" From the beginning of the human kind, fear was necessary to keep us alive and avoid certain dangers lions, bigger monkeys, ecc. so is well preserved in our brains because we can't compair 500 years of so called evolution with two…"
I Power
Scientific Research & Self-Development Activism
The social invisibility of bissexuality
I was intending to write about this subject for some time, and today I read some news that made me think it's time to do it. This happened because someone reposted, in a GLBT forum I read, the news of Brazilian singer Marina Lima's revelation that she had a teenager affair with Brazilian singer Gal Costa. Marina's been out of the closet as bissexual for ages (literally more than a decade), and though Gal tends to keep her private life private, her sexual orientation is no news to anyone, so that's more an interesting piece of information than earth-shatering news. What made me angry when reading the news was a mocking coment by lesbian singer Laura Finnochiaro, that said something to the extent of: ''Well, Marina has had a gay-friendly posture for ages, and now she decides to shatter the closet altogether. Yeah, that's gonna shake the very foundations of Brazliian music industry''.
In my opinion, that comment was very disrespectful. Not only because it implied Marina's revelation was a marketing strategy, but mainly for saying she has had a ''gay-friendly'' posture (the word she used was ''simpatizante'', which means a heterossexual person who supports sexual diversity), and that only NOW Marina's ''coming out of the closet''. I've seen interviews with Marina, and I have listened to her music, and she was never shy about her bissexuality. To say that she was nothing but ''gay-friendly'' and only came out of the closet now is to deny that bissexual people have a place in the GLBT community.
That reminded me of the reaction to another Brazilian singer, Ana Carolina, coming out of the closet as a bissexual in the cover of one of Brazil's biggest magazines. A lot of lesbian women said she was ''keeping a foot in the closet'', blatantly disregarding what she had to say about her own sexuality.
On a more personal note, a lesbian activist in my town told the president of my GLBT youth group not long ago that he should ''review my position'' as director of the local unity of our group because I ''don't see myself as a lesbian'' and because I have a boyfriend.
If people in the very GLBT movement basically deny the existence of bissexuality, what should we expect of the general population?? I remember the uproar caused by an article in the American press entitled ''Gay, Straight or Lying'', that denied the existence of bissexual men altogether. The existence of bissexuality was also debunked by an ''expert'' in a Brazlian article about the subject, though the piece itself had several different opinions, and didn't intend to take a side in the discussion (but my group still sent the editors a letter protesting the inclusion of the ''expert'''s statement).
The social invisibility of bissexuality has several causes. One of them is heteronormativity: the idea that heterossexuality is the ''normal'' behavior, and every other expression of sexuality is a deviation from normal. Therefore, if someone is not heterossexual, it means that person is somehow ''broken'', uncapable of heterossexual behavior. That doesn't leave much room to the idea that someone can have homossexual AND heterossexual behavior.
Another reason for the social invisibilty of bissexuality is..well, let's just call it The Kate Perry Effect. Usually bissexual behavior by women is only seen in the context of ''experimentation'', a way of being ''rebelious'', or to turn men on. It's a bissexual behavior that usually don't go much further than kissing, and when it involves sex usually there's some form of male participation. It's not common in our society to see openly bissexual women who have stable relationships with both men and women (not at the same time..lol)
Bissexual men, of course, are MUCH more invisible. That happens for a combination of 03 reasons. The first one is fed and feeds the invisibility of bissexuality, and it's the notion that if a man has sexual relations with another man, he's automatically gay. It's like he's ''contaminated'' with a stain that can never go out. Once you go gay, you can't get back to the ''normal'' field of heterossexuality. Therefore, any man with a homossexual behavior is automatically labeled as gay, and the possibility of bissexuality isn't even considered. The other two reasons for bi men's invisibility are born from there. Because women see those men as gay, and also because of the myth that bissexual people tend to be unfaithful and promiscous, it's hard for bi men to carry on relationships with women. They tend to then limit themselves to members of the same sex, and be perceived by society in general as gay. Also, a lot of men with bissexual behavior define themselves as ''gay'' rather than ''bissexual'' because they see gay as a cultural identity, and not just a sexual orientation. In my opinion, that's not the most accurate aproach to things, because it implies that homossexuality is a ''lifestyle'', and not an individual characteristic.
Bissexual people are victims of the worst of prejudices (keep in mind I'm talking about prejudices, as in pre-conceived notions, not about discrimination): their very existence is denied, their feelings about their own sexuality and sexual identity are disregarded and ignored. Even when their existence is acknowledged, they're seen as promiscous, uncapable of keeping a monogamous relationship, ''confused'', going through a ''phase'', etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum.
I believe this invisibility keeps many bissexual people in the closet, making them limit their relationships only to members of the opposite sex, living their sexuality by halves. Also, it adds a lot to the confusion felt by kids, specially men, when they start dealing with feelings for the same sex. It's already very confusing, in our homophobic society, to find out you're gay. It's even worse when you find yourself feeling atracted to both boys and girls, because you feel like you don't know what's going on with you and you have to make a choice. That pressure to make a choice only happens because no one told you bissexuality is a perfectly valid option.
I'm sick and tired of people claiming they know more about my feelings and sexuality than myself. I'm sick and tired of having my identity disregarded even in a group that's supposed to embrace me (there's a B in GLBT just in case you haven't noticed). If we want a society that's more tolerant and less dominated by heteronormativity, we should fight for acceptance and respect for ALL sexual orientations, instead of being so inconsiderate to the ones that don't fit in our mental boxes.
In my opinion, that comment was very disrespectful. Not only because it implied Marina's revelation was a marketing strategy, but mainly for saying she has had a ''gay-friendly'' posture (the word she used was ''simpatizante'', which means a heterossexual person who supports sexual diversity), and that only NOW Marina's ''coming out of the closet''. I've seen interviews with Marina, and I have listened to her music, and she was never shy about her bissexuality. To say that she was nothing but ''gay-friendly'' and only came out of the closet now is to deny that bissexual people have a place in the GLBT community.
That reminded me of the reaction to another Brazilian singer, Ana Carolina, coming out of the closet as a bissexual in the cover of one of Brazil's biggest magazines. A lot of lesbian women said she was ''keeping a foot in the closet'', blatantly disregarding what she had to say about her own sexuality.
On a more personal note, a lesbian activist in my town told the president of my GLBT youth group not long ago that he should ''review my position'' as director of the local unity of our group because I ''don't see myself as a lesbian'' and because I have a boyfriend.
If people in the very GLBT movement basically deny the existence of bissexuality, what should we expect of the general population?? I remember the uproar caused by an article in the American press entitled ''Gay, Straight or Lying'', that denied the existence of bissexual men altogether. The existence of bissexuality was also debunked by an ''expert'' in a Brazlian article about the subject, though the piece itself had several different opinions, and didn't intend to take a side in the discussion (but my group still sent the editors a letter protesting the inclusion of the ''expert'''s statement).
The social invisibility of bissexuality has several causes. One of them is heteronormativity: the idea that heterossexuality is the ''normal'' behavior, and every other expression of sexuality is a deviation from normal. Therefore, if someone is not heterossexual, it means that person is somehow ''broken'', uncapable of heterossexual behavior. That doesn't leave much room to the idea that someone can have homossexual AND heterossexual behavior.
Another reason for the social invisibilty of bissexuality is..well, let's just call it The Kate Perry Effect. Usually bissexual behavior by women is only seen in the context of ''experimentation'', a way of being ''rebelious'', or to turn men on. It's a bissexual behavior that usually don't go much further than kissing, and when it involves sex usually there's some form of male participation. It's not common in our society to see openly bissexual women who have stable relationships with both men and women (not at the same time..lol)
Bissexual men, of course, are MUCH more invisible. That happens for a combination of 03 reasons. The first one is fed and feeds the invisibility of bissexuality, and it's the notion that if a man has sexual relations with another man, he's automatically gay. It's like he's ''contaminated'' with a stain that can never go out. Once you go gay, you can't get back to the ''normal'' field of heterossexuality. Therefore, any man with a homossexual behavior is automatically labeled as gay, and the possibility of bissexuality isn't even considered. The other two reasons for bi men's invisibility are born from there. Because women see those men as gay, and also because of the myth that bissexual people tend to be unfaithful and promiscous, it's hard for bi men to carry on relationships with women. They tend to then limit themselves to members of the same sex, and be perceived by society in general as gay. Also, a lot of men with bissexual behavior define themselves as ''gay'' rather than ''bissexual'' because they see gay as a cultural identity, and not just a sexual orientation. In my opinion, that's not the most accurate aproach to things, because it implies that homossexuality is a ''lifestyle'', and not an individual characteristic.
