firecat | stef's rants: #3 in a series

stef's rants: #3 in a series

This one was also suggested by

snippy:

What does bisexual mean to you, and how do I figure out if I am bisexual? (Not necessarily me specifically, that is.)

Bisexual means to me being sexually and/or romantically attracted to people of more than one sex. I find it irritating that a lot of people who are sexually attracted to more than one sex won't use the label, but I can also see various reasons why this comes about, both reasons I approve of (they are concerned about coopting a label that they think doesn't belong to them and has a frisson of coolness) and reasons I don't (they don't want the negative associations that come with the label; they want to pass and don't care whether that decreases the visibility of bisexual people).

That said, how I began figuring out I was bisexual was by realizing that I fell in love with other women, rather than realizing that I was sexually attracted to other women. See, I knew I found women physically attractive, but I thought all women felt that way, especially given the ubiquitous seductive images of women in all the media directed at women. I had to start openly discussing my attraction to other women in sexual and romantic terms, before I heard some heterosexual women say, "Well, no, I don't feel physically attracted toward other women, and I react to the media images by wanting to be like her, not by wanting to touch her." (I expect they were saying that because they were worried I was coming on to them.)

The other part of figuring out I was bisexual was accepting that I was really attracted to people of more than one sex, even though there were differences in how that attraction manifested itself toward people of different genders, and that I wasn't going to grow up and make up my mind. (I lived on the East Coast in the early 80s and felt a lot of pressure to identify as either het or gay; I felt bi wasn't a politically correct option; I didn't completely come out as bi until I came to San Francisco.)

I dunno if this has a lot to do with how other people figure out they're bi.

cyan_blue recently posted an article she had written about it (or was it notes for a lecture?) and it sounds like there are some points of commonality, especially the "not figuring it out as early as het and gay people do" (I was 23 or so when I first suspected it and 29 when I finished coming out).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think there's a difference between what you do and who you are, and that's where a lot of these labelling problems come into play. I have eaten vegetarian meals, sometimes I really like them, but I'm not a vegetarian.

Perhaps a better example is, I can be dominant. . . in fact, I have dommed other people, have done it well, and on at least one or two occasions gotten at least an intellectual rush from doing so. But I'm not a dom. I'm a sub. That's my sexual identity, who I am.

Bisexuality is more complicated. I don't almost ever look at a woman and want to touch her--at least not for her sake. There have been times when the thought has crossed my mind, such as 'I want to touch her because it's taboo, because it would be super naughty'.

And more frequently for me, "I want to touch her because my dom wants me to touch her." But then the attraction stems from the submission of my sexual will to his.

It gets hazier when the issue is, "I want to touch her, because my dom told me that I want to touch her."

Those kinds of identity games make me very confused about what the label is or should be. And in the end, I determine that since I only fall in love with men, and since the communities that I would naturally attach myself to wouldn't include the LBG community, that it is not a label that would be appropriate for me, outside of the "chic" factor.

I have eaten vegetarian meals, sometimes I really like them, but I'm not a vegetarian.

But it wouldn't make sense to call yourself a obligate carnivore, either. Vegetarian implies only vegetables, carnivore implies only animals, omnivore implies both; likewise, heterosexual implies only people of an opposite sex, gay implies only people of a similar sex, and bisexual implies both. (This is my personal view - I'm not telling you to change your label.)

since I only fall in love with men, and since the communities that I would naturally attach myself to wouldn't include the LBG community, that it is not a label that would be appropriate for me, outside of the "chic" factor.

I suspect I'd be irritated less often if I changed my definition of bisexuality to "falls in love with people of more than one sex."

You're right about the vegetarian example. I suspect I knew it was a bad one, which is why I followed it up with the one that I think is better and more apt about dominance and submission.

I think that a lot of people do reject the label because they don't want to be "out" and I think you're right to be irritated by it.

I think even more don't know what that label means or should be. And also, sometimes, sexuality is a process of "becoming". You don't necessarily know where you're going until you've arrived at the destination.

I went to an all-women's college and a lot of women were "four year lesbians". It was both confusing for me to see it, but informative to me about the relative fluidity of women's sexual identities in our culture as opposed to men's.

Your D&S example is no doubt apt, but my brain doesn't wrap around D&S as identity, so I personally don't get it. I do know poly folks who say their polyamory is a sexual identity and some who say it's something they do not something they are. (I'm in the latter category. Bisexuality feels a lot more fundamental to me than my poly arrangements.) Perhaps that's the same sort of thing.

