"Bisexuality and the challenge to lesbian politics" *

[PricelessT]

Lesbians need not worry about that with me, given that I'm straight-up about being bi.

I also don't mind if a lesbian doesn't want to be with me. That's fine. Her choice.

As I've said before, I dislike having everybody shoved under my umbrella. Yes, by the strict dictionary definition of the word, if a person fucks men and women, that person is bisexual. But what I'm talking about is connotation.

When a woman says she's a lesbian, we assume that not only does she want to have sex with women but that she also, at some point in her life, will want to be in relationships with women. If a man says he's a gay man, we assume that he wants to have sex with men and at some point will want to be in relationships with men. Same thing for hetero people. We assume that they want to have sex with members of the opposite sex, and that at some point, they'll want to be in relationships with members of the opposite sex.

But...you can't make that assumption with "bisexual" if we're sticking everybody who plays around with both sexes under the same umbrella.

How many men do we see, even in this forum, who say that they want to suck cock but "aren't attracted to men"? They want to play around with other men, but they don't want to pursue relationships with a man.

How many women do we see who are glad to use other women for sex while hubby watches, but would never want to date other women?

These people get lumped into the same category as people like me. I'm not necessarily equally attracted to both men and women, but I'm equally likely to get into a relationship with either if I happen to like the person.

I'm not saying that that makes me more enlightened than the man who sucks cock but isn't attracted to men or the woman who gets off on having her pussy eaten by another woman while her man watches but isn't actually really attracted to women. But it does make me and others like me different from them, and I think that it makes us different enough from them that it merits a different category or label.

What I would like is a comparable term to "lesbian" and "gay man" and "straight/hetero person" that carries the same connotations, that this person is open to sex AND relationships with both men and women. If we don't use the word "bisexual" to mean that, that's fine. Make up a new label. I'm not terribly attached to this one. I just don't like having to run around and explain "Yes, I'm a bisexual woman, and to me, that means I will fuck and be in relationships with either men or women or both if everybody's on board with it" just because the word "bi" means so many different things to so many different people.

If that doesn't make sense, I'll try to explain it better. It's just something that's been on my mind for awhile now.

That actually makes PERFECT sense! Thank you for explaining you're thinking, BTW.

Now let me ask you a question: If you were in a long term, loving relationship with a woman, would you still be interested in occassionally having sex with some dude or would you at least still be "admiring" men in a sexual way even if you didn't do anything with them?

The reason I ask is because if the answer would be "No, I'm in a committed relationship with my woman and I'm not even slightly interested in ANYONE else", I would then personally consider you to be a lesbian at that point.


P.S. Your orientation touched the "wannabes" last so y'all have to keep them!

BiBunny, thank you for posting about this. You essentially stated what I have been stating on the matter -- that not everyone who is romantically/sexually attracted to and/or has sex with both sexes fits under the bisexual label, and that the word bisexual means different things to different people.

Apparently, it makes perfect sense to Safe_Bet now that you've explained it. No doubt that she still does not understand it, though, and will continue to insist that "lesbian" and "bisexual" only mean what she defines them to mean.

 

[Stella_Omega]

But-- your book points out that lesbians worry about the future of the relationship.

They don't necessarily believe the bisexual woman who says she's committed to her partner, and more so, they are fearful that the next partner will be a man. That's what the point of the book is.


But really, if you heard a woman say that she's had seven partners in the past seven years and not been interested in one man in all that time-- that's not good enough?

Or, if she's been a big old ho for the wimmins for years and years now... run into one dude about three years ago that she couldn't resist. She was really drunk that night.

Is monogamy seriously a criteria for lesbianism?

 

[AmberMoore]

That actually makes PERFECT sense! Thank you for explaining you're thinking, BTW.

Now let me ask you a question: If you were in a long term, loving relationship with a woman, would you still be interested in occassionally having sex with some dude or would you at least still be "admiring" men in a sexual way even if you didn't do anything with them?