Bissexual people are victims of the worst of prejudices (keep in mind I'm talking about prejudices, as in pre-conceived notions, not about discrimination): their very existence is denied, their feelings about their own sexuality and sexual identity are disregarded and ignored. Even when their existence is acknowledged, they're seen as promiscous, uncapable of keeping a monogamous relationship, ''confused'', going through a ''phase'', etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum.
I believe this invisibility keeps many bissexual people in the closet, making them limit their relationships only to members of the opposite sex, living their sexuality by halves. Also, it adds a lot to the confusion felt by kids, specially men, when they start dealing with feelings for the same sex. It's already very confusing, in our homophobic society, to find out you're gay. It's even worse when you find yourself feeling atracted to both boys and girls, because you feel like you don't know what's going on with you and you have to make a choice. That pressure to make a choice only happens because no one told you bissexuality is a perfectly valid option.
I'm sick and tired of people claiming they know more about my feelings and sexuality than myself. I'm sick and tired of having my identity disregarded even in a group that's supposed to embrace me (there's a B in GLBT just in case you haven't noticed). If we want a society that's more tolerant and less dominated by heteronormativity, we should fight for acceptance and respect for ALL sexual orientations, instead of being so inconsiderate to the ones that don't fit in our mental boxes.
Views: 93
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Natasha on -
A bi person ''prefering homossexuality more'' is still a bi person! That's one of the many things people need to understand when it comes to bissexuality. Sexual orientation is not about behavior, is about what gender (s) someone is sexually and/or romantically atracted to. People have no problem in understanding that a priest who has never had sexual or romantic relationships with anyone can still be considered straight or gay, they have no problem in calling a virgin person gay or straight, but they still don't grasp the concept that a bissexual person is not less bissexual just because he/she is in a relationship with someone of the opposite/same sex.
A gay man who repress his feelings, gets married to a woman and go live in a house with a white picket fence is still homossexual. A straight man who works as a hustler is still heterossexual. Sexual orientation is not about what you DO, is about what you FEEL.
And I have no problem with labels...we give names to things, and I don't see why it should be different when it comes to sexuality. Of course, there shouldn't be any difference in the way people are treated just because of the label they carry. But giving names to sexual orientations is not in itself a problem. The Romans and Greeks didn't have labels for sexual behavior, and still they discriminated against men who adopted a ''passive'' position in sexual relations (men who ''bottomed'') Labels can in fact be helpful, when they help building an identity.
-
Permalink Reply by Natasha on
-
Cases like that of your friend are very interesting. I think most cases of people who were supposedlly straight and then ''go gay'' can be acounted to internalized homophobia, and repressing of feelings, but the opposite case poses some intriguing questions. I think your friend should be considered whatever he feels like. If he thinks ''straight'' is a better label for his identity in this point of his life, then his sense of identity should be respected.
I don't agree with the theory that we all have the potential for bissexuality mostly because there are many cases of gay people who try living heterossexual lifes for ages, and fail miserably. If there truly was a potential for bissexuality in everyone, people living in places where homossexuality can lead to heavy social discrimination, prison or even death would be able to repress their homossexual feelings, since they would have a ''substitute'' (heterossexual relationships) that would actually be fulfilling. If you can be happy with a woman, you're not gonna go for men when you know it can lead to you being buried alive, right? What I do believe is that there are way more bissexual people out there than we know of.
And I don't think you can say that ''we all have fantasies about bissexuality'' because there's no empyrical way of knowing that. Most people, specially men, deny having any thoughts of the kind. Since we can't know for sure, we got accept their word (specially since, like I said, I have much respect for people's sexual identity and don't assume I know more about it than they do)
-
Permalink Reply by Natasha on
-
''trust me ..all men at one point of another have fantasies about other men ...its something very private and thats why most men will never admit it but most men do think about it sometimes''
If most men will never admit it, how can you be so sure? It's a basic principle of the scientific method that you can't take personal experiences and assume they apply to the world in general. I don't usually assume people are lying or that I know more about their feelings than they do, so if a man tells me he has never had a sexual fantasy about another man, I think the reasonable thing to do is to trust his word.