I agree about "becoming," and I agree that many aspects of sexuality and sexual identity are more fluid than the prevailing theories tend to allow for.

I'm so grateful you found my questions interesting enough to answer!

Thank you for explaining what bisexuality means to you and how you learned that. It's a highly charged subject and when it comes up I have all these phrases floating around in my head, and it's hard for me to clearly examine just the issue of bisexuality.

Thank you for the questions! I enjoyed answering them.

And I'm interested in why bisexuality is charged for you (or did you mean in general?) and what phrases are floating in your head, if you feel like answering. (Email or LJ post/comment.)

Charged in general; I read (in the magazines Bust and Bitch, and online, including Usenet) that there are a lot of women who reject the lable while fitting either the behavioral definition or the attraction one, or both, and that this is a problem for women who proudly identify as bisexual.

Some of the phrases that float in my head include "in the service of men's sexuality" and "it's what I do, not what I am" and what an acquaintance told me once, "there are no bisexuals, they're all just sluts--they want sex and they don't care who with." Not that I endorse any of them, it's what gets stirred up with my curiosity when I think about bisexuality...and I notice that it's women's bisexuality I think about, not men's. Maybe because I have read about it more, talked to more women who were bisexual.

I seem to recall "in the service of men's sexuality." Maybe from Bitch. I recall being bugged by it because it implies wanting to accommodate your male partner's turn-ons isn't a legitimate desire. I think that can be a perfectly legitimate desire. And I also think that women who want to have sex with other women only when men are involved can call themselves bisexual. But a lot of people think there are hoops you have to jump through to be a real™ bisexual.

I wouldn't say it is really a problem for me that people reject the label. It just irritates me.

As I said in response to

laureladams above, I do get "it's what I do, not what I am" in the poly context. I think that poly is what I do and not what I am. But I still call myself poly, not mono.

Hmm, it occurs to me that what irritates me the most is people who "do" bisexuality on a regular basis and then call themselves something else that's misleading (like "het"). And mostly what bothers me is the "misleading" part. People who aren't sure or who avoid labels altogether irritate me less. (Well, some people who Don't Do Labels irritate me in different ways, but that would be another rant. ;-)

As for "there are no bisexuals, they're all just sluts--they want sex and they don't care who with," it is to scoff. I'm bisexual and I have very little sex these days (libido issues).

I do want to answer, but I keep putting it off. Which I think is a message that I am going to think about it some more and try to process the tangled mess of sometimes-contradictory thoughts and feelings I have right now on the subject.

You did answer, here, but processing contradictory stuff sounds like a good idea, and if you feel like sharing the result, I'd like it. (But no pressure to do so.)

This is interesting stuff...thanks for sharing it!

The tricky thing for me is where to define the threshold for sexual attraction (or, for that matter, romantic attraction). I definitely experience "want to touch her" sometimes, but I'm often not clear on whether the touch I desire is sexual in nature--maybe I just want to touch her the way I want to touch a silk scarf--or even to what extent the desire is genuine and not just something I've talked myself into thinking I feel. (This begs the question of why I'd talk myself into it, I know; I think there exists a semi-plausible answer, but it'd be a heck of a digression.) For various reasons, I'm not that likely to learn anything more about my attractions any time soon, so I label myself bisexual only hesitantly; I usually prefer to figure I just don't really know what my orientation is.

I'm glad it's interesting!

That makes sense. I'm not irritated by people who avoid the label because they aren't sure (although I also don't think people have to "have experience" before they "get" to label themselves bisexual). I'm irritated by people who do know, and use a misleading label.

(Not that I think anyone should be concerned about my irritation anyway. :-)

I get the feeling I should send my friend to come over here and read this.

She's not sure what she is- she loves and is attracted to men, and loves women, and likes breasts. She's not sure she's bi because she doesn't feel attracted in any way to vaginas. What would be your take on her label?

My take is: "A woman has to be attracted to vaginas to qualify as bi" is similar to "A man has to like buttf*cking to qualify as gay" or "If your lover doesn't go down on you, he's a selfish prick."

I'm irritated by it, but I'm not irritated at your friend. I'm irritated at the way our culture oversimplifies and overstandardizes sexuality.

reasons I don't (they don't want the negative associations that come with the label; they want to pass and don't care whether that decreases the visibility of bisexual people).

I feel that way about women who won't use the name feminist.

I have at times in the past refused to label myself feminist because I think the word is gender-prejudiced. But I'm weakening.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

stef's rants: #3 in a series

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject