What's the Deal with Bisexual Erasure?

[Magyar]

The recent meeting on human sexuality in Boston came to the conclusion that bisexuality was not real . http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131105081521.htm or at least they fall into a neither or category where they are not really accepted by either end of the spectrum community gay/straight.

It is really kind of a limbo world, even in a supposed sexually liberal groups like swingers for example.

Where for example the vast majority of women are expected and encouraged to participate.
Yet they play with shades of grey of bi play, bi friendly. While at the same time "fully" bi women (what ever that means) really look down on newbie women who come in saying they want to experience 3some but have no experience.

And while attitudes behind closed doors are changing, if you are a guy try touching another guy in any way that remotely resembles sexually and you will get beat up thrown out and banned from a swingers club faster than at a red neck convention in texas.

I think the ambiguity may come from the grey area where some people can be very comfortable being sexual with the same sex but dont really connect or want an emotional relationship. While others can and do that with either sex.

 

[Slowvehicle]

All due respect etc, but the smart people declared that 'spectrum' didn't begin to cover it - and nobody's ventured a rebuttal. It's at least a 4d matrix (ty, slowvehicle)* and I'm quite prepared to go out on a limb and say it's more snowflakey than fingerprints, so [those who do should] quit trying to clump people together for the purposes of labelling.

I was trying to think of occasions where some broad brush labelling might be truly helpful. Sexual health clinics? Dating sites (choosing from a drop-down menu "Touch another man's winkie? Not likely!") - it might reduce unwanted attention.

I am reminded of the discussion (in another thread) about what to call the human beings living on the continents of the "new world" before the european exchange was forcibly begun--when there is no valid collective for a group, it might be time to rethink the supposed need for a collective.

Is a polyamorous bi-attracted post-op trans man currently in a monogamous relationship with a genderqueer genetic ♀ "bi", or "gay", or "kinda-straight", or what--and why in the name of a Marmot-stalking Stevenson should it matter to any one but them?

I say, accept a person's own label, if they offer one. Until the point that they, themself, offer an identification, what does it, and why should it, matter?

More on topic, is it no longer possible to write a novel/screenplay/etc without a prurient interest in the sexuality of the characters?

"Possible"? Yes. "Commercially successful"? Might be a different question. It is also possible to make the sexuality of the character of characters the subject of "interest" without that interest being "prurient".

*(You are most welcome. File off the serial numbers and claim it as your own.)

 

[banquetbear]

...Sara Lance, a character on CW's the Arrow, was revealed to be bi-sexual in a few scenes that were remarkable in their normalness. The episode didn't revel or exploit it or even mention it: but it showed that she had a great love and connection with a female character that with time faded, and later she connected with the hero in a way that seemed real but didn't diminish her other relationship.

 

[CelticRose]

For those wondering why it's important that someone's sexual orientation be visible: It helps to see what's possible when you're figuring out your own sexuality.

One of the reasons that it took me so long to come out even to myself (in my late 30s) was that when I was younger I didn't know that one could be attracted to both genders. I frequently had the following conversation with myself:

I keep having feelings about girls. Could I possibly be a lesbian?
No, I can't be gay -- I like men too much!

If I had known about bisexuality I think it would have spared me at least some of the confusion.

 

[Dragoonster]

...Sara Lance, a character on CW's the Arrow, was revealed to be bi-sexual in a few scenes that were remarkable in their normalness. The episode didn't revel or exploit it or even mention it: but it showed that she had a great love and connection with a female character that with time faded, and later she connected with the hero in a way that seemed real but didn't diminish her other relationship.

Yeah, I really liked that very simple presentation. It panned out exactly like if the League of Assassins' love had been a man. Just--we loved each other, now we don't, etc. No mention at all of gender. And Oliver Queen looked just as creepy stalking her no matter which gender she'd formerly been a couple with. Heh, Arrow. Best unknown show on TV.

Some other bi characters:

Beecher on Oz.
Angela on Bones.
Willow on Buffy.
I also surmise that Riker was bi/pansexual. Based on his utter sexmachine personality plus he wanted to bang that asexual from the planet where declaring a preference was discouraged by penalty of mind manipulation. And that ep where there was accidental legitimate Riker clone? I think Riker would've banged himself eventually. Riker has no bounds. Riker takes what he wants and those he wants love to take it. Uh, sorry, veering into fanfiction...

 

[3point14]

I think Riker would've banged himself eventually. Riker has no bounds. Riker takes what he wants and those he wants love to take it. Uh, sorry, veering into fanfiction...

No, that's veering into GnR guitarist territory...

 

[Information Analyst]

And look gooood doing it, and leave him/her/it/them happy...

('Scuse me--I'll be in the shower)

Very cold, presumably.

 

[Information Analyst]

It is really kind of a limbo world, even in a supposed sexually liberal groups like swingers for example.

Where for example the vast majority of women are expected and encouraged to participate.
Yet they play with shades of grey of bi play, bi friendly. While at the same time "fully" bi women (what ever that means) really look down on newbie women who come in saying they want to experience 3some but have no experience.

And while attitudes behind closed doors are changing, if you are a guy try touching another guy in any way that remotely resembles sexually and you will get beat up thrown out and banned from a swingers club faster than at a red neck convention in texas.

Years back I read a late-1960s/early-1970s book on alternative lifestyles by Nell Dunn (who may be familiar to some as the author of Up the Junction), in which one example was a commune populated by (IIRC) five or six men, an equal number of women, and various offspring. Quite mater-of-factly she remarked that of the adults, (words to the effect of) "everyone had had sexual relationships with everyone else, except the men with each other." I think that says barrel-loads that still apply today.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Willow on Buffy.

Willow disagreed. She first considered herself straight, then realized she was not. She didn't go back to men (except while under the influence of magic, and even then she tried to turn the man in question into a woman).

Past experience of heterosexuality doesn't make a homosexual necessarily bisexual any more than isolated homosexual experiences (e.g. boarding school, prison) means a normally heterosexual person is bisexual. Fact is, anyone can do either gender, even if they're not completely into it. Sexual orientation is what you're attracted to, not what you practice.

 

[3point14]

Willow disagreed. She first considered herself straight, then realized she was not. She didn't go back to men (except while under the influence of magic, and even then she tried to turn the man in question into a woman).

Past experience of heterosexuality doesn't make a homosexual necessarily bisexual any more than isolated homosexual experiences (e.g. boarding school, prison) means a normally heterosexual person is bisexual. Fact is, anyone can do either gender, even if they're not completely into it. Sexual orientation is what you're attracted to, not what you practice.

Weren't we just saying it was a siding scale?

Sexual orientation is whatever you want it to be on a given day. If a woman who normally sleeps with other women is one day attracted to a man, that doesn't change the fundemental nature of who she is in any way.

How about we stop defining people as hetero, bi or homosexual and just opt for 'sexual' and then let people make their minds up as they go aloong. there's no need for definitions to be applied in advance that only serve to confuse and upset people when they realise that they don't fit into any of the neat little boxes assigned to them.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Weren't we just saying it was a siding scale?

That doesn't mean everybody moves along it. The only authority on a given individual's sexual preferences is that individual. It is rather offensive to be told by someone else what one's sexuality is. It's like my insisting that you love camomile tea even if you don't.

Sexual orientation is whatever you want it to be on a given day.

Really? You choose your orientation? And reset it daily?

If a woman who normally sleeps with other women is one day attracted to a man, that doesn't change the fundemental nature of who she is in any way.

Nor does it reveal her fundamental nature to observers, despite their arrogant insistence that they would know her preferences better than she does.

How about we stop defining people as hetero, bi or homosexual and just opt for 'sexual' and then let people make their minds up as they go aloong. there's no need for definitions to be applied in advance that only serve to confuse and upset people when they realise that they don't fit into any of the neat little boxes assigned to them.

As long as you let them make up their minds about themselves. You're the one assigning people to boxes here. Willow: "I'm a lesbian". You: "You're bisexual!" Willow: "Do you really want to piss off the most powerful witch on earth?"

 

[ponderingturtle]

Weren't we just saying it was a siding scale?

Sexual orientation is whatever you want it to be on a given day. If a woman who normally sleeps with other women is one day attracted to a man, that doesn't change the fundemental nature of who she is in any way.

How about we stop defining people as hetero, bi or homosexual and just opt for 'sexual' and then let people make their minds up as they go aloong. there's no need for definitions to be applied in advance that only serve to confuse and upset people when they realise that they don't fit into any of the neat little boxes assigned to them.

Because people identify as such and they are useful shorthand.

 

[3point14]

That doesn't mean everybody moves along it. The only authority on a given individual's sexual preferences is that individual. It is rather offensive to be told by someone else what one's sexuality is. It's like my insisting that you love camomile tea even if you don't.

Agreed.

Really? You choose your orientation? And reset it daily?

I didn't say choose. I said want. I think there's quite an important difference.

Nor does it reveal her fundamental nature to observers, despite their arrogant insistence that they would know her preferences better than she does.



As long as you let them make up their minds about themselves. You're the one assigning people to boxes here. Willow: "I'm a lesbian". You: "You're bisexual!" Willow: "Do you really want to piss off the most powerful witch on earth?"

Ah, but you just pointed out that being attracted to a man once didn't stop her being a lesbian. I was trying to point out that that sort of box filling is not at all useful. Which is an opinion you are now giving back to me with spades.

I suspect I may have mis-read or that we are in lively agreement with one-another.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Jack Harkness in Doctor Who/Torchwood - he'll have anything!

Despite me being a straight man, Jack always makes me feel a bit funny inside...

 

[fuelair]

So while exploring TVTropes, I found a trope page called No Bisexuals, in which it gives examples of works of fiction (and even real life assumptions) that completely ignore bisexuality or even the existence thereof when it would be logical to at least acknowledge it.

For example, I actually recall hearing secondhand about how fans of Dragon Age II assuming potential love interests were gay or straight depending on your player character's gender flew in the face of BioWare's straightforward explanation that all potential love interests are simply bi.

I'm a bit curious about what causes this phenomenon and wondered if people more knowledgeable than I could explain it to me. My only personal stake in it stems from the fact that two of the main characters in a book I'm writing are part of a "gay" couple, but both identify as bisexual, so I haven't exactly experienced this sort of thing.

It's just an eraser that goes both ways..... My pencil on the desk here has one - it gets off (writing) whichever direction it goes in, beck or forward..........

 

[Arcade22]

So how bi does someone have to be to count as bi?

Unless someone is attracted towards exactly the same amounts of females and males they are of course not a real bisexual. They are just a pseudo-bisexual pretending to be the real deal.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Unless someone is attracted towards exactly the same amounts of females and males they are of course not a real bisexual. They are just a pseudo-bisexual pretending to be the real deal.

You forgot your "Poe" smiley...

 

[Ryokan]

Despite me being a straight man, Jack always makes me feel a bit funny inside...

You're not alone in that....

Someone mentioned Arrow earlier. Good old Captain Jack is in it. He plays a super villain.

 

[L.Y.S.]

I've read somewhere, and I can't find the article to save my life right now, that most men who claimed to be bisexual were most likely to be aroused by either images of men or women only. It was rare that they were aroused by both images. Something like only about 10% of the men who claimed to be bisexual were aroused by both images.

I don't exactly know how true this is, but that is what I've seen somewhere.

ETA: I will try my best to find the article.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I've read somewhere, and I can't find the article to save my life right now, that most men who claimed to be bisexual were most likely to be aroused by either images of men or women only. It was rare that they were aroused by both images. Something like only about 10% of the men who claimed to be bisexual were aroused by both images.

I don't exactly know how true this is, but that is what I've seen somewhere.

ETA: I will try my best to find the article.

Nope.

On average, men who self-identified as bisexual showed the sexual arousal patterns you might expect, being less aroused than heterosexual men (but more aroused than homosexual men) by videos featuring women, and more aroused than heterosexual men by videos featuring men. This average data conceals the fact that some bisexual men were aroused by both sexes, while others were aroused only by men. The novel finding from this research is that these arousal patterns were correlated with sexual curiosity. Bisexual men on average reported more sexual curiosity than straight or gay men; moreover, among bisexual men only, greater sexual curiosity was linked with more arousal in response to videos featuring women. Bisexual men with low levels of sexual curiosity tended to be aroused only by other men.

http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/some-bisexual-men-are-aroused-by-women.html