-
Permalink Reply by JD on -
I think that many folks can understand the idea that someone can have homossexual AND heterossexual behavior, but are theytruly bisexual? That may be more difficult for many people to understand. Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered folks all continue to struggle with acceptance, and it has been slow in coming. But, I honestly believe that we are moving closer and closer every year to acceptance. Recognition that we are all different is one thing, favorable reception is quite another.
-
Permalink Reply by Adrian C on -
Lets say that there is an imaginary line and at the extremes of this line there is a label: homosexual and heterosexual. I'm going to brutally simplify my strain of tought here, so don't make an asshole out of me yet. At the center of this line is bisexual. If we should see the extremes of this line as being countries at war what would that mean ? (I need to mention this again, i'm not implying that there is a war going on between homosexual and heterosexual, this is just a brutal abstraction of mine) It means that each side fights the other to protect something of value. Where does a neutral country, caught between these sides, stand in this war ? Actually it ends up being hated/disliked for not actually choosing a side.
"I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you." You can't be enemies with both and can't be friends with them either and even then there would be the problem of :"With whom are you friends more, us or them ?".
Another analogy of mine would be a mathematical one: on this line bisexuality stands on zero, which in matematic is a number of great power but with no value (again ! I'm not implying that bisexuality has no value, just trying to make a point here) a number that even today causes a great problem even to the sharpest minds of mathematics.
Why do we tend to choose sides ? Why do we tend to label ? Why do we make asumptions ? maybe because life is complicated and we feel the need to simplify it so that our simple minds can understand it. And by simplifying things we become ignorant or indiferent to the things that matter most or things that are important and the gray area fades away and all that remains are the "black" and "white".
Some may think that I've presented things in a vulgar simplified way, but at this time this is my explanation on this "invisibility" and why no one seems to be aware or give respect to the "center of the line" because this center may present itself with a paradox to many of us and that is just to difficult to accept.
As for the media ... the media is full of shit ! They always twist and shape things as they want not as they are, just for the fun of it or to make some audience. All the gay parades that I've seen televised they always interview the most flamboyant gay person they could ever find (the ones barely naked, with all the body painted in some way and some indian-like hat with rainbow like colors, and maybe some angel wings if you please), and they do that just to give homosexuality a certain view that makes them get more audience, not giving a shit about the inteligent, respected, wise and well dressed homosexual people. Maybe that's why bisexuality is not recognised in the media or in the words of those that are in front of a camera/mikrofon/whaterever because being bisexual isn't yet the "cool" thing to be, or it isn't in the "trend" yet, and for that reason it does not have audience value.
So... this is how I see things at the moment and please don't be offended by my personal view because I'm open minded to any other explanation or prespective, and if you have one ... present it :)
-
Permalink Reply by Vinay on -
I think the problem is completely with the use of labels. Once you start using labels, then generalizations and categorizations start happening, which leads to personal and cultural identity, prejudice and marginalisation. I am definitely very much against associating sexual orientation with identity.. like Alex, I'd prefer to say "I'm in a relationship with a girl" rather than "I am a heterosexual person". I think leads to a lot less problems and confusion.
-
Permalink Reply by Natasha on
-
Wow! Vinay replied to one of my threads! He's bigger than IPower! That's such an honor! LOL =]
Well, like I said before, I definitely don't think names, or ''labels'', are the problem. Men who ''bottomed'' were largely marginalized and looked upon in both Ancient Roman and Greek societies, and there wasn't a name for that sexual behavior, or even the concept of sexual orientation. There was not a word for homossexual men in biblical times, and yet those men were marginalized as well. Homossexual people were always marginalized by their sexual behavior, even before the concept of sexual orientation was invented!
In fact, prejudice was a big part of what drove GLBT people to start ''labeling'' themselves. When you unite for a common goal, it's important to have a name for yourself, for you to feel as part of a group, a community. That's one of the reasons the movement stopped caling itself ''Gay Movement'' and started calling itself ''GLBT Movement''. I felt very happy when I saw myself contemplated by this new acronym. Prejudice and discrimination were here loooong ago before the so-called ''labels'' started.
-
Permalink Reply by Vinay on
-
Oh I'm sure they had labels for them back then. They may not have explicitly referred to sexual orientation, but they would have been something along the lines of "deviants" etc. The point is that there was a categorization, an "us and them" attitude that was prevalent among the population - the same attitude that is dominant today. And this attitude is completely reinforced (on both sides) through the system of labels that has been adopted by almost everyone.
The exact same principle applies to other forms of prejudice, such as sexism. There's a continued movement to associate gender with identity, which creates a partition between men and women and leads to discrimination and bigotry.
-
Permalink Reply by Natasha on
-
But gender IS associated with identity for a lot of people! We can't just blend into a mass with no categorization. Categorization comes with individuality. There are ''labels'' for people according to what music they hear, what sports team they support, which town they were born. So what?? As soon as you unite with people with whom you have some similarities, you wanna call yourself something. Hell, even here on IPower there was a recent poll so we could decide what we would call ourselves.
The biggest proof that ''labels'' don't increase prejudice is the fact that a significant portion of the GLBT movement gives great value to names as a way of reinforcing one's sense of identity, and they fight against prejudice everyday.
-
Permalink Reply by Vinay on
-
How can categorization come with individuality? Categorization is the opposite of individuality. You can apply a label "Natasha" to yourself, and I can apply a label "Vinay" to myself, but that's as far as we can go as individuals. As soon as we start calling ourselves 'men', 'women', 'heterosexuals', 'homosexuals' or 'bisexuals', we (as a group) become uniform. Our behaviours, intentions, expectations, desires become defined in a homogenous fashion. If you want to see a prime example of this, go check out the Relationships or Approaching Women groups right here on I-Power. If that's your idea of individuality, then count me out.
You gave some great examples yourself. Just take music .. do you think there are two people anywhere who could say they listen to exactly the same music as each other? Of course not, everyone has slightly varied tastes, but each time we categorize ourselves as a fan of a group or a concert or a genre, we lose that individuality, that uniqueness. That is why on my I-Power profile, I do not claim to be a fan of any genre, but rather a fan of any music that can invoke emotions (which, I believe is the main reason everyone listens to music). If I were to apply the same principle to sexual orientation, I would say that I'm not a heterosexual or homosexual, but simply a sexual person, that is I enjoy receiving physical pleasure from other humans (they may be male or female, that is irrelevant).
You say that the GBLT uses labels and yet they fight against prejudice. The inference you make is that this must mean labels don't lead to prejudice. But I believe that even though the GBLT movement has good intentions, their actions (through the use of labels) have the unintended "side effects" of creating more prejudice than there was before. The same applies to the Feminist movement.
-
Permalink Reply by Natasha on
-
How come I loose ''uniqueness'' by saying I'm a fan of heavy metal and alternative rock??? Does liking these music genres very much somehow makes me less of an individual?? How come I loose ''uniqueness'' by defining myself as bissexual? Does the fact that I'm sexually and romantic attracted to both men and women makes me less of an individual?? If the fact of liking a certain genre of music or of liking both genders of ppl doesn't make me less of an individual, how the hell the fact of assigning a name to those preferences change something??? Basically, what you're saying is: ''We shouldn't discrimante against ppl based on behavior or individual characteristics, as long as they don't give that behavior or characteristics a name.'' That's absurd.
How come ''categorization'' is the opposite of individuality??? A huge part of individuality has to do with what social groups you feel you belong to. To find groups of people who share the same interests and characteristics as you is a need for every individual. Do you think it makes a difference if here on IPower I start a group named People Who Enjoy Receiving Physical Pleasure From Other Humans, Being Irrelevant If Those Other Humans Are Male or Female, other than calling the group Bissexual Men and Women in IPower? Or do you think no one should start groups of the sort, and we should never try to get together with ppl who have things in common with us?
The haters are always gonna have names for the ones they want to discriminate against. Women have been discriminated through History because they were women, simple as that. And when they united to fight prejudice against women, they obviously wanted to use a name that represented the idea that they were a women's movement. What's so terrible abt that??? You're trying to tell me that there's something bad in the very fact of giving names to things!
-
Permalink Reply by Natasha on
-
I don't think we are all potentially bissexual because falling in love with someone involves being sexually attracted to them, and I think our sexual responses are genetically determined. You can't choose who you feel atracted to...it's like when you have a great friend who likes you, and you would make a great couple, except the chemistry just isn't there. We all have our turn-ons and turn-offs, and I think gender is a huge part of this.
And sexual orientation shouldn't be THE FIRST THING about a person's identity..but it's still a big part of someone's identity. I feel that all this talk against ''labels'' it actually robs GLBT people of a feeling of belonging. Disregarding ''labels'' only makes people assume everyone's heterossexual, because that's the most common characteristic. It's hard to have visibility for GLBT people if you don't even give them a name. Trust me, being invisible is a form of discrimination. My bissexuality is not a ''label'', is a name that defines one of my characteristics (my sexual orientation), just like ''white'' describes my skin color, ''Brazilian'' describes my nationality and ''woman'' describes my biological gender. No one seems to have a problem with these other three ''labels'', so why is everyone so uptight when it comes to the label that describes which genders I'm sexually atracted to?
Forum
Why I argue so "aggressively" | Distorted views can kill | Teenager kills herself after researching 2012 doomsday theories 18 Replies
Started by SparTom007 - Tom in Off-Topic. Last reply by Bardasu Florin 7 hours ago.
Capitalism and profit 32 Replies
Started by Tim Young in Off-Topic. Last reply by Timo Kerremans 10 hours ago.
dealing with trolls 5 Replies
Started by Bart Skraeling in Off-Topic. Last reply by Tim Young 12 hours ago.
Latest Activity
Bardasu Florin replied to SparTom007 - Tom's discussion Why I argue so "aggressively" | Distorted views can kill | Teenager kills herself after researching 2012 doomsday theories
Timo Kerremans replied to Tim Young's discussion Capitalism and profit"Yes I agree with that, a global change in the state of mind.I think if every single person in the world has an enormous feeling for solidarity, it is possible to create a working system where money would be obsolete. This unfortunatly is an utopian…"
Tim Young replied to Tim Young's discussion Capitalism and profit"I believe an entirely new paradigm is required. A global mindset shift away from the notion of "profit" and towards co-existence within a cooperative framework."
Timo Kerremans replied to Tim Young's discussion Capitalism and profit"What might be a solution for this profit-based society?They say money can solve a lot of problems, but these problems are mostly created by the bad use of money. I think you can't solve problems with the same thing that caused them. "
Tim Young replied to Bart Skraeling's discussion dealing with trolls"Yes that's similar to the usual advice one might see. And most of it is good advice. The only problem I have is with the "ignoring". Good in theory but in practice not always that easy - especially with the more persistent…"
Bart Skraeling replied to Bart Skraeling's discussion dealing with trolls"i liked this blog http://networkbloggingtips.com/dealing-with-trolls-and-negativity/ especially the part about about fighting off the troll with dwarfs"
Tim Young replied to Bart Skraeling's discussion dealing with trolls"Yes well, you could speculate forever as to the why. But how will you ever know the real truth - unless you get some actual trolls to fess up. I am guessing honesty is not their strongest suit.
I would also suggest that most of them probably…"
Bart Skraeling replied to Bart Skraeling's discussion dealing with trolls"when i looked down on the page i saw someone was trying to discuss their view on immigrants in a calm and intellectual way, that didn`t work out. so then he responded with rage afterwards.
i found an article about how to deal with…"
Tim Young replied to Bart Skraeling's discussion dealing with trolls"The moment you let a troll get under your skin and you react with anger or similar - then they are getting exactly what they want.
So anything BUT getting angry or pissed off with them works a lot better.
Sarcasm can work well. Like commenting…"
Bart Skraeling posted a discussiondealing with trolls
yesterday it was the eurovision song contest.I went into a newspapers internett site (dagbladet if anyone is interested) and saw they had a forum for discussing the results (the results where coming in at the time). much of the forum was covered with the comments of two people, both trolls, one in norwegian and one in english. they where claiming that norway lost because we sent an immigrant to the finals (the guy was born in Iran but came to norway when he was just over 1 yrs old), and other…See More
Bart Skraeling commented on SparTom007 - Tom's video
Rape VS Regret | SparTom on... Episode 2
"me and my girlfriend have been raping each other simultaniously"
© 2012 Created by Reese Leysen.
