingedkat:
There's nothing wrong with being polyamorous, but no one has the right to be a lying sh*t about it.

Much like someone posted above, and much like political orientation, one axis of sexuality is not sufficient.  You need at least three:

Biological sexual preference: homosexual -> bisexual -> heterosexual
Gender sexual preference: feminine -> neuter -> masculine
Multiplicity preference: monogomous -> "open relationship" (circumstantially polyamorous) -> polyamorous

Thus, your stereotypical homosexual bear-chaser would be a homosexual, masculine, and polyamorous (thus the chaser part).


If you really want to get into that level of precision, I would argue that we really ought to replace (or supplement) "homosexual" and "heterosexual" with "androphile" and "gynophile."

And no, just to be clear, and because someone made a fuss about this earlier, I don't mean that anyone who doesn't want to needs to worry about these labels.  But having exact labels and categories is useful IF you want to spend time talking about these issues at length.
 
2014-03-31 02:47:13 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-31 02:47:36 PM

SquiggsIN: I tend to apply the pan/omni term only to people who aren't limited by gender OR gender-identity in their openness to attraction for another person.  There are pansexual people who would be able to find happiness with transgender / genderqueer individuals but, there are certainly bisexuals who are not attracted to these people and would only be attracted to gender-normative male and female persons.  I'm sure for people who have a hard time with the differences between bisexuality and homosexuality, the lines to things like pansexuality, polyamory, and many other people who don't neatly fit in other peoples' boxes is mind-boggling.  I can't expect people to embrace or understand everything but, I'd hope we can all word toward acceptance of whatever you identify as and whatever you identify as what you want.


Hmm.  I can't quite wrap my mind about needing to tell people that I'm attracted to transgender and genderqueer (among others) as part of being bisexual.  I'm out as bi to make bisexuality more visible and combat discrimination against bisexuality and homosexuality alike.  I'd like to support the acceptance of transgender and genderqueer within society, but I just don't feel like this is the way to do it.

I can almost see how this would be useful against the transgender and genderqueer discrimination.  However, I don't see a lot of additional discrimination against bisexuals willing to date transgender or genderqueer.  I also don't feel like having a bunch of bisexual people declaring that they don't care about gender is going to help all the transgender and genderqueer struggling with dating within the hetero- and homosexual communities.

Ultimately, announcing it feels like I'mmaking a larger statement about my sexual attraction than comfortable or necessary.   I'll happily put it on my dating profiles and use it if I'm actually available to date.
 
2014-03-31 02:48:08 PM

MrMouse: brimed03: MrMouse: SquiggsIN: MrMouse: bighairyguy: I've known a few bisexuals  armadillos and the general trait they had in common was amorality, along with a side helping of predatory. Not the kind of people animals you'd want to associate with, even with your clothes on.

FTFY.  You're welcome.

and they can carry leprosy!

Are you telling me that my dick is going to fall off now?

Still haven't found the thread exit, eh?

/it's hard to leave when you can't find the door

I am still trying to find out what sexual orientation I am.  This thread is certainly not helping.


You're welcome to call yourself "questioning" and join the lbgtq community that way.  Keeps your options open, and you don't have to pigeonhole yourself.

And if you end up deciding/realizing that you're not ANY kind of lbgtq, you can still stay on as a "straight ally" if you like.
 
2014-03-31 02:51:38 PM

SquiggsIN: Somacandra: I'm more interested in people rather than plumbing. We'll make the plumbing work.

There are always attachments and fittings that can make any plumbing work with any other plumbing.

True in relationships and pipe-fitting.


I want to see that fitting spec
 
2014-03-31 02:57:12 PM

weltallica: [i.imgur.com image 568x537]


Well that was...awkward.
 
2014-03-31 02:59:13 PM

Cymbal: Good for her.  Sometimes you feel like splurging and ordering the choice roast beef.  Other times you just need to get your insides blasted by a cheap hotdog.


I'm eating lunch. I almost just shot a bean out of my nose. That was funny you bastard.
 
2014-03-31 03:02:43 PM
wingedkat: I may not have stated my thoughts clearly based on your response and I may be too tired to presently correct that issue.  I see bisexuals as people attracted to males and females and not genderqueer persons.  I see pansexuals as persons who have no limit on the type of person they'd consider as a partner.  I might be dead wrong but, I just see GQ as a third gender but not limited to a third gender because the term is more broad than a singular identity.  But, I don't know if i'm right or wrong to assume that genderqueer people are not necessarily bisexual but certainly could identify that way.  Also, some people aren't attracted to transgendered individuals regardless of the plumbing that person might have and those people can identify as any thing from L, G, B, T, Q, or straight.

The more anyone tries to compartmentalize, divide, or organize types of people into groups the more they realize how for some people the lines can completely blur.
 
2014-03-31 03:05:34 PM

Lady J: Skleenar: I don't get the whole "bisexuality doesn't exist" thing.  Is this some sort of mechanism to force same-sex attracted people into the gay demographic so it swells their numbers, or is is some hetero reaction to find some smaller group to shame (because it's a "choice") because we can't do that to the gays anymore?

I just never got where this came from.

sexuality is a continuum, imo, from solely fancying men at one end to solely fancying women at the other (im sure im not the first person to say it). some people are right at one end, others are in the middle. most are a lot nearer one end than the other, but with a bit of wriggle room. there's more women drifting towards the middke than men, as they care less about people thinking they're gay (oh n0es!), and let's face it, buttsecks is pretty intrusive and you'd have to be a pretty open minded straight man to even consider it

the world according to lady j


I interviewed some gay guys in college for a human sexuality class presentation and posited that theory. It was not well accepted.

///That was 20+ years ago in a west Texas college though so......I suppose I should have been happy nobody tried to find the gay guys and beat them up.
 
2014-03-31 03:06:31 PM

SquiggsIN: To me polyamory means what the words roots mean.  poly = many, amor = love.  To me polyamory is the ability and desire to have multiple, committed relationships regardless of the genders involved.  Promiscuity is about (forgive me ladies) getting your rocks off.  Again, these are my interpretation.


Mine as well.

Cletus C.: See, this is where I've had problems with polyamory. It tends to get over-thought and over-analyzed until the fun is sapped out of it. But that's just my personal experience. Much like bisexuality, not all attitudes and experiences are the same.


Polyamory requires a lot of care, thought, and communication *because* so many people interpret it differently.  

If that saps the fun out, there's a good chance people are getting hurt.
 
2014-03-31 03:10:50 PM

ciberido: Many people see see being bisexual as being both gay and straight, but some people see bisexuality as being a "third orientation," neither heterosexual nor homosexual.  I have to admit there are times when I feel exclusively-gay and exclusively-heterosexual people have more in common with each other than either group does with bisexuals.  Being only attracted to the same sex and being only attracted to the opposite sex seem equally "weird" to me.


Yeah, same here.  I can't imagine caring more about *how* we have sex than personality, appearance, and mutual compatibility.  It is too strange.
 
2014-03-31 03:13:54 PM

Clever Neologism: You also need something that describes sex without love or commitment.

Sure.  That would be hard to objectively gauge though, especially love.  How about longevity of relationships?  That would probably serve as a useful proxy measurement.  There are serial monogamists and polyamorous networks that are deeply committed to their multiple partners over decades.

The choice of axes should be made based on what is important information for you.


Definitions of polyamory aside, I have to say that defining the axes based on what is important to the individual makes communication difficult.
 
2014-03-31 03:16:32 PM

SquiggsIN: HotWingConspiracy: Remove the word "bisexual" from my vocabulary, and I'm instantly more accepted in the lesbian scene; considered more dateable, and trustworthy, even.

That's because they hear "I'm probably going to ditch you for a man at some point" when you tell them you're bi. Right or wrong, the perception is "fickle"/

I think there's a big trust/security component thing here. The expanded pool of threats/competition to your relationship is more than some people wish to deal with.

I've seen it dozens of times.  It seems that many lesbians and gay men don't want bisexual partners because they are afraid of being cheated on with a member of the opposite gender more than a member of the same gender.  I've seen potentially great relationships halted by the revelation that some one has "dated on both sides in the past."

And another sad but true is that female bisexuality is still far more acceptable than male bisexuality.  girls can experiment and not be "gay" but if a guy crosses over he's "gay".