The reason I ask is because if the answer would be "No, I'm in a committed relationship with my woman and I'm not even slightly interested in ANYONE else", I would then personally consider you to be a lesbian at that point.


P.S. Your orientation touched the "wannabes" last so y'all have to keep them!

Yeah, I don't get that. It's perfectly natural to be attracted to and admire other people, man or woman, while being in a committed relationship. It's not cheating to check out Joel McHale's ass or Alison Brie's legs during an episode of community that your watching with your girlfriend. That doesn't effect what your label is in the least. As long as you don't then go and make sweet love to Alison Brie, no matter how much you would like to, you're still being faithful..

 

[BiBunny]

That actually makes PERFECT sense! Thank you for explaining you're thinking, BTW.

Now let me ask you a question: If you were in a long term, loving relationship with a woman, would you still be interested in occassionally having sex with some dude or would you at least still be "admiring" men in a sexual way even if you didn't do anything with them?

The reason I ask is because if the answer would be "No, I'm in a committed relationship with my woman and I'm not even slightly interested in ANYONE else", I would then personally consider you to be a lesbian at that point.


P.S. Your orientation touched the "wannabes" last so y'all have to keep them!

You're welcome. I realized the other day that I soapbox about this stuff sometimes without explaining what I'm actually thinking, so that may be why people think I'm nuts half the time.

I'm actually probably not the best person to ask that question to, since I'm your stereotypical bi poly person. If I'm in a committed relationship with a woman, I'm probably looking at men...at other women...and so forth.

I don't mislead people about the fact that I'm not looking for monogamy, but I also understand if that makes people not want to be with me. I know it's kind of a big deal for a lot of people to be monogamous, just like it's kind of a big deal for me to be polyamorous.

On the other hand, I think two of each would be plenty, and I wouldn't be looking at shit anymore after that because I'd be too exhausted!

But I totally get what you mean. I actually think you and I are arguing for something similar, just for different terms. You don't want your label to be so watered down that it becomes meaningless, and I don't want mine to be, either.

P.S. We don't want them, either!

BiBunny, thank you for posting about this. You essentially stated what I have been stating on the matter -- that not everyone who is romantically/sexually attracted to and/or has sex with both sexes fits under the bisexual label, and that the word bisexual means different things to different people.

Apparently, it makes perfect sense to Safe_Bet now that you've explained it. No doubt that she still does not understand it, though, and will continue to insist that "lesbian" and "bisexual" only mean what she defines them to mean.

You're welcome. I think a lot of people actually feel this way, but you don't hear a lot about it.

Also, I know there's bad blood between the two of you, but if Safe Bet says she gets it, let's take her at her word, ok? The conversation will go a lot more smoothly that way.

But-- your book points out that lesbians worry about the future of the relationship.

They don't necessarily believe the bisexual woman who says she's committed to her partner, and more so, they are fearful that the next partner will be a man. That's what the point of the book is.


But really, if you heard a woman say that she's had seven partners in the past seven years and not been interested in one man in all that time-- that's not good enough?

Or, if she's been a big old ho for the wimmins for years and years now... run into one dude about three years ago that she couldn't resist. She was really drunk that night.

Is monogamy seriously a criteria for lesbianism?

One reason I sometimes hate involving myself in these discussions is that I am, like I already said up there, the stereotypical poly bisexual. I'm afraid that because of that, my input might do more harm than good because I know all bi people aren't poly, and I don't want to reinforce a pre-existing stereotype.

On the other hand, I'm not a cheater, nor does anyone I'm with ever have to worry about me leaving them "for" someone else. I don't play the serial monogamy game. If I like someone, I keep them, regardless of if I like someone else or not.

 

[Safe_Bet]

But-- your book points out that lesbians worry about the future of the relationship.

They don't necessarily believe the bisexual woman who says she's committed to her partner, and more so, they are fearful that the next partner will be a man. That's what the point of the book is.


But really, if you heard a woman say that she's had seven partners in the past seven years and not been interested in one man in all that time-- that's not good enough?

Or, if she's been a big old ho for the wimmins for years and years now... run into one dude about three years ago that she couldn't resist. She was really drunk that night.

Is monogamy seriously a criteria for lesbianism?

First of all, you really need to read the book Stella cuz that is NOT the point.

Now, using your first example, I'd think that woman would be a lesbian (and a bit of a slut).

It would all depend on the second example on if the woman found men attractive. I would have to assume so, ergo she'd be bisexual, cuz I've been WAY drunk before when some fucking dude tried to pick me up and I was nothing but disgusted.

Lastly,... Yeah, sorta. I don't know hardly any lesbian "players". Some of them might be serial monogamists, but ALL of them would prefer a monogamous relationship over playing the field, a poly relationship or one of those "man fantasies" with dozens of lesbians fucking each other.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Amy, you found the book using the Google phrase; "cant trust bisexuals"(which shows up in the searchbar in the link)

and the first paragraph on the page you linked to reads;

since my current lover is bisexual it doesn't make for a very secure relationship. There is always the fear that she she will go to the other side...
etc etc.

So it sure looks like that's the point that you care about.

 

[boredVAwife]

If a lover is going to stray does it matter if they are gay, bi, hetero or whatever?

 

[PricelessT]

Also, I know there's bad blood between the two of you, but if Safe Bet says she gets it, let's take her at her word, ok? The conversation will go a lot more smoothly that way.

Can't. Post #30 shows that she still doesn't understand. Knowing that something exists isn't the same thing as understanding it. If she were only speaking of her own definitions of "lesbian" and "bisexual," then I wouldn't have a problem with that. But she insists that her definitions are the be-all and end-all, and that's not going to change.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Amy, you found the book using the Google phrase; "cant trust bisexuals"(which shows up in the searchbar in the link)

and the first paragraph on the page you linked to reads;

since my current lover is bisexual it doesn't make for a very secure relationship. There is always the fear that she she will go to the other side...
etc etc.

So it sure looks like that's the point that you care about.

Assume much, Stella?

As a matter of fact, I happen to own that book, but it's kind of hard to discuss it without a link, now ain't it!

So are you being such a cunt because you don't like the search phrase I used to find the link? "it sure looks like that's the point you care about".

 

[Safe_Bet]

Can't. Post #30 shows that she still doesn't understand. Knowing that something exists isn't the same thing as understanding it. If she were only speaking of her own definitions of "lesbian" and "bisexual," then I wouldn't have a problem with that. But she insists that her definitions are the be-all and end-all, and that's not going to change.

So now, besides being a world famous researcher and author (that was this alt wasn't it???), you are also now a mind reader as well?

Gee, that's almost as impressive as you being a spy plane pilot (as your OTHER alt SR71plt).

 

[PricelessT]

Don't have to be a mind-reader in this case. Your post, the post I pointed to, is above for all to see. In that post, you stated that the woman finding a man attractive would make her bisexual, even though you have been told more than once that there is a such thing as minor sexual attraction and that plenty of people would not categorize this minor sexual attraction as bisexuality, and you once again equated having sex with someone as defining a person's sexual orientation. A woman can have sex with men all her life, for example; it doesn't necessarily mean that she's heterosexual. The same applies to a lesbian having sex with a man and not being bisexual.

EDITED TO ADD: Oh, and as for accusing me of being yet another user: Once again, I don't have any other user name on this board. I have seen that two of the people you accused me being don't even have the same typing style as me. Not sure about anyone else, since I have not yet witnessed their typing styles. And like one of the posters stated, a moderator would have identified me as those users by my IP by now...especially if only one account per person is allowed here. But whatever. You go right ahead accusing me of being so and so. It entertains me to a degree.