Skip to main content

The New York Times Magazine posted this article by Benoit Denizet-Lewis, The Scientific Quest to Prove Bisexuality Exists, eleven days ago, and it ran in print starting last Saturday. I've linked to some of Denizet-Lewis's work in my LGBT Literature diaries, and he strikes me as being an honest broker of information, and when I did a search Thursday of this week, I was surprised to see that no one had written about it. It said "diary me," so that's what I've done.

Interesting article, too. Denizet-Lewis, a self-professed Kinsey 5, tries to determine where the science is on bisexuality. He spends a lot of time with people from the American Institute of Bisexuality (henceforth AIB), a foundation established by a rich bisexual in the late 1980s, in his quest for information. He finds that there are more bisexual people than he thought there were, and the reasons for this discrepancy may not surprise you, but they surprised me and the explanation for why this is may explain some of the friction we've seen here at Daily Kos when this subject gets diaried (admittedly, I may have caused some of that).  Below the fold, please.

The good news is abundant. There are more bisexuals than there are lesbians and gay men. The Williams Institute at UCLA, a think tank devoted to rigorous independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity and public policy (and the reason we should shop at Williams-Sonoma instead of at Sur La Table), cites

a 2009 study in The Journal of Sexual Medicine [which shows that] 3.1 percent of American adults identified as bisexual, while 2.5 percent identified as gay or lesbian.
This would make sense. Why don't we know this? Because a 2013 Pew Research survey found that only 28 percent of people who identified as bisexual said they were open about it. It has been pretty much axiomatic that the fact that so many gay men and lesbians came out is why we've made the gains in civil rights and political power we've made, which is precisely what the Gay Liberation Front and Harvey Milk proposed in the 1970s.

Why don't they come out? Well, after a few pages of what has become the almost ritualistic listing of some of the offences we mean gay men have perpetrated on the poor defenseless bi able-to-pass population, it comes down to this explanation from Joe Kort, a Michigan-based sex therapist:

[M]any never tell anyone about their bisexual experiences, for fear of losing relationships or having their reputation hurt. Consequently, they're an invisible group of men. We know so little about them.
Or having their reputation hurt, by association with the mean gay men. Yes, SO much easier to pass without any of that stigma, that ick-factor.

Anyhow, science proves bisexual people exist. We meet Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern, whose first study of sexual arousal among men produced a headline in the New York Times that read "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited." Bailey did a follow-up study in which he used more stringent criteria to find bisexual-identified subjects, and this study, published in 2011,  

found that bisexual men did in fact demonstrate 'bisexual patterns of both subjective and genital arousal."
The AIB people still don't trust him, but there are better test methods that the ones he was using. We'll learn about them later in this diary.

After an interlude in which we learn that more famous women have said they are bisexual than famous men, that Clive Davis, who is 80, is a famous bisexual man. Then follows another ritualistic dig at Andrew Sullivan, which prompts John Sylla, a bisexual activist to admit that gay men use bisexuality as a transition identity, but then to complain that we don't try to imagine that other men might have a different trajectory. That's fair, and here's the 2013 Pew study again:

bisexuals are less likely than gays and lesbians '"to view their sexual orientation as important to their overall identity."
Not much of a surprise since we've seen gay men make the same claims here about "gay" not being important to who they are here at Daily Kos, but it shouldn't surprise bisexuals that the LGT community has historically had some difficulty with that of the "what do bisexuals want" variety as a result. Denizet-Lewis asks one of his bi friends if he can identify any places where there's an upside to broadcasting the fact that he's bi, and gets the answer, "gay chat rooms and online hookup sites." Bisexual women who aren't famous have similar issues, with a dismally similar result. Why do I say "dismally"? Brian Dodge, a researcher on bisexuality and health at Indiana University, has found
that [when bisexuals are] compared with their exclusively homosexual and heterosexual counterparts, [they] have reported  higher rates of depression, anxiety, substance use, victimization by violence [!!], suicidal ideation and sexual-health concerns.
Funny, but wasn't that what they used to say about lesbians and gay men who remained in the closet? The closet is bad for everyone, something that the 72% of bisexuals who don't disclose should consider very carefully.

Then Denizet-Lewis travels to Cornell University to visit Ritch Savin-Williams and Gerulf Rieger who have just completed a study of bisexuality and sexual curiosity, which indicates that bisexual men have higher levels of it than either hetero or gay men. While Michael Bailey used a genital monitor, Savin-Williams and Rieger use a pupil-dilation tracker, which appears to be more accurate. Denizet-Lewis had been tested at Northwestern, where the tester said his genital response was fairly typical for a gay men, although he was less averse to seeing women than other gay men they tested. Ar Cornell? Whammo. More bi than gay, said his pupils.

Okay. Yes, you DO exist. But where does that leave "born this way"? Denizet-Lewis isn't buying what HIS pupils say, because bisexuality didn't seem right as his own identity. Maybe, he thinks, this is an issue that won't be with us too much longer. He cites Eric Anderson, a researcher at the University of Warwick in England, who has written that

The liberalization of attitudes toward homosexuality in American cultures has also been beneficial for heterosexual men.
Yes, there's a lot less homophobia and biphobia among young people, probably because of all of us, especially those of us who are in the public eye, who are out gay and out lesbian. It's not so much that we're post-gay as we are post-labeling, and that would be a good thing. As soon as ENDA becomes law, at any rate.

Denizet-Lewis concludes with dinner with two bisexual activists, men, who have also been a couple for the past 17 years. Yes, it has to be complicated, doesn't it. But he closes with this, from one of the activists:

The world needs more out bi people so that bisexuals can find support and community, just like gay people have when they come out. Many bisexuals end up saying they're gay if they're with a same-sex person or straight if they're with an opposite-sex person. It's easier to do that.
So yes. You're real. Thank you for coming out, and maybe ALL of you will. But don't try to say it doesn't matter. The closet is ALWAYS corrosive.

UPDATE, 3:45 PM: Reader-response theory strikes again. This took off from an article that a couple of you have ridiculed for overlooking the wide variety of human sexual experience, which isn't what I was writing about and wasn't what Mr. Denizet-Lewis was writing about either. I didn't really want to discuss Michael Bailey's research either, and thank you for bringing THAT up in the comments.

I'm not going to unpublish this, but I AM going to let this operate as an open thread on the issue of sexuality. My comments about the closet and what damage being in it still stand, but since none of you want to discuss it, fine.

Originally posted to LGBT Kos Community on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 02:45 PM PDT.

Also republished by SciTech and And Now for Something Completely Different .

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  the bisexuality of science (6+ / 0-)
    a 2009 study in The Journal of Sexual Medicine [which shows that] 3,1 percent of American adults identified as bisexual, while 2.5 percent identified as gay or lesbian.

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 02:49:58 PM PDT

  •  As long as such simplistic categories are applied (11+ / 0-)

    to the enormous range of human amatory behaviors, I don't take any of this stuff very seriously.

    Dick Cheney 2/14/10: "I was a big supporter of waterboarding"

    by Bob Love on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 02:54:58 PM PDT

  •  From a cross-cultural perspective (35+ / 0-)

    it quickly becomes apparent that the categories used for defining gender and sexuality among English-speaking people do not fit the realities in other cultures. This is an area of much greater complexity than often assumed in the popular media.

  •  I have had sex with more men than most people (7+ / 0-)

    will meet in a lifetime unless they live in San Francisco, and I would say that a good 50 percent of them self-identified as "straight" until their jeans came off. Bisexuality does exist.

    Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

    by commonmass on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 03:18:25 PM PDT

      •  I am very proud of the fact that I (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Richard Lyon, ozsea1

        have done for many "straight" men what their spouses or girlfriends could our would not. Mostly, topping them.

        Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

        by commonmass on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 03:26:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Now that is truly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          commonmass

          a gift of psychic liberation.

          •  Their liberation. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Richard Lyon, ozsea1

            Guys like getting effed. Straight guys especially.

            Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

            by commonmass on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 03:33:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Um, they're not straight. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              commonmass
              •  Tell that to their wives. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                WB Reeves

                Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

                by commonmass on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 04:00:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Despite what some would say... (5+ / 0-)

                ...it is very much possible for a straight man (i.e. a man who is attracted to women but not to men) to enjoy being anally penetrated. They would hook up with a man for the experience, not for the person providing the experience. Getting buttfucked doesn't make a dude not straight.

                •  Pegging (4+ / 0-)

                  Yeah, but a straight guy would prefer a chick with a strapon.  (Dan Savage and his readers dubbed this act "pegging," in case you were not aware.)

                  •  I've heard the term. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    blueoasis, katiec, commonmass

                    And a straight dude might turn to another dude to get it if he was afraid his gf/wife would think he was gay if he asked her to do it. Or he might get it from another dude if he found it easier to get a dude to want to do it; there is a certain fetishing of straight dudes among many gay men, so a straight man might find a greater willingness of gay/bi men to do it for him.

                    •  Exactly. And the wives tend NOT to know. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      commonmass

                      Right?

                      And among gay men who are attracted to married men, it's a point of pride to see how many married men they can seduce.

                      And yes, there's a moral aspect to this behavior.

                      And some of the married men fetishize, not gay men, but penises.

                      They have no interest in the man behind the penis, at all.

                      Further, some of these married men would be happy if their wives would  peg them.

                      Some not so much:  They're after same sex, but for reasons having little to do with personality, or broad attraction - stuff we tend to include  in our definitions of sexual orientations.

                      But a woman pegging wouldn't do the trick, other stuff is being sought.

                      Yeah, I have personal experience with the issue.

                    •  I've never understood... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      commonmass

                      how having a female put something in your ass makes you gay.  If a woman is doing it, by definition, it's not homosexual.

                •  Is that a scientific fact? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  commonmass

                  I'd say no, it's not.

                  •  Is what a scientific fact? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    commonmass, Crabby Abbey

                    That some straight men like anal stimulation? Yes, that's a fact.

                    •  No, that they're straight. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      commonmass

                      That there is called an opinion.

                      •  No. It's a fact that some men who identify as (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        commonmass, CS in AZ

                        being straight like anal sex.

                        Are you going to claim that your opinion is more important than their own, about their own internal life?

                        •  If you do that with men, (0+ / 0-)

                          you are not straight. You can say you are straight though. That you can do.

                          •  sorry, but I don't believe you know what you (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Crabby Abbey

                            are talking about. At least it surely seems that way.

                          •  Well, as he said it's his opinion. ... and (5+ / 0-)

                            everybody's got one. People who issue identify labels to others based on certain "defining behaviors" rather than what that individual feels about his (or her) own life and what they feel is most accurate for their identity. This is very common.

                            How it often works is like this:

                            married man, desiring some kind of sexual experience with men: "I think I might be gay. Possibly bi. I don't know. I love my wife and my family. I want to be with them. I also want a dick in my ass sometimes, and I love to suck cock (or imagining doing so), and I just can't stop thinking about that. What am I? Gay or bisexual? I could be a straight man who happens to enjoy a certain "kink" ok. That doesn't make me gay. I'm still straight. Maybe bi. I don't know."

                            wife, and anyone else who finds out he likes to have sex of any kind with men: He's GAY! Run for you life!"

                            gay men in the "community" he comes out to as questioning or possibly bisexual: "You're gay. Get over it. Your marriage is a farce and it's over. Oh and you're a coward if you don't "admit" you are gay and stop with the bisexual nonsense."

                            Most women he tries to date: "You think you're bisexual? Thanks but no thanks! Ick."

                            Men he tries to date: "You think you're bisexual? Thanks but no thanks! Ick."

                            Destination: Pick a side! Make a decision! BE one or the other, this "both" shit won't fly with anyone.

                            Where they go from here depends on many factors. Lots come out as gay, and reinforce the stereotype that bisexuality was never real. Belonging is so much easier and more comfortable.
                            Some go back to being "straight" and either try to keep a lid on their "gay side" or act in in secret and hope they never get caught.

                            Some few will have the strength of character and determination to stick with bisexual as an identity label, and "come out" over and over again, and get rejected over and over again, and get judged over and over again, but eventually build a small and closed circle of community.

                            We find the most acceptance and have built lasting friendships with people we can be open with in a small bisexual community but mostly from within in the polyamorous community and within the larger "kink" communities, because those folks are much more open minded to people just being themselves, loving who they love, living how they live, and doing what they enjoy with consent and honesty. This is a TINY minority of people.

                            The so-called "LGBT community" is not where bisexuals can find acceptance, support, or a sense of belonging. Fuck that, we still have people in that community debating if we exist or not! And granting us their blessings to do so... "Ok, you exist." Gee, thanks!!! I wonder why more bisexuals do not come out and be proud in the gay community? Sigh.

                            Yes it should be clear I am speaking from very personal experience as well. I am still happily married to my bisexual husband, 17 years after he came out, first to himself then me then slowly to some select others. We have been through every phase, and I spent more than 10 years very active in bi support groups, spouse and partner support groups, and the "LGBT community" figuring out what I am and what my husband is and what these labels mean, or don't mean. I have a lot to say on this subject -- although I usually do not anymore. These debates eventually got old and we moved on. Now we just live our lives, with those select few who know us, and our personal life is not the business of the world at large.

                            Demanding we "come out" in order to "gain acceptance" is a joke. All it means is bringing judgment down on your head from almost all quarters. You do find out who your friends are though. And it's been an extremely interesting life!

                          •  Please see my comment here. (3+ / 0-)

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            You wouldn't have had any reason to know this, but FYI , and thanks for your long comment here. It would be a valuable illustration of the issue for anyone unfamiliar.

                          •  Thank you, excellent comment! (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bastrop, Dave in Northridge

                            Love this part especially:

                            Then I realized that not only did I not owe anyone an explanation but that I had paid my dies in full as part of the gay community for my life since sexual maturity and that anyone who had a an issue with my preferences could go fuck themselves.
                            If there is a single statement to sum up why most bisexual people don't come out to everyone all the time, this is it! My sentiments exactly. :)
                          •  Thank you. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            CS in AZ, commonmass

                            Back when I bothered, my most frequent response to the issue surely was "Who the fuck is anyone else to say?"

                      •  I know homophobes like to think otherwise... (4+ / 0-)

                        ...but some straight men do like anal stimulation.

              •  Are you saying the majority of Ancient Greek upper (0+ / 0-)

                class men were gay in our modern sense?

                yeah, right.

                •  It's always been my impression... (5+ / 0-)

                  that while ancient Greek society viewed a sexual relationship between an adult male and an ephebe as a rite of passage for the ephebe, acceptance of sexual and/or romantic relationships between two adult males varied greatly and was more the exception than the rule. At the same time, lack of acceptance of such, unlike in our own culture, was reflected mainly by way of disdain rather than by way of moral condemnation and prosecution. And for that reason "lack of acceptance" was more relative than absolute. It was not viewed as ideal but it was most certainly tolerated.

                  I seem to recall having read that in contrast to Socrates, who was mainly heterosexual and who was married to a woman, his prize pupil Plato who memorialized him by composing the many dialogs of which Socrates is the star (including most importantly for current purposes The Symposium which touches on, among other things, the topic of male beauty), was most likely entirely homosexual. This did not prevent him from having a great deal of success as an academician.

                  •  My understanding is this: "Gay" sex was pretty (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    VeggiElaine

                    compulsory.

                    Male/male love was too.  But it doesn't seem the rules of that love match very well with how we think of love.

                    Male love for women was suspicious, though there was a lot of pressure to marry.

                    But at least for the upper classes, and based only upon the records we have, there seems to have been advice about the correct posture:  doggy style.  In part so as not to confuse marital love with the type of love appropriate with male/male love.

                    Which, however, should be different than marital love :)

                    Correct sexual posture for men was also described:  spooning, with the older male spooning the younger.

                    It was considered very bad for the younger to spoon the older.

                    But, again, we don't have a lot of records.

                    And none in regard to the lower classes.

                    Some speculate that homosexuality was revered only for the educated upper classes  --  based on snippets.

                  •  In a weird way, we've gone backwards... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Bob Love

                    for lack of a better term.  In modern society,  sex between two adult males is acceptable but an older male with a teenage boy is absolutely verboten.

              •  sure they are. (3+ / 0-)

                they're whatever they say they are.

                hell the majority of the male porn stars in gay porn self ID as straight.

                Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. uid 52583 lol

                by terrypinder on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 07:21:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Very different physical stimulation. May or may (0+ / 0-)

                not be emotionally or romantically attracted to men, but some men just really enjoy the physical sensations, some enjoy more than that.

                Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. ~The Druid.
                ~Ideals aren't goals, they're navigation aids.~

                by FarWestGirl on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 12:59:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, butt fucking married men is certainly (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          svboston, VeggiElaine, OrganicChemist

          something to be proud of.

          And I'm certain some of these men are gay, some are bi, and some are straight.

          And some are fetishists.

          Like the guy who like to be whipped, and doesn't  care if the person whipping him is male, female or a sheep.

          It's not about personal relationship.  It's about being whipped.

          Anyway, if this is what gay pride is all about....  screwing married men, and being proud of it, then....   wow.

          •  Gay pride... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            commonmass, Crabby Abbey, orestes1963

            ...is about not being ashamed about being attracted to the same sex.

            And not every married couple is exclusive, you know. Married / monogamous.

            •  What happened to the equals signs in the... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Crabby Abbey

              ...not-equal-to?

              /
              = / =

              Hmm....

            •  I could be wrong, but Commonmass seems to be (0+ / 0-)

              saying he's proud to be able to provide a dick to married men, who's wives have no idea what is going on.

              Read his comments again.

              It seems explicit that the wives don't know.

              •  why is that his problem? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                commonmass, Crabby Abbey

                are you saying commonmass should check for a ring when the married man obviously comes to HIM?

                really?

                that's HIS problem?

                Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. uid 52583 lol

                by terrypinder on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 07:22:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Gee, I think people should think about whether (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VeggiElaine

                  it's a good thing to sleep with married people.

                  You don't?

                  You think it's perfectly ok to sleep with married people?  As a matter of course?

                  No big deal?

                  Yes, I think people should be concerned about sleeping with married people.

                  I don't think people have carte blanch to harm the unaware spouse just cuz they want to get their rocks off.

                •  If I come to you and want you to kill me, is it (0+ / 0-)

                  ok for you to follow through?

                  What does who instigates things  have to do with morality of making it a habit of screwing married folk?  Some married guy wants to get butt fucked, so who needs to worry about the spouse?

                  Really?

                  •  having sex and murder are two different (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    vacantlook, Crabby Abbey

                    things. come on.

                    Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. uid 52583 lol

                    by terrypinder on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 07:48:28 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh good Lord, seriously? (0+ / 0-)

                    Cheating is the same as murder? Seriously?

                    Behold the shark you have now jumped.

                    •  The problem as I see it is this: (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Lonely Texan

                      If two people are in a relationship, say a man and a woman (but this goes for all exclusive couples), and they have agreed to be faithful, but one of them, say the man, is not, but pretends to be, then the other partner, in this case the wife, can't be blamed for feeling safe in the relationship.

                      However, she finds out that she has an STD, perhaps even AIDS, and she wonders how this can be. The only conclusion is that the partner has been unfaithful and been lying. When she finds out from the partner, once he decides to be truthful, that he has been engaging in unprotected anal sex with other men because he felt that his wife couldn't provide this, it is not surprising that she would be angry or betrayed. First of all he wasn't honest with her in the first place. If he had been, he might have discovered that she may have obliged him with anal stimulation. People in love will often go beyond their boundaries to some extent if they feel it will keep their beloved from straying. If the partner finds out these things after the fact, then she wasn't really given a chance, and it is probably too late for honesty at this point to do any good.

                      Now as to who is to blame, I would say the partner who pretended to agree to monogamy and then cheated is to blame. He may have gotten an STD from a gay man which the gay man may or may not have known he had at the time, but the gay man did not force himself on the partner, and the partner may also have lied to the gay man to get what he wanted. Married men often give out false names and phone numbers. Some even create whole alternate identities. Sometimes it is not only the original partner who is the victim here. But it is not unusual to blame the partners indiscretions on the paramours. It is easier to think that the partner was lured astray, which may or may not have been the case, rather than to judge oneself as a poor judge of character.

                      While I think it would be much healthier for our society to be open and honest about what our sexuality, sexual preferences, and sexual expectations are. Our society and many of the individuals in it are so sex phobic that it is unlikely to happen any time soon. How many relationships are going to get off the ground if the partner says, "I really want to have a relationship with you, but there will be times when I will need another man to buttfuck me." It can happen, but it is rare.

                      "The economy and the environment are, in fact, permanently intertwined. A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment. Can't have one without the other." -- Meteor Blades

                      by politically indigo on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 07:31:10 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  What I know... (0+ / 0-)

                ...is that you do not know. You weren't there in one way or another.

            •  He's talking about fucking closeted "gay" men. (0+ / 0-)

              If the married man is closeted, then wives don't know.

              This isn't an open relationship, right?????

    •  You should check out Joe Kort's take on straight (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VeggiElaine

      men who have sex with men.

      And as for wives:  Yeah, you're doing a great favor.  It's wonderful to have your husband running around having anal sex with strangers.

      I'm so glad you're helping with such wonderful liberation.

      I like a bunch of what you've written on DKos.  You're a smart guy.

      But this sort of attitude sucks.

      Glad you can delude yourself about what's up.

  •  I try to be open about being bi (24+ / 0-)

    even though it requires the same tiresome explanation over & over that yes, I'm in a monogamous same-sex marriage, and no, that doesn't mean I'm cheating on her, and no, it doesn't mean I've stopped being attracted to men.

    I've had people tell me that bis are "really" closeted gays/lesbians.  And that bis women in particular - are "really" straight women who are just dabbling so they can rush back to the straight community with our "sexy lesbian stories."  Sometimes I've been told both by the same person.  

    which prompts John Sylla, a bisexual activist to admit that gay men use bisexuality as a transition identity, but then to complain that we don't try to imagine that other men might have a different trajectory.
    I've know a lot of bi women who did the opposite:  used "lesbian" as a transitional identity because there was a visible, supportive community for being lesbian but not for being bi.

    I do think at least part of the gay/lesbian community's knee-jerk hostility about bisexuality is that political strategy of being able to say that you were born that way and can't be forced to change.  Homophobes can point at a bi person and say, "That person went from a same-sex to an opposite-sex relationship, so all of you can!"

    Of course, that's exactly why the community shouldn't be in denial about the existence of bisexuality.  Because the only answer to that is, "Yes, that person was born bi and can't be forced to change, either."

    I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

    by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 03:20:51 PM PDT

    •  As a gay man, I will tell you that I have (6+ / 0-)

      had sex with several women. I don't consider myself bi but I will say that I have experimented.

      Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

      by commonmass on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 03:24:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And that's why people should come out (6+ / 0-)

      Thank you for your perspective on this. You're absolutely right about the knee-jerk hostility and its cause (it was discussed in the article but I didn't want to write that part again; I feel I've explained that in diaries more than once).

      But as long as you're part of the 28% who disclose, there's a problem with the other 72%. It's not your problem, but it's a problem.

    •  My list of "yeah, I'd do her" (19+ / 0-)

      is pretty much just as long as my "yeah, I'd do him" when I'm in a fantasy mood...yet I'm in a monogamous opposite gender marriage. (Mr. Scribe and I are both of the opinion that fantasies are harmless -- we can window shop as much as we want, just no fondling the merchandise.) I married him because, well, he rocked my world more than anyone else I knew. Just like you likely married your wife because she rocked your world. I can acknowledge that I'm attracted to other women, even if I don't act on that attraction (just as I don't act on attractions to men other than Mr. Scribe).

      I think your thoughts about bisexuality being used as a bludgeon against gays/lesbians ("they can change, why can't you?") are excellent -- I think there's also still the thought that bisexuals are just gays and lesbians in denial, who are trying to "pass" to suit societal norms and they're just too chicken to be out and proud.

      There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

      by Cali Scribe on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 03:34:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, exactly (15+ / 0-)

        The capability of being attracted to more than one gender does not equal a requirement to act on it.

        Maybe 20 years ago, I went to a conference on bisexuality, and at one workshop we went around and introduced ourselves, several people wondered aloud if they "counted. "  Do you count as bi if you're mostly attracted to one sex, but get involved with the other maybe once every ten years?   If you've never had sex with someone of your own gender, but feel the attraction?  If you like romantic relationships with one gender, but just sex with the other?

        By the time we got around the circle, we were laughing and realizing how alike and how different we were, and how we all "count."

        I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

        by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 03:51:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think there's also a fear... (6+ / 0-)

        ...among many in the gay community that bisexuals are only in it for the sex, and that once the fucking is done bis will always settle down with someone of the opposite sex. I think there are some gay men who won't get involved relationship wise with bi men because their afraid to invest in the relationship because they're afraid the other man will cheat on them with women and eventually dump them for a woman.

        Heck, I have bisexual leanings and I'd be illogically, irrationally apprehensive about being with a bi dude fearing he'd leave me; but then, I have to remind myself that I'd be afraid a full-tilt gay dude would cheat on me too. I seriously have trust issues all around. I at least recognize the problem is me, and not any potential dude I meet.

      •  I think the gay rights movement in the 70's (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kfunk937

        and to some extent up to the present, at least for the "oldtimers," forced the either-you're-gay-or-straight meme for political reasons. Most gay men know that there are straight men out there who are more than willing to seek out gay men for relief. There were a lot of these men (and there still are) who would use gay men for sex and then revile them and deny they had any rights. I think that the either-or dichotomy was intended to combat that hypocrisy. Gay men were forced into the "closet," but the straight men always knew they could find the "closet door" in a restroom or a park.

        However, I don't think that all of these men, nor even most of them, are bisexual, but they are usually perceived that way. The gay community was rightly upset with these men for their double standard. Why was their part in a homosexual act ok, when an admitted homosexual's part was not. The excuse has been that the man who takes the traditional role of insertor is somehow superior to the man who is the insertee, probably because it more typically mimics what is considered the traditional male-female sex roles. Unfortunately, bisexuals have suffered form this paradigm. For this and for several other reasons.

        Part of the problem is our language isn't rich enough to economically codify sexual experience. The word "sex" itself can mean the subject of sex, the gender of a person, the act of using our genitals for pleasure or procreation, the sexual organs themselves and probably more. So much is lumped together here that it is no wonder that our understanding of sex is confused. I think that the main problem is that we tend to confuse sex with sexuality. They are not really the same. I don't think when we speak of homosex that we are necessarily speaking about homosexuality any more than we are speaking about bisex when we are speaking about bisexuality or heterosex when speaking of heterosexuality. The orientation of our sexuality doesn't necessarily mean that the orientation of our sexual activity is exclusively in line with it. Any two (or more if you're so inclined) people can have sex with each other for reasons other than sexuality. While who we have sex with is a part of our sexuality, it is not what defines it. If that were true, all of those gay men and women who got married in the 50's and were faithful to their spouses but longed for a same-sex companion weren't really gay. Right? Two straight men can have sex with each other and still be straight. It happens in prison all the time. Bisexuals have an advantage in that it really doesn't matter, but someone engaging in bisex isn't necessarily bi.

        I have always believed that bisexuals exist, even though I'm gay, and I never bought the either or argument. My feelings are based on my own experience with bisexuals. I have always found that bisexual men are better in bed, and I think that is because they have experience with women. Bisexuals also seemed to be attracted to the person and the possibilities having sex with that person presents. Bisexuals seem more likely to treat sex as an aesthetic experience. They see sex more as an art than as simply a means to get their rocks off. They, in short, enjoy sex for sex itself, be it homo or hetero.  I think that it is sad that bisexuals are given little tolerance by most gays and straights and I think that the  reason is that if you lose your bisexual partner to someone of the opposite sex from you, there is really no way you can compete, particularly in days gone by. What someone of the opposite sex might be able to give them was, and still may be, children.

        Personally, I think that all attraction is based on the biological urge to procreate, even homosexual attraction. I think that even gay attraction is biologically driven by the underlying feeling that the other person would be a good person to make babies with. I think that the gay men who now have families is to some extent a proof of that. Coming out of the closet has made that possible for gay men, and it is a far cry from waiting for a little sexual attention in some dingy toilet.

        "The economy and the environment are, in fact, permanently intertwined. A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment. Can't have one without the other." -- Meteor Blades

        by politically indigo on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 09:14:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Some years back there was a study (9+ / 0-)

    that measured men's physical response to male and female porn.  The NY Times described it under the cutesy title Straight, Gay, or Lying:

    The psychologists found that men who identified themselves as bisexual were in fact exclusively aroused by either one sex or the other, usually by other men.
    However, further down in same the article, "exclusively" turns out not to mean exclusively:
    But the men in the study who described themselves as bisexual did not have patterns of arousal that were consistent with their stated attraction to men and to women. Instead, about three-quarters of the group had arousal patterns identical to those of gay men; the rest were indistinguishable from heterosexuals.

    "Regardless of whether the men were gay, straight or bisexual, they showed about four times more arousal" to one sex or the other, said Gerulf Rieger, a graduate psychology student at Northwestern and the study's lead author.

    Although about a third of the men in each group showed no significant arousal watching the movies, their lack of response did not change the overall findings, Mr. Rieger said.

    So a third of the men had no response, regardless of orientation, but this is not treated as proof that a third of men are asexual.  As for the other two-thirds, all of them showed attraction to both sexes - just not the 50/50 split that's the cliche of bisexuality.  Yet one gay website (I think it was AmericaBlog?) put the article under the title "Bisexuality is Bullshit."

    I dunno, it just seems obvious to me that an 80/20 split is bi if that 20% is important to you, straight or gay/lesbian if it isn't.

    I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

    by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 03:35:24 PM PDT

  •  I'm bi and out (10+ / 0-)

    though with age and other factors I'm not dating.

    A very large number of women associated with the BDSM community are Bi, I'd guess more than half. A downside to being female and bi -straight guys wanting you to entertain them with that aspect of your sexuality. Hey guys, everything isn't about you.

    fact does not require fiction for balance (proudly a DFH)

    by mollyd on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 03:39:30 PM PDT

  •  I identify as "straight" (9+ / 0-)

    but I haven't always been certain about that. I confided to my ex-girlfriend, back in the 90s, that I might have some bisexual tendencies, and that was a big turnoff for her. Probably the beginning of the end of the relationship. Being attracted to other women wasn't a problem, but even a slight attraction to men was.

    Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

    by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 04:06:10 PM PDT

  •  I don't even know what the hell "bisexual" is (4+ / 0-)

    supposed to mean.

    My operating assumption is that most human beings could, under the "right" circumstances, get off on sex with someone of either sex. For heaven's sake, lots of people get off on sex with their pets and/or livestock. As a species, we really aren't all that particular about getting our jollies.

    So my question is, are we supposed to be separating a capacity for sexual arousal/pleasure from a capacity for love?

    From my perspective -- boring white middle-aged heterosexual guy -- it's all about falling in love. If, post-adolescence, you've "had crushes" on people of both sexes, then you're bi-something. Bi-what? Bi-Sexual? Bi-Amatory? I dunno. If not -- if you only ever get that feeling (not the I'd like to shtup that person feeling, but the I'm going to die if I don't get to spend a lot of time with that person feeling) about persons of one sex, then I'd say you're not bi-whatever-it-is.

    To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

    by UntimelyRippd on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 04:12:38 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, some people have strong sexual attractions (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave in Northridge, kfunk937

      to one sex, and strong emotional/romantic attractions to the other sex.

      Complicated life that would be.

      I'm just glad my amatory and sexual self lines up with each other, more or less :)

    •  I have a big problem with the whole bestiality... (0+ / 0-)

      ...thing. (To me, it's akin to animal cruelty.) Frankly, I think it's apples and oranges as far as this post is concerned.

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 11:44:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The reason I mentioned it is to highlight (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobswern, commonmass

        the fact that we don't even have a working definition of "bisexual", but that if it is primarily about being willing and able to enjoy sex with persons of either sex, it doesn't mean very much. Indeed I agree with you that it is apples and oranges as far as something is concerned -- that was my whole point. The question is, is it apples and oranges as far as the sort of research described in the diary is concerned?

        I've never met, or read an account of, anyone who fell in love with a dog or a goat. However, accounts of people having sex with dogs or goats -- those are not rare. A heterosexual man who has sex with his goats doesn't become, in our understanding, something other than a heterosexual man; yet a heterosexual man who can/will/does have sex with other men is presumed to be something other than a heterosexual man.

        What I am saying is that there is a difference between the scope of one's sexual libertinism -- that is, the scope within which one is willing/able to do whatever feels good -- and "sexual" orientation, which is about complex mating behavior encompassing far more than just physical sex acts.

        To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

        by UntimelyRippd on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 07:31:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for this educational post Dave. I was going (6+ / 0-)

    to republish it in SciTech but someone beat me to it, so I'll repost if in And, Now For Something Completely Different.

    I hope I don't appear Naive but may I ask what a "self-professed Kinsey 5" is? I've heard about Babylon 5, (or is it 9?) the Jackson 5, and that 6-9 thing and even 420 in the personals, 1984 and just learned yesterday, what a 501(c)4, is but all of these numbers are starting to confuse me.

    "Seriously, Folks, WTH?" - ("What the Heck? "h/t Joan McCarter, Seriously, Florida. WTF?)

    by HoundDog on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 04:17:29 PM PDT

    •  Extra! Extra! Read all about it! (3+ / 0-)

      "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." -- Anatole France

      by terremoto on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 05:06:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You forgot 2 to tango (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave in Northridge

      and 50 ways to leave your lover.

      I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

      by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 05:38:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Babylon 5... (5+ / 0-)

      ...is far superior to Deep Space 9, which is a total rip-off (seriously, it is, Straczynski shopped B5 to Paramount, who dismissed the idea, and then only once they learned that Warner Bros. had picked up B5 did they start development on DS9). B5 existed in very detailed pre-written strokes (the show had been outlined so heavily that Straczynski designed the show to not last more than five seasons because the story had a definitive beginning, middle, and end before a single episode had been written). So things that were presented about B5 ended up copied into DS9, like having a station with a vortex form of space travel outside (B5 has the jumpgate into hyperspace, DS9 has the wormhole). Even character names are the same: Lyta versus Leeta, Dukhat versus Dukat. Both Sheridan and Sisko ended their part in the stories surrounded by white light after having obtained some level of quasi-messianic position within their respective stories. But, B5 came first. And B5, despite some not so great episodes, is an excellent story, full of very tense, dramatic political plotlines. B5 was the first tv show to film in widescreen (though a loss by Warner Bros. of CGI files prevented the always intended process of recompositing the show into widescreen from being a clean process as Straczynski had intended it to be). B5 was also the first show to have online content; Straczynski's first posting about B5 online was in 1992. B5 was also the first show to use CGI for all it's special effects; Star Trek at the time and for several years afterward was still using practical models. And B5 was the show that taught me that the story didn't have to end at the end of an episode. So, it holds a very special place in my heart.

      No, I'm not a nerd. :D

      If I remember correctly the Kinsey scale is:

      0 - completely hetero
      1 - mostly hetero
      2 - slightly less hetero
      3 - completely bi
      4 - slightly less homo
      5 - mostly homo
      6 - completely homo

      ??

      Or maybe it's reversed with 0 being homo and 6 being hetero; I can't remember exactly.

  •  TheOnion Already Knew This (10+ / 0-)

    http://www.theonion.com/...

    Lesbian Identity Ends Abruptly Mid-Junior Year

    OBERLIN, OH—Three semesters after adopting the sexual identity, Amanda Oppel, a junior women's-studies major at Oberlin College, abruptly dropped her highly politicized lesbian stance Monday....

    Despite the shock among Oppel's classmates, older lesbians familiar with the situation were not surprised by the gender-preference reversal.

    "Really? An East Coast rebel girl suddenly isn't a dyke anymore halfway through her junior year of college? That's shocking," said Gwen Mims, 46, author and Oberlin women's-studies professor. "What a stunner. Wow."

    Nevertheless, many of Oppel's former peers still cannot bring themselves to believe that her angry-dyke-activist days are over.

    "It just doesn't add up," said Campus Womyn's Caucus chairwomon Mia Petrovich, 20. "If it's true, that would imply that there is some aspect of collegiate revolutionary Marxist-feminist lesbian identity that is, in some way, less than completely genuine. And that's something my most heartfelt convictions will simply not allow me to accept, at least for the next few semesters, anyway."

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 04:21:20 PM PDT

  •  It's easier to say I'm gay. (6+ / 0-)

    I could identify as bi, if I wanted to fight that fight, but I don't feel like having to provide a huge detailed explanation that I'm far, far more interested in men, but that on more rarer occasions women will seem interesting, but just not interesting enough to make me really want to do anything about it. I've only ever acted on it once, but that once was my longest, most satisfying relationship. But I deeply want a relationship with a man. It's complicated. And because of that complication, I just stick to identifying as gay.

    •  Back when I was young (4+ / 0-)

      I had a five-plus-year-long relationship with a woman (we were both virgins when we met). It really was a lovely relationship in most respects and we are still friends. Still it became apparent to me at a certain point that I would really be more satisfied being in a relationship with a guy...some (theoretical) guy. And so our relationship became a friendship--gradually. It didn't stop being sexual the moment I told her I was gay; that actually took another couple of years.

      We'd met as undergraduates; we were both white, middle-class and Jewish. Our educations and our interests proceeded along similar lines. I came out of the closet for real after I'd graduated so where was I going to meet guys? Bars mostly. So I continually met people I had little or nothing in common with. It did sometimes occur that I'd meet someone who was an equal in some significant respects; for one reason or another those situations never seemed to work out. And neither did the ones wherein there were significant differences in outlook or background, in education and so on. Of course I tended to go either for the guys who hit on me or for the ones I found physically attractive without considering what else, if anything, those individuals might have to offer me. And truly I was not adept in discovering those sorts of things when I was younger. So I experienced a great deal of frustration and at one point I called my ex girlfriend and asked her to marry me. She rightly pointed out that I really didn't actually want to be married to her (at the time she was vehemently opposed to ever marrying anyone; now of course she has a husband but they only married when she was in her 50's). She was right of course. It had been a wonderful relationship on its own terms but it really wasn't what was going to truly satisfy me in the long run.

      I'm with you. There are women I find notably pretty but there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to do anything about it other than to admire.

      •  I'm straight, but still find women cute. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kfunk937

        But then again, good music can also turn me on, yet I have no idea how one would have sex with musical notes :)

        The urge to bond seems to have little to do with erotic arousal in many ways.

        Or rather, goes far beyond it, and includes lots of other stuff.

        It seems that sexual orientation is more about bonding desires than about sex per se.

        •  Like nearly any possible observation (3+ / 0-)

          that one may or may not be accurate. Or at any rate there's always room for more nuance. At best one would have to suppose it varies from person to person. As it is, some people evince little to no interest in actually bonding. In my experience most such people are male. And they can be gay, straight, or bisexual but regardless of the object their interests appear to be entirely sex-related. And then there are other people who seem to have little or no interest in sex as such but a great deal of interest in bonding. Those people appear as a likely to be men as women.

          There are are plenty of people whose motivations seem to be easy to understand and others who appear to be put together in ways I cannot even begin to comprehend.

  •  IMO, the label "bisexuality" describes several (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sfbob, CenPhx, Ahianne

    orientations which may be different.  Consider three common behaviors:

    A person spends a good part of their life exclusively in relations with one gender, then spends the remainder of their life exclusively in relations with the other gender.

    A person who has relations with both genders serially throughout their life.

    A person who wants to have relations with both genders at the same time, either co-habbiting or in an open relationship of some type.

    As others have commented, part of the problem is trying to apply a few labels to a wide variety of human experiences.  In addition, some but certainly not all people experience some fluidity in various aspects of their lives, including their sexual interests.

  •  When I saw the title of that Times article (6+ / 0-)

    My first response was to wonder, more or less out loud, there's a reason the existence of bisexuality needs to be proven? I know plenty of people who identify as bisexual. Some of them are so more in a theoretical sense than by way of experience but the mere fact that they are open to exploration of the various parts of of their sexuality seems to me like sufficient reason to credit their right to identify themselves as bisexual. I have also known a number of people, fewer, but not even close to none at all, who have had long-term relationships with both men and with women (one at a time, as a rule). So why would anyone try to claim there is no such thing as bisexuality?

    Certainly sexuality is a complex phenomenon. I don't have a problem with labels as long as they're used for the sake of convenience, rather than as some sort of straitjacket. I call myself a gay man not because I have some sort of sense of obligation to be involved sexually and/or romantically only with other men, but because although I did once have a very nice relationship with a woman--one that lasted for several years before we transitioned to being friends--it seems highly unlikely to me that I would become involved with another woman. That having been said, it doesn't mean I'm not permitted to have an intimate relationship ever again; all it means is that it's probably not gonna happen. My presumption is that if I were interested in presenting myself as bisexual I would be indicating, in doing that that I was interested in men and women either more or less equally or that the gender of a prospective partner was a matter of complete indifference to me.

    It always struck me that if we view sexual orientation on a continuum, it's likely that rather than the distribution occurring as a bell curve, it would more likely have three distinct peaks (and perhaps several other smaller ones). This is mere presumption on my part of course. Our culture is sufficiently obsessed with classifying people based on sexual orientation that we are to some extent prisoners of that tendency, so it's really difficult to know what the distribution would be like in the complete absence of any form of societal pressure at all.

  •  Hi Dave. I wonder if I might call you attention (4+ / 0-)

    to this post that just come up about 20 minutes ago from davidincleveland

    wherein david seems to be describing a case where he was harassed here at Daily Kos, in a way similar to the case you just described to me earlier this morning.

    I know nothing about it other than what I read here, and I recommended in a comment that he come here looking for moral support and also report the incident to the admins. I also offered to look into if he sends me the info by email. He did not make any specific call out in his post.

    But, it occured to me that either you are one of yyour readers here may want to visit his post and over encouragement.

    I don't believe we should tolerate any harassment here at Daily Kos based on  sexual orientation, gender identity, affectation, or expression,  in addition to all of the other forms of discrimination. Thanks and keep on truckin'

    "Seriously, Folks, WTH?" - ("What the Heck? "h/t Joan McCarter, Seriously, Florida. WTF?)

    by HoundDog on Sat Mar 29, 2014 at 11:21:09 PM PDT

    •  HoundDog, (3+ / 0-)

      I believe this dairy is the one that davidincleveland took offense to. See his new comment near the top.

      Oddly there was no interaction in the comments here. I think davidincleveland read this diary, was offended by it and wrote a diary in response.

      I've read both diaries twice and maybe I'm dense but I'm still confused about the source of contention.

      What about the climate cliff?

      by wayoutinthestix on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 09:43:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think the most interesting concept(s)... (5+ / 0-)

    ...in the article discussed here is the entire notion that sexual preference is not really a static matter--as much as some might insist that it is/be, especially among Masters' "1's" and "6's"--for a much larger portion of the population than many realize or are willing to acknowledge.

    Democrat? Republican? Straight? Gay? Bi?

    People love labels. And, also more often than many are willing to admit, IMHO, those labels sell the public discussion short.

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 12:02:05 AM PDT

  •  Kinsey 3 here, missed all the fireworks (5+ / 0-)

    so I'll post a comment late in the game, unlikely to be read by other than the diarist, but compelled nonetheless to add my voice on the issue.

    I am not particularly interested in the political dynamics of this issue. I get the concerned expressed about the closet and how everyone being open would be an enhanced solidarity on the issue of sexual orientation and sexual identity. The truth is I don't give enough of a shit about what other people think of me on any side of any issue to really fight that fight.

    OTOH, I have plenty of experience with gay men being hostile toward my bisexuality for whatever reason, and I have spent some time end energy as a younger person trying to fight that battle and dispel all those stereotypical assumptions and preconceptions. Then I realized that not only did I not owe anyone an explanation but that I had paid my dies in full as part of the gay community for my life since sexual maturity and that anyone who had a an issue with my preferences could go fuck themselves.

    The other diary that is responding to the comments here is valid and worth reading for anyone interested in the issue. I don't see either/or so to me both of these diaries are a service to the community in that they discuss the point at all, let alone delve deeper.

    I would just say to everyone with strong or fixed opinions about the sex lives of others: as a wholly bisexual man in an opposite sex long term (25 year) relationship/marriage that if you have some notions about what does or doesn't make someone else gay/straight/whatever the answer is you are almost certainly wrong. Unless they tell you what they are. Then they are what they say they are and if you don't like it, find something else to do with your time...

    •  I'm bisexual, and married (0+ / 0-)

      To a wonderful woman. We've got a three year old son, and are expecting another in August.
      I'm out everywhere but at work, because in Indiana you can get fired for being LGBT still.
      I'm bi. I'm more attracted to men than to women, but the attraction is still there.
      Actually I'm pansexual but most don't know that term so I say bi.
      I've gotten so much hate from my hyperchristian family,  that to get a ton of flack from my "allies" hurts even more.
      Fortunately the leather bar I frequent is full of folks who don't jdge and are fine with me as I am (probably because I'm cute, but I'll take it).
      So yes, we "out bisexuals", we exist.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site