Comments 3

  1. Interesting. But I feel that she’s using her “anger of non-acceptance” that she’s experienced from a very small minority (in the scheme of all gays [assuming she’s in the USA]) towards the majority of gays AND straights (that may watch her video).

    And I do agree that lesbians (and bisexual females) do tend to get the short stick in the recognition “arena”.

    I totally agree with her though in the statement that whatever she is is enough to be herself and to express herself in any way she desires. She and everyone else is just fine the way they are regarding their gender and sexuality.

    Good luck being yourself.

    Critically, she needs to edit the video removing the very first part and the very last part.

  2. Thank you so much for posting this video. When I was younger I really struggled with my own bisexuality. It did not help at all that I had to confront other people’s judgments and stereotypes along the way. I did not grow up in the USA, but here I was in the USA, with a boyfriend, and I as told confidently by several people that my relationships prior to arriving in the US were not “real” gay relationships, because “there are no gay people” in the country you come from. The reply was that Of course, no gay people really meant, no gay people that fit our stereotype definition. In this video, she puts the nail on the head, in my opinion: she as a woman loves another woman. I as a man loved another man. That is my definition — regardless of all stereotypes. I’m glad there is now recognition that gay people live all over the planet!!! I still find it difficult to get support for being bisexual — I don’t feel that has gotten any easier.

  3. Bisexuality is dangerous. On several fronts. First, the practical. A bisexual can steal your mate. No matter who you are, no matter your orientation, the impression is that the possibility exists that they might woo your mate away. I don’t think that’s consciously worried about by many people, but I think it’s at least at the heart of some of it.

    Secondly, and this is probably the bigger one though also not entirely conscious, it conflicts with the ‘standard theory’ of sexuality that people want to promote. They want to promote the idea that sexual orientation is concrete and static, a genetic condition predetermined before birth. That a straight mans revulsion over the male body and male-on-male relations springs from a genetic root, and a gay mans revulsion over the female body and male-on-female relations comes from the same one. The idea that there is a switch that says ‘you are attracted to X, which implies repulsion from Y’.

    The reason this idea of concrete orientation as a genetic condition was adopted was because it was socially useful. It provided a legitimate way to fight gay bashing and to identify the bigotry as akin to racism – discriminating against people for something which they have no control over. There is a poisonous implication under that approach, though. It says ‘if people had the power to choose their sexual proclivities, then society would be in the right to force them to choose heterosexuality.’ The whole reason “it’s not a choice” is important is because everyone assumes that if it WERE a choice, then there would be no justification for deviating from the norm.

    So when a bisexual person pops up, this comes up. If the reason you don’t persecute gays is because they have no choice in the matter – what do you do about bisexuals who DO have a choice in the matter? It starts to break down the whole argument. Because the argument was never dealt with rationally, and because people tried to take a shortcut and put forward an idea that seemed expedient at the time without considering the full consequences, revisting the argument is dangerous. All progress has been hard-won and we risk losing it if we debase the whole “it’s not a choice” dogma.

    Whenever a position is taken, it has consequences. You can not accept a single idea, you have to accept all of the implications it creates. For instance, genetically predetermined orientation means orientation should probably be detectable in children. So we get gays looking back at the time they wore their mothers dress when they were 8, or asked for a Barbie for Christmas when they were 9. But, we also get straight guys who wore their mothers dress at 8 and asked for a Barbie at 9 motivated to deny and conceal such things. It engenders fear. Fear that a person might be living a lie.

    Parents and children alike no longer see a couple boys with their arms over each others shoulders as friendly kids, they see it as a possible indication of a genetic condition that will determine their life. And kids aren’t deaf or nearly as ignorant as most think. The idea of being totally consistent with gender norms becomes radically more crucial. When boys hit puberty, if they have any inklings of attraction to other boys, even innocuous friendly feelings, it sends them into a panic. They are afraid those feelings might mean they are gay, that there is a genetic juggernaut of inevitable orientation bearing down on them. It makes them neurotic and results in them training themselves to be disgusted by the male body, to playact a revulsion to all things not-entirely-straight. It takes what should be an enjoyable experience of curious exploration and discovery of ones self and turns it into a neurotic tunnel of fear. It robs people of any feeling of agency. They feel like a major part of their life is being forced upon them, and are always watching closely for any hints or signs that they might be gay. They fight it anyway. This (combined with the taboo nature of exploring sexuality at all for adolescents) is what gives rise to the frustration and cruelty of adolescents.

    A bisexual seems to be “cheating”. Gays deal with the struggle that they cannot change their orientation (which I entirely believe, but which does not imply a genetic basis… I personally think it is more likely to come from early childhood experiences (not sexual ones and not anything anyone could control) and how a person deals with them) and anyone who says ‘I would change if I could’, if they are telling the truth, would look at a bisexual with disbelief. They, ostensibly, could choose but do not. Straight people think that since a bisexual can choose, they SHOULD choose heterosexual relationships, because no one told them that society exerting that kind of control over someones life is despicable and wrong. They’ve been told all along that the ONLY reason they need to accept gays is because it is a genetic condition which can not be changed.

    (Now I know my views are not common, but they are long-considered and very nuanced, so please do not simply presume to be able to guess them. My views retain every iota of social acceptance for non-heterosexual orientations and include a great deal more than the ‘standard argument’. Said simply: No, it’s not a choice. No, it’s not genetic. Everyone is born bisexual, and positive ‘orientations’ become deeply and immutably ingrained long before puberty, with negative ‘repulsions’ being trained responses (which can be changed) people force on themselves mostly during puberty to conform to their society. Humans are abundantly sexual creatures, and the idea that there is hard wiring to reject attraction to certain genders is, I believe, fundamentally flawed. How did our genes supposedly learn about our socially created gender roles anyway? A straight man can be attracted to Bailey Jay not because she has a vagina, but because she looks feminine. So how did our DNA figure out we wouldn’t have men wearing dresses and pigtails?)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *