Barsexual vs. Bisexual

[Stella_Omega]

What problem?

I'm guessing she wrote it wrong.I'm guessing she didn't mean to say "not all of us (lesbians) have the problem," she meant to say "not all of us (lesbians) think that bisexuals are a problem."

Or, possibly, "not all of us (lesbians) try to shame and blame women for what they are."

Which can be said of many women, really. And lots of men, too, but we are talking about women at this time.

 

[PricelessT]

I simply took it as her saying that not all lesbians have a problem with being with a woman who has had sex with a man (especially since so many lesbians aren't gold star lesbians). She meant it's not a problem for all of us.

 

[girlsmiley]

I'm guessing she wrote it wrong.I'm guessing she didn't mean to say "not all of us (lesbians) have the problem," she meant to say "not all of us (lesbians) think that bisexuals are a problem."

Or, possibly, "not all of us (lesbians) try to shame and blame women for what they are."

Which can be said of many women, really. And lots of men, too, but we are talking about women at this time.

My sexual preference is neither problem nor a tool to 'blame and shame'. How utterly ridiculous. Nor do I think that bisexuals are a problem.



I think what Etoile should have said is that we're all different. Yes, that's much better.

 

[Stella_Omega]

My sexual preference is neither problem nor a tool to 'blame and shame'. How utterly ridiculous. Nor do I think that bisexuals are a problem.

Was she talking about you in particular?

I think what Etoile should have said is that we're all different. Yes, that's much better.

Different in what way? Better for who?

 

[PricelessT]

She said "There are other lesbians who do, though, and I'm fine with that too, it's 100% their prerogative." And then, as we know, she clarified that not all lesbians subscribe to the "No penis via proxy" viewpoint when selecting their romantic/sexual partners.

So she said we're all different. Just with a few more words.

 

[Etoile]

Indeed, what I meant was "not all of us feel that way." Sorry for phrasing it awkwardly!

 

[Safe_Bet]

Indeed, what I meant was "not all of us feel that way." Sorry for phrasing it awkwardly!

Thank you for that clarification, because my and other chicks feels along those regards aren't a "problem" anymore that the people who feel differently beliefs or feels are a problem because that is their CHOICE and they have a right to it.

The only "problem" arises is when people try to keep others from exercising their right to choose but lying or misrepresenting themselves.

I also don't think that most of us who insist on gender fidelity are so rigid that we would never have a relationship with a non gold star or set artificial criteria as to when they "qualify" enough. I've known confirmed lesbians who had been in a m/f mere months before and other bi chicks who haven't been with a man for years. FOR ME, it's much more of an "intent" or willingness to ever again have sex with a dude thing, than it is a she only washed her coochie 9,999 times and might still have the disgusting penis germs in her.

 

[CandiCame]

This thread has made me sad.

It is a fucking problem. Judging people by their past rather then what they are and the relationship they're in now, and how much love they're in now is a problem. Trying to paint all bisexual people as whores is a problem. That attitude is just as big a problem as homophobia is.

Why the fuck would anyone place that much emphasis on gender rather then the quality of character of your partner? I understand being sexually attracted to one set of genitals, it's like... a fetish thing, but I don't understand the kindergarten mentality of "OMG, boy germs" "I would never be in a relationship with someone who likes boys" thing. I mean, is it the socialized masculine character traits that you don't like? Do you also not want to be around "butch" women? Where do transgender or gender neutral folk fall on that "gross" to "relationship material" spectrum?? I don't think I can truly understand a monosexual POV until those questions are answered.

If you're really in love with someone, their outer package shouldn't matter. Neither should their past partners- hell, nothing should matter but their character. It's the getting around that that I need help understanding. You fall in love with someone's soul, not their genitals. I mean... right? What am I missing?

 

[Safe_Bet]

This thread has made me sad.

It is a fucking problem. Judging people by their past rather then what they are and the relationship they're in now, and how much love they're in now is a problem. Trying to paint all bisexual people as whores is a problem. That attitude is just as big a problem as homophobia is.

Why the fuck would anyone place that much emphasis on gender rather then the quality of character of your partner? I understand being sexually attracted to one set of genitals, it's like... a fetish thing, but I don't understand the kindergarten mentality of "OMG, boy germs" "I would never be in a relationship with someone who likes boys" thing. I mean, is it the socialized masculine character traits that you don't like? Do you also not want to be around "butch" women? Where do transgender or gender neutral folk fall on that "gross" to "relationship material" spectrum?? I don't think I can truly understand a monosexual POV until those questions are answered.

If you're really in love with someone, their outer package shouldn't matter. Neither should their past partners- hell, nothing should matter but their character. It's the getting around that that I need help understanding. You fall in love with someone's soul, not their genitals. I mean... right? What am I missing?

Uh, no.

You, bisexuals or anyone else for that matter, do NOT get to dictate who I find attractive and with whom i have to have sex/a relationship. We don't have a right to dictate your choices and you sure as fuck don't get to dictate mine.

BTW, your inane and scurrilous comments such as your comments about a "kindergarten mentality" and "butch women" shows that you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about and that you know nothing about the community. I would suggest you STFU till you do, dude.

 

[CandiCame]

Uh, no.

You, bisexuals or anyone else for that matter, do NOT get to dictate who I find attractive and with whom i have to have sex/a relationship. We don't have a right to dictate your choices and you sure as fuck don't get to dictate mine.

BTW, your inane and scurrilous comments such as your comments about a "kindergarten mentality" and "butch women" shows that you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about and that you know nothing about the community. I would suggest you STFU till you do, dude.

So explain it to me.

 

[PricelessT]

This thread has made me sad.

It is a fucking problem. Judging people by their past rather then what they are and the relationship they're in now, and how much love they're in now is a problem. Trying to paint all bisexual people as whores is a problem. That attitude is just as big a problem as homophobia is.

Why the fuck would anyone place that much emphasis on gender rather then the quality of character of your partner? I understand being sexually attracted to one set of genitals, it's like... a fetish thing, but I don't understand the kindergarten mentality of "OMG, boy germs" "I would never be in a relationship with someone who likes boys" thing. I mean, is it the socialized masculine character traits that you don't like? Do you also not want to be around "butch" women? Where do transgender or gender neutral folk fall on that "gross" to "relationship material" spectrum?? I don't think I can truly understand a monosexual POV until those questions are answered.

If you're really in love with someone, their outer package shouldn't matter. Neither should their past partners- hell, nothing should matter but their character. It's the getting around that that I need help understanding. You fall in love with someone's soul, not their genitals. I mean... right? What am I missing?

Once-ler, I understand what you're saying. I just want to say that I don't think sexual orientation, as psychologically defined by most experts, is like a sexual fetish, and that I'm not so much sexually attracted to a woman's genitals. I'm more sexually attracted to all of the way a woman looks, more so her face and curves. That's why a heterosexual man or lesbian can be sexually attracted to pre-op transgender woman without knowing that she's pre-op. Even after knowing for some.

Of course, it's not just about sexual attraction for me. There has to be that mental/emotional connection, unless it's only about sex. But I can't help but be sexually attracted to women and not men. Romantic attraction is usually wrapped up in sexual attraction (asexuals being the main exception). No matter how beautiful a man's "soul" is, I wouldn't be able to fall in love with him (not in the sense of wanting him romantically/sexually). But take note that I'm one of the posters who wouldn't turn a woman away just because she's sexually attracted to men, not unless I'm just an experiment to her and/or she isn't serious about being with a woman romantically/sexually long-term.

 

[Brazen_Bitch]

Hmmm... I guess that I would be hypersexual, inasmuch as I like to have a lot, lot of sex. I always just considered myself a very sexual person, but if I'm in a relationship, I go from "slut" to "high maintenance"- inasmuch as I don't really wanna go pick up and fuck random folk anymore- I mean, I will if I have to, but my preference is for my partner. Especially if monogamy is important to them, because at that point, it becomes a love/respect thing rather then a purely sexual thing. But I still want to have sex a lot, and I'm still attracted to other folk, but I have this thing called "self control". It's pretty convient for relationships. And not ODing.

So explain it to me.

This thread has made me sad.

It is a fucking problem. Judging people by their past rather then what they are and the relationship they're in now, and how much love they're in now is a problem. Trying to paint all bisexual people as whores is a problem. That attitude is just as big a problem as homophobia is.

Why the fuck would anyone place that much emphasis on gender rather then the quality of character of your partner? I understand being sexually attracted to one set of genitals, it's like... a fetish thing, but I don't understand the kindergarten mentality of "OMG, boy germs" "I would never be in a relationship with someone who likes boys" thing. I mean, is it the socialized masculine character traits that you don't like? Do you also not want to be around "butch" women? Where do transgender or gender neutral folk fall on that "gross" to "relationship material" spectrum?? I don't think I can truly understand a monosexual POV until those questions are answered.

If you're really in love with someone, their outer package shouldn't matter. Neither should their past partners- hell, nothing should matter but their character. It's the getting around that that I need help understanding. You fall in love with someone's soul, not their genitals. I mean... right? What am I missing?

Putting your words into other people's mouth based on your misreadings is a larger problem than any of those you are ranting about.

Nobody is painting all bisexuals as whores except perhaps you - who seem to think that "preference for your partner except when someone else is naked and horny" is somehow monogamy.

Is it not simple enough for me to say that I am interested only in another women (I am 100% lesbian) who is interested only in me? I do not particularly care if she has had sex with men in the past, but if she is to be with me, her plan has to be me and only me for future sex or relationships.

Gay isn't a plumbing issue as you seem to think. Perhaps that is another reason you have difficulty understanding what people are saying on this topic. To you it is sex (full stop). To me sex is a byproduct of love.

You seem to think we can all just get our freak on after the community sing-a-long and that anyone who can't or won't is a bigot.

 

[Etoile]

I don't understand the "omg boy germs" thing either, but I realize there are other people who don't like that, and I'm okay with it. I don't have to understand it, I just have to respect it. Same as I expect to be respected for not minding that my wife was married before we met.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't understand the "omg boy germs" thing either, but I realize there are other people who don't like that, and I'm okay with it. I don't have to understand it, I just have to respect it. Same as I expect to be respected for not minding that my wife was married before we met.

Yes, this.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I don't understand the "omg boy germs" thing either, but I realize there are other people who don't like that, and I'm okay with it. I don't have to understand it, I just have to respect it. Same as I expect to be respected for not minding that my wife was married before we met.

Just out of curiosity, cuz I sure can't find it, where has anybody said that things like your wife having ever been married is a problem?

I've seen where I and others don't want anything to do with chicks who self define as bisexual (aka still actively interested in having sex with dudes) and chicks who self define as hetero (but want to "try you on" when they're drunk) or even chicks who self define as lesbians (but will fuck a dude if nobody else is around). But NOWHERE have I seen anybody say they have a problem with women who had sex with men in the past but are now confirmed lesbians.

To me, this seems more and more like a straw man argument because the only people who actually say it are the ones accusing others of saying it.

If you've got any proof to the contrary I'd like you to show it to me cuz otherwise that is a pretty bullshit accusation.

 

[Kurokami]

I've seen where I and others don't want anything to do with chicks who self define as bisexual (aka still actively interested in having sex with dudes) and chicks who self define as hetero (but want to "try you on" when they're drunk) or even chicks who self define as lesbians (but will fuck a dude if nobody else is around). But NOWHERE have I seen anybody say they have a problem with women who had sex with men in the past but are now confirmed lesbians.

Okay, this point has got me interested. I guess my question to you would then be, does bisexuality always equate to an active interest in having sex with both genders? For example, say you met a woman who was openly bisexual, but wants a committed relationship with you, excluding all others.

You say you're squicked out by the idea of sexual contact, even second hand, with men, but also that you don't have a problem with non "gold star" lesbians. Now, is it the idea of sexual contact with men that you have a problem with, or the idea of attraction to men? Would it still be an issue if the woman in question was absolutely committed to you, but still capable of finding men sexually attractive, albeit in a now theoretical way?

Either way, I'm fascinated by this concept. Really glad it got brought up here.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Okay, this point has got me interested. I guess my question to you would then be, does bisexuality always equate to an active interest in having sex with both genders? For example, say you met a woman who was openly bisexual, but wants a committed relationship with you, excluding all others.

You say you're squicked out by the idea of sexual contact, even second hand, with men, but also that you don't have a problem with non "gold star" lesbians. Now, is it the idea of sexual contact with men that you have a problem with, or the idea of attraction to men? Would it still be an issue if the woman in question was absolutely committed to you, but still capable of finding men sexually attractive, albeit in a now theoretical way?

Either way, I'm fascinated by this concept. Really glad it got brought up here.

Not to waffle, but kinda sorta a little of both.

If a chick told me that she was a lesbian who was interested in me, but had sex with a dude last week, I'd be squicked. If she told me that it happened sometime in the past, but now she knew herself better and only wanted to be with women from now on, I'd be okay with it. On the other hand, if a chick had never been with a dude, but would still be willing to if she found one attractive, THAT would Squick me out.
(fuck. That's not even clear to me. :/)

Let me try explaining it like this (and I'm not equating men to animals... Much ): If there was a chick I knew who liked poodles, I'd be fine with that. Hell, there are dogs that I find beautiful. If I knew that chick fucked poodles, I'd be seriously squicked. If I found out that in her younger days, back when she was young and foolish, she performed in a donkey show in Tijuana, but now realized how yucky that actually is, I'd prolly be okay with that (after she washed her pussy a few thousand times!). If she kept a box of XXXXXXL donkey sized condoms in her night table, just in case... Not so okay with that!

Does that make sense? (if not, I'm half asleep so fuck it).

EDIT: And doesn't self identifying as bi inherently show a sexual attraction/willingness for both sex and a lack of commitment to just one???

 

[Etoile]

Not to waffle, but kinda sorta a little of both.

If a chick told me that she was a lesbian who was interested in me, but had sex with a dude last week, I'd be squicked. If she told me that it happened sometime in the past, but now she knew herself better and only wanted to be with women from now on, I'd be okay with it. On the other hand, if a chick had never been with a dude, but would still be willing to if she found one attractive, THAT would Squick me out.
(fuck. That's not even clear to me. :/)

Let me try explaining it like this (and I'm not equating men to animals... Much ): If there was a chick I knew who liked poodles, I'd be fine with that. Hell, there are dogs that I find beautiful. If I knew that chick fucked poodles, I'd be seriously squicked. If I found out that in her younger days, back when she was young and foolish, she performed in a donkey show in Tijuana, but now realized how yucky that actually is, I'd prolly be okay with that (after she washed her pussy a few thousand times!). If she kept a box of XXXXXXL donkey sized condoms in her night table, just in case... Not so okay with that!

Does that make sense? (if not, I'm half asleep so fuck it).

EDIT: And doesn't self identifying as bi inherently show a sexual attraction/willingness for both sex and a lack of commitment to just one???

It makes perfect sense, even if the donkey condoms are a horrific mental image!

Nobody around here has said anything about it, I just meant it hypothetically. I show people respect for their preferences, and I hope to be shown respect for mine, globally.

 

[CandiCame]

Not to waffle, but kinda sorta a little of both.

If a chick told me that she was a lesbian who was interested in me, but had sex with a dude last week, I'd be squicked. If she told me that it happened sometime in the past, but now she knew herself better and only wanted to be with women from now on, I'd be okay with it. On the other hand, if a chick had never been with a dude, but would still be willing to if she found one attractive, THAT would Squick me out.
(fuck. That's not even clear to me. :/)

Let me try explaining it like this (and I'm not equating men to animals... Much ): If there was a chick I knew who liked poodles, I'd be fine with that. Hell, there are dogs that I find beautiful. If I knew that chick fucked poodles, I'd be seriously squicked. If I found out that in her younger days, back when she was young and foolish, she performed in a donkey show in Tijuana, but now realized how yucky that actually is, I'd prolly be okay with that (after she washed her pussy a few thousand times!). If she kept a box of XXXXXXL donkey sized condoms in her night table, just in case... Not so okay with that!

Does that make sense? (if not, I'm half asleep so fuck it).

EDIT: And doesn't self identifying as bi inherently show a sexual attraction/willingness for both sex and a lack of commitment to just one???

You don't commit to a gender, you commit to a person.

The only way that this makes any sense to me is if you're phenotypically identifying everyone by who they're currently fucking at that moment. Like, I just got out of a committed relationship with a man. While in that relationship, I only slept with him, no other men, no women at all. But in my mind, that doesn't make me gay. It made me in love with someone I respected enough to honor the fact that he wanted to be monogamous, that it was important to him. And because of that, because of that bond of love, respect, and trust, I was exclusively with a man, forgoing the, I guess "strait" side of my sexuality completely.

But at that point, if someone had asked what my sexuality was, what I identified as, I would have said "bisexual"- actually, I probably would have said, "pansexual" because I like that better, not "gay". But that doesn't mean that I'm going to leave him for a girl, or even sleep with a girl, because that would be cheating, just like it would with a guy. So I guess, for all practical purposes, I was gay- and now that I'm single and lonely, I'm not fucking anyone, that would make me phenotypically asexual- but in my mind I'm still pan.

Is that kind of what you're talking about?

 

[PricelessT]

EDIT: And doesn't self identifying as bi inherently show a sexual attraction/willingness for both sex and a lack of commitment to just one???

Your and others believing that is one reason I've been clear about some women self-identifying as lesbian even though they find men a little sexually attractive. Since these women don't want a romantic/sexual relationship with men, and have no true desire to have sex with men, they identify as lesbian. And that's why I've said that I understand it and respect it.

EDITED TO ADD: And as I've said before, so many (most) people who identify as bisexual admit a sexual preference for one sex/gender over the other. If they have their preference, why would they have trouble sticking to just that one? And besides, being sexually attracted to both sexes/genders, even equally, doesn't have to mean that the person can't just stick to one.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Your and others believing that is one reason I've been clear about some women self-identifying as lesbian even though they find men a little sexually attractive. Since these women don't want a romantic/sexual relationship with men, and have no true desire to have sex with men, they identify as lesbian. And that's why I've said that I understand it and respect it.

EDITED TO ADD: And as I've said before, so many (most) people who identify as bisexual admit a sexual preference for one sex/gender over the other. If they have their preference, why would they have trouble sticking to just that one? And besides, being sexually attracted to both sexes/genders, even equally, doesn't have to mean that the person can't just stick to one.

I have a PREFERENCE for chocolate over peanuts, but I will occassionally eat them if there's no chocolate around. That doesn't give me the right to tell somebody who has a peanut allergy that I exclusively only eat chocolate just so she'd kiss me. That would take away her choice and would be wrong.

Same applies, even if I don't feel like peanuts at the moment.

 

[PricelessT]

Not the same thing at all. Most of these women identify as lesbian because they believe they are lesbian. Not wanting men romantically/sexually is lesbian to them. Not likely to want a man romantically/sexually is lesbian to others. We've been over how people define it differently back and forth, and I'm not looking to get into that debate with you again right now, although it usually comes back up again and again.

I'm not saying that if a woman is sexually attracted to both, even if she's not going to be with a man ever again, is not something she should tell her partner. I was just saying why these women identify the way they do. Just like you see saying "I'm bi" as saying "Hey, people, I'm here for both sides," they do as well. They don't say "I'm bi" because they aren't here for both sides. Whether they tell their partner about their minor romantic/sexual attraction to men is another story.

 

[Stella_Omega]

And doesn't self identifying as bi inherently show a sexual attraction/willingness for both sex and a lack of commitment to just one???

Not necesarily.

There are a whole lot of ways that a person might consider themselves "bisexual," ranging from "I had sex with my non-preferred sex about ten years ago" through "I loved a man once and now I love a woman" to "I fuck around all the time and I fuck men and women equally" -- which is really an issue of fidelity, I would think, rather than of bisexuality.

Many bisexuals, like many monosexuals, are monogamous by nature.

Fidelity can be an issue in monosexuals as easily as in bisexuals.

 

[Kurokami]

Not to waffle, but kinda sorta a little of both.

If a chick told me that she was a lesbian who was interested in me, but had sex with a dude last week, I'd be squicked. If she told me that it happened sometime in the past, but now she knew herself better and only wanted to be with women from now on, I'd be okay with it. On the other hand, if a chick had never been with a dude, but would still be willing to if she found one attractive, THAT would Squick me out.
(fuck. That's not even clear to me. :/)

Let me try explaining it like this (and I'm not equating men to animals... Much ): If there was a chick I knew who liked poodles, I'd be fine with that. Hell, there are dogs that I find beautiful. If I knew that chick fucked poodles, I'd be seriously squicked. If I found out that in her younger days, back when she was young and foolish, she performed in a donkey show in Tijuana, but now realized how yucky that actually is, I'd prolly be okay with that (after she washed her pussy a few thousand times!). If she kept a box of XXXXXXL donkey sized condoms in her night table, just in case... Not so okay with that!

Does that make sense? (if not, I'm half asleep so fuck it).

EDIT: And doesn't self identifying as bi inherently show a sexual attraction/willingness for both sex and a lack of commitment to just one???

Sure, that makes sense. Follow up question: Is there a degree of commitment someone can give you, while still identifying as bisexual, that would make them acceptable relationship material to you?

Because, in regard to your edit... Not really. Stella's pretty much got the idea, probably better than I can express it. All identifying as bisexual says about a person is that they're capable of being sexually attracted to both men and women. It doesn't say anything about our ability to commit to one sex or one person. Attraction doesn't necessarily mean a desire to act on it; I'm sure you yourself have been sexually attracted to someone, somewhere outside of your current relationship without acting on it. It's pretty much the same with bi folk; I made a commitment to the women in my life (Maybe I'm not the best example ) and so I don't act on any outside attractions, simple as that. I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

Also? Donkey sized condoms? That's... Yow

 

[Etoile]

There are separate scales here.

We know and accept that sexual orientation and gender identity are two separate things, right? Transgender people can be gay/straight/in between, cisgender people can be gay/straight/in between.

It's the same with sexual orientation and polyamory - two separate things. Bisexual people can be monogamous, and monosexual people can be polyamorous. They're totally separate things. The oft-referenced fear that a bisexual is going to cheat on you is generally unfounded, unless they have a history of cheating. It's the individual that cheats, not the category of bisexuals as a whole. (And straight/gay people cheat too, so being with A-who-only-doink-A-not-B doesn't mean you won't get cheated on.)

Of course, there are still plenty of people who think that trans people must be gay, or something. So it's not surprising there are still people who think bisexuals automatically cheat. I sure don't know how to convince anybody otherwise, I only know that they are separate scales.