It's also more accepted because if a hetero guy finds out his SO has experience with/interest in girls the gut response is likely to be "farkin A threesomes!".

If a hetero girl finds out her SO has dabbled with/is interested in guys the gut response is likely to be "I'm a beard and one day he'll be honest with himself and leave me for a man".
 
2014-03-31 03:21:26 PM
The box with "Attention whore" written on it ?
 
2014-03-31 03:29:12 PM

Voiceofreason01: Or people could, I don't know, grow the fark up and stop trying to put neat little labels on everything and forcing everyone else to fit into their tiny preconceived notion of how the world works. Also "slut shaming"....stop it, that shiat is not cool.


That's an interesting post given your comments in political threads.
 
2014-03-31 03:29:18 PM

dragonchild: wingedkat: Identifying as neither gay nor straight is important, because there is such confusion about it. For now, "bisexual" is the more general category, and really that's as much as anyone I'm not trying to ask out on a date needs to know.

I agree as far as someone you're not emotionally invested in; the conversation takes time so you might as well only get specific when there's something to be gained.  But a date?  What about just a friend who wants to get to know you better?  Not that you owe anyone here an explanation for anything; I'm just curious about where you're drawing the line and why.  The whole thread seems to be about how badly misunderstood bisexuals are, but that's going to perpetuate as long as bisexuals aren't taking the time to explain themselves even to people who aren't just looking for an excuse to judge them.


Well sure, if I were looking for a date I'd want to be as specific as possible, and on a dating site.  As mentioned before, I'm in a monogamous relationship, so I'm mainly out as bi as a form of support and visibility.  "Bisexual" serves the basic purpose of explaining that the people I'm attracted to are biologically both male and female.  The societal acceptance that people actually this way is the issue.  

I don't feel a need to specify my preferences for age, weight, hair color, clothing style, musical ability, kinks, or androgyny except when dating or looking for a date.   I did post a bit about the possibility of supporting transgender and genderqueer people by declaring my willingness to date them earlier.
 
2014-03-31 03:32:31 PM

SquiggsIN: wingedkat: I may not have stated my thoughts clearly based on your response and I may be too tired to presently correct that issue.  I see bisexuals as people attracted to males and females and not genderqueer persons.  I see pansexuals as persons who have no limit on the type of person they'd consider as a partner.  I might be dead wrong but, I just see GQ as a third gender but not limited to a third gender because the term is more broad than a singular identity.  But, I don't know if i'm right or wrong to assume that genderqueer people are not necessarily bisexual but certainly could identify that way.  Also, some people aren't attracted to transgendered individuals regardless of the plumbing that person might have and those people can identify as any thing from L, G, B, T, Q, or straight.

The more anyone tries to compartmentalize, divide, or organize types of people into groups the more they realize how for some people the lines can completely blur.


SquiggsIN: wingedkat: I may not have stated my thoughts clearly based on your response and I may be too tired to presently correct that issue.  I see bisexuals as people attracted to males and females and not genderqueer persons.  I see pansexuals as persons who have no limit on the type of person they'd consider as a partner.  I might be dead wrong but, I just see GQ as a third gender but not limited to a third gender because the term is more broad than a singular identity.  But, I don't know if i'm right or wrong to assume that genderqueer people are not necessarily bisexual but certainly could identify that way.  Also, some people aren't attracted to transgendered individuals regardless of the plumbing that person might have and those people can identify as any thing from L, G, B, T, Q, or straight.

The more anyone tries to compartmentalize, divide, or organize types of people into groups the more they realize how for some people the lines can completely blur.


I may have accidentally quoted the wrong post with my reply.   

I'd go back and try to figure it out, but I need to leave for my shift.  Hopefully I'll be able to rejoin this conversation later.
 
2014-03-31 03:59:34 PM

wingedkat: Cletus C.: See, this is where I've had problems with polyamory. It tends to get over-thought and over-analyzed until the fun is sapped out of it. But that's just my personal experience. Much like bisexuality, not all attitudes and experiences are the same.

Polyamory requires a lot of care, thought, and communication *because* so many people interpret it differently.

If that saps the fun out, there's a good chance people are getting hurt.


Well, if you're involved in such a relationship the care, thought and communication can be dealt with up-front and not need to be a continuing discussion and dissection within the relationship. I think that need to keep tending to that manual on how to do it right sometimes comes off as more self-justification.

That means guilt. And guilt is a fuse on such relationships. But like I said, not all experiences are the same.
 
2014-03-31 04:01:08 PM

wingedkat: As mentioned before, I'm in a monogamous relationship, so I'm mainly out as bi as a form of support and visibility. "Bisexual" serves the basic purpose of explaining that the people I'm attracted to are biologically both male and female. The societal acceptance that people actually this way is the issue.  I don't feel a need to specify my preferences for age, weight, hair color, clothing style, musical ability, kinks, or androgyny except when dating or looking for a date.


I guess it comes down to individual definitions of TMI.  To some people, including me, it's just another topic of conversation in getting to know people, and I know no shortage of people who want to be better understood.  I don't think people find me particularly interesting based on the questions I get asked (especially as far as sexuality goes it's not like a straight man is a novelty), but I'm pretty open about these sorts of things.  That said, I don't demand anyone answer anything.  Some people are just more private than others and I gotta respect that.
 
2014-03-31 04:11:55 PM

miscreant: sandbar67: I'm buysexual.

If you have sex with me, I'll buy you stuff.

I'd like a Ferrari... how much sex does that cost?


That could include your crowd of friends, mother, sisters, aunt, farm animals, vegetables, triple input and video would have to be a consideration.  Not to mention on demand for the life of the vehicle.
 
2014-03-31 04:29:42 PM

brimed03: Cletus C.: bighairyguy: I've known a few bisexuals and the general trait they had in common was amorality, along with a side helping of predatory. Not the kind of people you'd want to associate with, even with your clothes on.

Said he'd give you a call. Didn't. Not unique to bisexuals buddy.

Now *that's* how you respond to a troll!


Wait, he may not have been trolling(though granted he probably was); if everyone is on a sliding scale of bisexuality then what he said could have a kernel of truth and just be wrong on causation.

An amoral predatory sociopath would be likely to engage in any behavior that nets them proceeds. Sex is a good way to get people to give you things.

So while bisexuals should be no more likely to be amoral predatory sociopaths those APS's should be more likely to engage all genders of people sexually to take advantage of them.

Hmmm.......
 
2014-03-31 05:08:06 PM

Fafai: The thing is you can't really complain that people won't date you based on whatever reasons they like. We're not talking about systemic discrimination, just jealous and insecure people, so I can't get too mad. They have the right to date whoever based on whatever. If someone's going to dump you for that shiat then they're probably doing you a favor. It obviously wasn't going to work with such a disparity in open-mindedness anyhow.


Very true, and while it seems a strange way to do things to me it's their right and well there probably would be lots of other things that wouldn't work out. Also while I have had poly/ poly open relationships with male/female couples every involved knew what was up but the majority have been monogamous LTR of 2-5 yrs.

I'm single right now and I have no idea if my next relationship will be with a man, a woman or a gender fluid person I'm attracted to all kind of things but gender for me has never been very high on the list. I've been told I'm pan-sexual but I generally just use bi.
 
2014-03-31 05:10:57 PM

perigee: ciberido:Being bisexual isn't the best of both worlds.  If anything, it's the worst of both worlds.  We get it from both ends.

Well... I've gotta tell you, when I hear a guy is bi, him getting it from both ends is pretty much the first thing I think of. But all the videos say that they like it. Stop shattering my illusions.

Homophones hate us as much or more than they do "mono" gays, but we're "not gay enough" or "in denial" or "have straight privilege" in the minds of the rest of the lbgtq community.

The Bare Bears hate you? That's bad news.


Oh, no.
queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com

Bare bears are just fine.
 
2014-03-31 05:11:22 PM

SquiggsIN: Clever Neologism: wingedkat:
There's nothing wrong with being polyamorous, but no one has the right to be a lying sh*t about it.

Much like someone posted above, and much like political orientation, one axis of sexuality is not sufficient.  You need at least three:

Biological sexual preference: homosexual -> bisexual -> heterosexual
Gender sexual preference: feminine -> neuter -> masculine
Multiplicity preference: monogomous -> "open relationship" (circumstantially polyamorous) -> polyamorous

Thus, your stereotypical homosexual bear-chaser would be a homosexual, masculine, and polyamorous (thus the chaser part).

Thinking like this would make it clear that bisexuality does not imply promiscuity.

However, once you get to this point, labels cease to be informative and become confusing... and then you start mistakenly reifying adjectives into hard categories.  That way lies madness and no-true-Scotsman genital waving.

I would correct you on one point.  Polyamorous does not mean promiscuous and vice-versa.


Well said and a lying, deceitful piece of shiat can be straight, bi, or gay.
 
2014-03-31 05:13:55 PM

Mr. Ekshun: Shadowknight: Voiceofreason01: Or people could, I don't know, grow the fark up and stop trying to put neat little labels on everything and forcing everyone else to fit into their tiny preconceived notion of how the world works. Also "slut shaming"....stop it, that shiat is not cool.

I'm with you on the slut shaming thing, but humans have always wanted things labeled. It's how we understand our world. Especially something like sexuality and gender assignment, which is traditionally rather binary.

0           l
0          /
0       ―
0    ―
0 ―

/Binary makes me hot


There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
 
2014-03-31 05:21:15 PM

Clever Neologism: wingedkat:

For one thing, "chasing"  says nothing about polyamory.  A "chaser" expresses a type preference that neither excludes monogamy nor requires love.

Bad example for the first reason (might be serial monogamist), but not the second.    It was hard to find a pithy description of a person that incorporated all three axes.

I am using polyamory without any supposition as to love, despite the roots in the word.  It's simply descriptive sexual behavior.

There doesn't seem to be a good, basic word for the strict opposite of "monogamous".   Polygamous is restricted to 1-to-many male to female (and also ties into marital structure and not just sexual behavior).  I got dinged for promiscuous earlier too.


Actually, no, polygamous can mean any romantic/sexual relationship involving more than two people.  If you mean to imply specifically only one man with more than one woman, you need the word polygyny.  The -gam- in polygamy comes from the Greek word for "marriage," not the word for "woman."
 
2014-03-31 05:30:57 PM

SquiggsIN: Clever Neologism: SquiggsIN:
I would correct you on one point.  Polyamorous does not mean promiscuous and vice-versa.

I guess that's technically true.  Promiscuous means, apart from any pejorative connotation, both multitude and variety.  Polyamorous only means many... so I guess one could be polyamorous and always be with the same stereotype or something.

Something tells me, though, that you were immediately reacting to the pejorative sense of promiscuous.  I want to take that word back, like "slut" (but not porch-monkey).   I think sexually expressing yourself with many people, *and* a wide variety of people, is a good thing.  Life is exploration.

You're taking it back for the community.  Bravo!  (I never heard the term until i saw that movie)

To me polyamory means what the words roots mean.  poly = many, amor = love.  To me polyamory is the ability and desire to have multiple, committed relationships regardless of the genders involved.  Promiscuity is about (forgive me ladies) getting your rocks off.  Again, these are my interpretation.


That sounds about right. Also there are poly where it's the same 3 or more people and poly open relationships where a couple or triad etc are each dating independently or bringing in new people to play with.
 
2014-03-31 05:38:08 PM

SquiggsIN: I think this thread nicely shows that even among LGBT people terminology is a pain in the ass to master because certain people embrace a term and certain others view it as offensive.


Which just goes to show that queer folks are just plain folks.
 
2014-03-31 05:41:27 PM

wingedkat: SquiggsIN: I tend to apply the pan/omni term only to people who aren't limited by gender OR gender-identity in their openness to attraction for another person.  There are pansexual people who would be able to find happiness with transgender / genderqueer individuals but, there are certainly bisexuals who are not attracted to these people and would only be attracted to gender-normative male and female persons.  I'm sure for people who have a hard time with the differences between bisexuality and homosexuality, the lines to things like pansexuality, polyamory, and many other people who don't neatly fit in other peoples' boxes is mind-boggling.  I can't expect people to embrace or understand everything but, I'd hope we can all word toward acceptance of whatever you identify as and whatever you identify as what you want.

