stef's rants: #3 in a series

[firecat]

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).

Comments

[laureladams.livejournal.com]

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.

[firecat]

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."

[laureladams.livejournal.com]

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.

[firecat]

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.