Today I was wandering around the blogosphere and found a link via The Sex Carnival to this report on a poll about the prevalence of bisexuality that made me stop and think. The brief article touches on quite a few topics that I am finding immediately relevant. These topics are:
- Hostility towards bisexual-identified people, most confusingly from gay- and lesbian-identified people.
- A lack of cohesion and inertia in the bisexual community, who often identify with some other community instead (gay, lesbian, kinky, poly, etc.).
- The harm that is caused by a simplistic understanding of communication, particularly when using language.
These topics are of obvious interest to me because they each affect my social spaces. One of the more startling findings of the poll is that there are apparently more than twice as many bisexual women as there are bisexual men. Or at least, of course, more than twice as many that feel comfortable identifying themselves as such in this poll.
The poll of 768 people, conducted last month, shows in its adjusted final tally that 15.4 percent of respondents are bisexual men and 33.5 percent are bisexual women.
In my personal experience this ratio is even more skewed, but I’m willing to give this finding some credence. To be brain-dead simplistic about the issue, one can say that women who identify as bisexual have an easier time of coming out about it because they just don’t face criticisms from as many fronts as men who identify as bisexual do. Specifically, bisexual women are stereotypically stigmatized only by lesbians, whereas bisexual men are stigmatized by both gay men and by straight men.
One of my strongest dissatisfactions with many of the gay men I’ve interacted with is their blindness towards gender fluidity and how that affects eroticism. This is perhaps one reason why I find myself having trouble finding these men sexy after they open their mouths. They seem so singularly focused on their own version of the masculine ideal that they ignore what I find to be important pieces of my femininity that are necessary to my own erotic fulfillment. The exceptions are the gay men who seem to enjoy femme-y boys, but even in these instances coming out as bisexual seemed to disqualify me to them.
“It’s sad to me that gays and lesbians have such a hard time standing by their bi brothers and sisters,†she said, “because we are really in this fight together, about having our love lives and families validated and respected, no matter what gender we love.â€
On the flip side, I have intense trouble socializing with straight men. Consistently, the only straight men who I seem to be able to get along with are the ones who are either sensitive to issues of gender or sexuality (such as those already involved in a sexuality community) or those with whom I can talk technology. When my coworkers invited me out to bars, I declined because the conversation would not have been technology as it was (by necessity) in the office, and that would have quickly become uncomfortable.
In other words, sex is social. That’s a concept I want to explore in further depth later on, but for now suffice it to say that for people with a sex drive, an element of social interactions is sexuality, whether they realize it or not.
Another major issue this article touches upon is the fact that there are very few organized bisexual communities in comparison to other sexuality communities, and that the ones that do exist are fairly small. The most striking example of this was that at the last New York City LGBT Pride March, the bisexual contingent had a grand total of four (4!) people marching in it.
Even the BDSM contingent, who typically have one of the smallest groups in the parade (not including the “leather” sections, though I’m still confused as to why BDSM is contained within leather instead of the other way around), always have at least a dozen people or more marching with them. To be fair, I marched with the BDSM group instead of the bisexual group, and therein lies an example of the lack of visibility of the bisexual community.
I think that, by our nature, almost every one of us holds some other label equally important to us as the bisexual label. I am not just bisexual, I’m kinky, too. Most bisexual men I know are not just bisexual, they’re also polyamorous.
As a result of this multi-focal sexuality (“I like this and this…oh, and this too!”), it’s sometimes difficult for bisexual people to be taken seriously. The common argument is that we just haven’t “chosen” yet, but sooner or later, after enough experience and time, we’ll “settle down” into one of the all-or-nothing choices. (This is the same problem switches have in the BDSM scene: “you’re not really a switch, you’re either a top or a bottom and you just don’t know yet.”)
This point of view is no different from hetero-normative thinking, because it is founded on the principles of mutual exclusion. “You can’t be this and that.” Looking at sexuality this way treats such concepts as attraction as though they are finite resources, as if by being attracted to men you can not possibly have enough “spare attraction” to also be attracted to women, or that if you do then the attraction is lessened in direct proportion to how much attraction you have “spent” elsewhere.
I believe people think this way because they are confusing the things that do, in fact, have limited availability, such as time and physical energy, with things that do not, in fact, have any arbitrary limit. Am I the only person to whom confusing these sorts of things sounds absolutely insane?
Moreover, the idea that this insanity also holds true of language is equally absurd:
“There are plenty of lesbians in the gay community who occasionally sleep with men and still call themselves lesbians and vice versa. People need to start being honest in their daily lives about their actual behaviors rather than hiding behind convenient black-and-white labels that breed acceptance from their gay and lesbian peers who often condemn bisexuality.â€
In other words, according to Nicole Kristal, who is quoted from the article above and who is a co-author of The Bisexual’s Guide to the Universe, you’re not a lesbian if you’re a woman who also sleeps with men. This is the equivalent of saying “you’re not a woman if you have a penis,” and we already know how ignorant confusing sex with gender identity is.
Ultimately, what this quote spotlights is the importance of understanding language as a tool for communication. The other day, a friend shared an awesome quote from Confucius with me that she read:
When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty.
She told me,
I read something today and thought of you immediately. Apparently, Confucius believed that correct usage of words was a prerequisite to working society. When words stopped being connected to specific meanings, he believed that it was a sign of the impending corruption and collapse of civilization. I like that way of looking at it, [but] I had never heard it put that way before.
It is for that reason why academics like Robert Heasley work so hard at providing a vocabulary with which to discuss things like masculinity, and why people like me work so hard at using such vocabularies to define distinctions between things. Doing so hones our understanding of the meanings of words, which fights rhetoric and propaganda in the process. In the war on sex currently being waged, language is the ultimate weapon.
by Tom Allen
23 Dec 2007 at 22:51
I’m laughing because I see that abso-friggin’-lutely nothing has changed since the 70s, when I first ran into this seeming paradox while hanging out with some gay friends. Bi men coming into the local gay club were “weekend warriors” or “secretly gay” or “straight, really, just experimenting.” None of them were seen as “either/or”.
A few years ago, I was surprised to see the same thing happening with my lesbian cow-orker and her girlfriends. She had been married and still dated men once in a while, which made her “Oh, she’s really straight, just confused” to some of the other women at the club.
Worse, though, is the reaction I used to see from my straight friends about bi men or women. When someone self-identifies as “bi”, straights see them as “gay” in the same way that gays see them as “straight.” I understand that this is very similar to the reaction that self-identified switches get in the BDSM groups.
A friend of mine had a period in his life a few years back where he began having fantasies about men. Married and certainly no stranger to women, he automatically assumed that he turned gay, and AFAIK, still has a difficult time with the concept of enjoying both.
I agree that our language has not evolved to keep pace with our culture.
by maymay
23 Dec 2007 at 23:44
I have been saying for years that I don’t understand why straight people see me as “too gay” and gay people see me as “too straight,” and it has been a very painful thing for even longer than that, well before I knew how to articulate it. I’m sorry to hear that things were not better in the past, but I still hope they will be better in the future.
by SJ
24 Dec 2007 at 04:59
Rhetoric is a hell of a tool, and I don’t think it should be dismissed summarily. Emotional persuasion is sometimes what’s going to get the job done, and sometimes the only thing that is relevant – like persuading someone to like your favorite band. Also, it’s a lever to realign someone’s perception.
Also, I don’t like the idea of attempting to make a natural language as concrete and deterministic as programming languages. Every word having a specific, correct, exclusive meaning removes several forms of humor, all simile, all metaphor, and my intuition says several other things as well – including the idea of my intuition saying something, as my intuition is not a person that may speak.
by SJ
24 Dec 2007 at 05:30
Bi is even an upsetting term to people who believe there are more than two genders. maymay, I’ve read your earlier post on how you see the term bisexuality. At this point, I would argue that the black-white, black-white-gray, or even location on a variable spectrum points of view are not as accurate as as a co-ordinate vector in an n-dimensional space.
Both groups do process the world in binaries. Us and Them. If you aren’t us, you’re them. Like I said to Tyr recently, if you think about it correctly, there’s no them, just us. The manifold flavors of us, on the surface of the manifold of possible lifeforms, tiny specs huddled around brief, flickering fusion fires, candles of warmth kindled in the cold black depths of the universal night.
Both groups define themselves by the gender presentation they seek to shag. Both are circles in Venn diagrams. Both define themselves, and the complement of themselves, all others. The union of ‘straight’ and ‘not straight’ covers the whole diagram, just as the union of ‘gay’ and ‘not gay’ covers the space. But they think straight == not gay, and gay == not straight, and that’s their error, because the union of straight and gay does not include everybody. But they define themselves by these circles, and anything that questions how the circles work makes them uncomfortable.
I still think there are limits of human computational power, and us adapting to these limits lead us to think in ways that are not accurate to the world – because none of us can process the full depth and interconnection of the data that bombards our sensory inputs every moment of our existence. Abstractions are a tool for our survival in the environment, but they are also a trap for our thinking – as are all tools.
by maymay
24 Dec 2007 at 05:42
Oh, hell no, you’re absolutely right, SJ! I wasn’t at all dismissing the power of rhetoric. On the contrary, I think rhetoric is amazingly powerful, but like all other tools, it excels in some areas and is extremely weak in others. Specifically, rhetoric seems capable of incredible feats of persuasion, but incapable of analysis, and possibly also of explanation, of a subject. Rhetoric is useful but only effective for the purposes it excels at, very much like a hammer.
I’m not sure how connecting words to specific meanings (as my friend remarked of Confucius’s preference) necessarily implies exclusive meanings, or meanings that lack intuition, or humor, or metaphor, and this misunderstanding is kind of a brilliant example of exactly the kind of thing I was talking about in that part of my post….
by maymay
24 Dec 2007 at 06:12
I don’t have enough understanding of mathematics to fully understand what that looks like, but I do know what a coordinate vector and an n-dimensional space are and, if I understand this correctly, then I agree completely with what you’re saying here.
Yup. That’s why I’m still using the word bisexual. ;)
by Tom Allen
24 Dec 2007 at 09:05
Let me toss out a sociological observation.
Gays are still not accepted in our culture as being on a par with straights. It’s better than it was in the 70s, but there’s still a way to go. But because of that, gays develop their own subculture – or more correctly, a series of subcultures. By defining themselves as members of this or that subculture, they tend to exclude others, especially others who don’t act gay.
You’re having sex with a MOTOS? Can’t get much less “gay” than that. You’re in the “other” box.
by Switch
24 Dec 2007 at 16:25
Just an observation: Men seem to be not just prejudiced against gay men but actually frightened by them. I’ve never seen a woman appear frightened of lesbians. I think this is because men are not used to turning down sexual advances the very existence of a gay man suggests to them (however foolishly) that they may have to. From that prespective a bi man is just as frightening as a gay one.
by therambler
25 Dec 2007 at 17:50
I have to go with an acquaintance of mine who through up his hands and said “I love who I love.” There is never going to be a definition that makes everyone happy.
by SJ
27 Dec 2007 at 17:06
Men are not just unaccustomed to turning down advances, men are expected to accept any advance that is not horrifying. There is pressure to say yes unless the reasons to say no are compelling, and ‘not attracted to you’ doesn’t always count as compelling. The homophobia response also keeps men from having to consider the offer on its merits and think about their sexuality.
Homophobia is a mess, and the particularly virulent and violent versions of it we see in American culture, let alone in more ‘traditional’ cultures, makes rational response to anything that has any hint of non-heterosexuality difficult to find in most spaces.
by Wendy
07 Jan 2008 at 03:56
Boy, am I late on this one.
To be brain-dead simplistic about the issue, one can say that women who identify as bisexual have an easier time of coming out about it because they just don’t face criticisms from as many fronts as men who identify as bisexual do. Specifically, bisexual women are stereotypically stigmatized only by lesbians, whereas bisexual men are stigmatized by both gay men and by straight men.
Speaking from my experience, this is partially true. I was rather stigmatized by the small lesbian contingent in my school when I started identifying as bisexual, but I also had issue with the straight guys and the straight girls. It was probably because I was the *only* openly bisexual girl in my peer group, and that confused/scared the hell out of everyone.(I’ve never had issue with gay men, however.) Until recently, when I started getting to know more people who identify as Queer, rather than anything else, I hadn’t felt comfortable in a community defined based on the gender of people I like to fuck. I never, at any point, thought I was gay or straight – I knew my preferences from a young age.
IMO, one of the problems with the bisexual ‘movement’, or groups, or whatever you want to call it, is that bisexual are marginalized by themselves, as well as others. LGBT had “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it” as a rallying cry. They kicked in the door, and started to force the rest of the world to accept them on THEIR terms, or at he very least, to pay attention to them and what they had to say.
As bisexuals, what have we had to say? “Oh, we’re here too, but please don’t yell at us?” Bisexuality got tacked on to the LG movement, along with the transgendered movement, and thats great, because thats where the firepower is, but I think we’re really different. And I don’t feel comfortable, personally, trying to tack myself on to a group that looks at me as a slutty fence sitter who can’t decide what I want, thinks I’m going through a phase, or whatever. (that goes for the straight people too.)
I’m bisexual, and I’m different from someone who’s heterosexual, and homosexual.
I also think that we, as bisexuals, ought to proclaim it more.
When I was in school, I wasn’t just bisexual. I was flamingly, loudly, and openly bisexual. I kicked open the doors everyday, and said “Here I am motherfuckers, now deal with it!” until they did. Eventually, most of the boys stopped being intimidated, most of the girls dealt with whatever lesbian angst they had to, and I made them deal with me on my terms. Maybe it was able to happen like this because I am a girl, but I think (not to toot my own horn) that it had more to do with my bombastic personality than anything. When there was finally a gay boy in the school, he did the same thing. The guys were eventually forced to accept him on his terms (His terms being their girlfriends best friends, and the guy who blew the football team. Go him! Not that I wanted to blow the football team. Personally, I would have gone for the lax team or the soccer team. Those guys were much taller and skinnier and better looking.)
I think the bisexual community needs to break away from the LGT community, at least for a little while, until we find our feet and our voice. We need more bombastic people. We need people willing to kick the door open and get people to deal with them as a bisexual person. I think we need more bisexual men leading the charge, to take male bisexuality out of the shadows. We need a really hot male bisexual celebrity. Andy Dick is great, but he isn’t cutting it. I’m hoping we’ll find out Mika’s one of us, personally.
And we need a better flag. I’m not so much about the blue, pink, and purple triangle/stripes.
And I really need to stop leaving large comments that ought to be blog posts, but I’m too lazy.
by S_kitty
04 Jul 2011 at 21:17
I know I’m really late to the discussion of who’s bi and who’s not (and why so many more female-type people identify as such than male-type people), but I know one of the things that never seems to get brought up is the way desire varies over time. I’ve personally felt pressure to figure out where I am on the Kinsey scale, i.e. my relative proportion of attraction to each gender, but the honest answer would be, ‘it depends’. If I’ve only been with men for a long time, I can lose interest in blokes altogether for a while, and vice versa.
There seems to be an assumption that we’re all simultaneously bisexual, i.e. involved with both/all genders all the time, which would mean that by definition we’re also all very actively polyamorous. But any bi person who’s monogamous or dates people who are tends to be sequentially bisexual, i.e. practicing serial monogamy just like the ‘normal’ people, just without pre-filtering half the population from their potential dating pool solely because they have the wrong body parts.
I’ve literally seen bisexual people accused of lying about their identity if they’re only seeking partners of one gender at a particular moment in time (see: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-biggest-lies-in-online-dating/ ) which suggests to me that straight people lump bi and poly people all together, without considering the differences… although considering how all kinky people get lumped together, I guess that’s nothing new. ;)