Hmm.  I can't quite wrap my mind about needing to tell people that I'm attracted to transgender and genderqueer (among others) as part of being bisexual.  I'm out as bi to make bisexuality more visible and combat discrimination against bisexuality and homosexuality alike.  I'd like to support the acceptance of transgender and genderqueer within society, but I just don't feel like this is the way to do it.

I can almost see how this would be useful against the transgender and genderqueer discrimination.  However, I don't see a lot of additional discrimination against bisexuals willing to date transgender or genderqueer.  I also don't feel like having a bunch of bisexual people declaring that they don't care about gender is going to help all the transgender and genderqueer struggling with dating within the hetero- and homosexual communities.

Ultimately, announcing it feels like I'mmaking a larger statement about my sexual attraction than comfortable or necessary.   I'll happily put it on my dating profiles and use it if I'm actually available to date.


As a trans woman it's true not all bisexuals are okay with trans but the majority don't care if they were already interested in me. In some cases that also goes for gay women and straight men Gay men are not attracted to me, why why would they be? : )
 
2014-03-31 05:43:03 PM

ciberido: Shadowknight: ciberido: dragonchild: Lady J: sexuality is a continuum, imo, from solely fancying men at one end to solely fancying women at the other (im sure im not the first person to say it). some people are right at one end, others are in the middle. most are a lot nearer one end than the other, but with a bit of wriggle room. there's more women drifting towards the middke than men, as they care less about people thinking they're gay (oh n0es!), and let's face it, buttsecks is pretty intrusive

The spectrum itself is rather misleading.  The one thing that struck me about bisexuals is just how diverse they are.  I mean it makes sense if you think about it, but if you're a switch hitter you have two entirely different sets of preferences and it's almost never portrayed accurately.

There's also a distinction you can draw between bisexuals and pansexuals, if you want to talk about differences.

As I understand it, a "not-pansexual bisexual" likes their men to be "manly" and their women to be "womanly," with less attraction to androgyny.

The analogy I sometimes use is: "I love steak and I love ice cream, but I don't want steak à la mode"

And this is what I meant with the confusing category thing. It can't just be a preference you have, you have to name yourself as a subculture.

"Have to"?  No.  Dragonchild made a comment about the diversity of bisexuality and I expanded a bit on it.  I don't go around introducing myself as "a non-pansexual bisexual" or go to "non-pansexual" support groups or anything.


Giggle : )
 
2014-03-31 05:45:10 PM

notatrollorami: SquiggsIN: And another sad but true is that female bisexuality is still far more acceptable than male bisexuality.  girls can experiment and not be "gay" but if a guy crosses over he's "gay".

It's also more accepted because if a hetero guy finds out his SO has experience with/interest in girls the gut response is likely to be "farkin A threesomes!".

If a hetero girl finds out her SO has dabbled with/is interested in guys the gut response is likely to be "I'm a beard and one day he'll be honest with himself and leave me for a man".


There is truth in that.  Happily, as homosexuality and same-sex marriage become acceptable, there will be less need for beards and gay people will be honest with themselves from a much earlier age.
 
2014-03-31 05:55:14 PM

SquiggsIN: I think this thread nicely shows that even among LGBT people terminology is a pain in the ass to master because certain people embrace a term and certain others view it as offensive.


For sure as a Bi/ pan/ trans and once poly girl in North Alabama some of the definitions Tabatha come out of places like Berkeley and the Northern Ivy league schools seem really weird.
 
2014-03-31 05:55:33 PM
I am bisexual in that I will have and have had sex with men, but it is not a love thing it is a pleasure thing. When I have sex with a woman it can be a love thing or just pleasure depending on the relationship I have with the woman. I have never felt love for a man.
 
2014-03-31 06:05:11 PM

wingedkat: ciberido: Many people see see being bisexual as being both gay and straight, but some people see bisexuality as being a "third orientation," neither heterosexual nor homosexual.  I have to admit there are times when I feel exclusively-gay and exclusively-heterosexual people have more in common with each other than either group does with bisexuals.  Being only attracted to the same sex and being only attracted to the opposite sex seem equally "weird" to me.

Yeah, same here.  I can't imagine caring more about *how* we have sex than personality, appearance, and mutual compatibility.  It is too strange.


Word, I know exactly what y'all mean.
 
Displayed 50 of 291 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report