Will this new(ish) definition help bisexuals?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 12:03 AM GMT
    The reason so many guys like you are confused about their sexual identity is because the popular definition of bisexuality, "someone who is equally attracted to men and women," excludes guys like you. But there's an improved definition making the rounds, from bisexual activist Robyn Ochs: "I call myself bisexual because I acknowledge that I have in myself the potential to be attracted—romantically and/or sexually—to people of more than one sex and/or gender, not necessarily at the same time, not necessarily in the same way, and not necessarily to the same degree

    Edited to add: shamelessly lifted from Dan Savage
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 12:06 AM GMT
    Bisexual, noun: 1. Someone who wishes to double his or her chances of having a date for Saturday night.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 12:12 AM GMT
    bhp91126 saidThe reason so many guys like you are confused about their sexual identity is because the popular definition of bisexuality, "someone who is equally attracted to men and women," excludes guys like you. But there's an improved definition making the rounds, from bisexual activist Robyn Ochs: "I call myself bisexual because I acknowledge that I have in myself the potential to be attracted—romantically and/or sexually—to people of more than one sex and/or gender, not necessarily at the same time, not necessarily in the same way, and not necessarily to the same degree

    That definition is perfect. If people understood that as the correct definition of bisexual then I'd assign myself that label all the time (and I'm a person who HATES labels).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 12:23 AM GMT
    I don't like the definition. It implies that everyone is innately bisexual. When will people understand that some people are just 100% monosexual?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 12:38 AM GMT
    xavier92 saidI don't like the definition. It implies that everyone is innately bisexual. When will people understand that some people are just 100% monosexual?


    D'oh. Of course they are. Go back and read the definition, especially the part where it says, 'myself'.

    That explanation is what I constantly explain to people, only to be told by a few trolls here that BIs are 50/50 attracted to men and women. In fact I'm waiting for one in particular to show himself here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 12:51 AM GMT
    xavier92 saidI don't like the definition. It implies that everyone is innately bisexual. When will people understand that some people are just 100% monosexual?

    Pretend for a moment that this isn't all about you and see things from a bisexuals perspective.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 1:00 AM GMT
    I relate totally to the OP's message and love the way he wrote it. I choose to be with my man as my partner in life for many reasons.
    I also choose not to go down the path raising a family the traditional way. I could, but don't feel it would be fair to the wife or kids.
    I choose my path and never turned back.

    I have in myself the potential to be attracted—romantically and/or sexually—to people of more than one sex and/or gender, not necessarily at the same time, not necessarily in the same way, and not necessarily to the same degree.

    My biggest reality, is that I prefer the company of men.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 1:16 AM GMT
    bhp91126 said
    xavier92 saidI don't like the definition. It implies that everyone is innately bisexual. When will people understand that some people are just 100% monosexual?

    Pretend for a moment that this isn't all about you and see things from a bisexuals perspective.

    +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 1:40 AM GMT
    From a bi's perspective (of which I am) it's a pretty good revision.

    I'm bi. I like men and women. I like men -better-, but I still like, enjoy and am attracted to both.

    I'm currently in a monogamous relationship. This doesn't mean I don't find women attractive anymore, or other men for that matter. It means I'm in a monogamous relationship.

    My preferences still swing to being interested in and accepting of both as potential partners, if I was single and looking for someone.

    You don't stop being bi just because you become monogamous with someone of either gender.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 1:44 AM GMT
    TwisttheLeaf saidFrom a bi's perspective (of which I am) it's a pretty good revision.

    I'm bi. I like men and women. I like men -better-, but I still like, enjoy and am attracted to both.

    I'm currently in a monogamous relationship. This doesn't mean I don't find women attractive anymore, or other men for that matter. It means I'm in a monogamous relationship.

    My preferences still swing to being interested in and accepting of both as potential partners, if I was single and looking for someone.

    You don't stop being bi just because you become monogamous with someone of either gender.

    Love it. I wish more people were able to get this through their head.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 1:53 AM GMT
    woodsmen saidMerriam-Webster defines bisexuality as "characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward both sexes."
    the old girl sure isn't up to date
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 2:01 AM GMT
    work on the Kinsey Scale was done in 1948. Time this gets an update.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 2:11 AM GMT
    I didn't know it needed to be newly defined. For me, a bisexual is sexually turned on by both same sex and opposite sex attractions.

    One of my friends identifies as bisexual but lived for a while as str8, then for a while as bi and is now in a monogamous str8 marriage, I've always considered her to be more of an open minded str8 person who enjoys experimenting, pushing their limits, etc., than an actually bisexual but she would get very offended at that and so I do acknowledge how she enjoys identifying even if that doesn't fit my definition and I certainly don't push how I define on her.

    My 10 years partnered to a bisexual guy (who was actually polysexual) gave me the sense that a bisexual is someone who always is attracted to both same sex and opposite sex, whether equally or not, the attraction is always there. Just like being gay is always there or being str8 is always there.

    Sexual identity might fade, but I think of orientation as being more stable.

    I question the idea that bisexuality is an attraction "to people of more than one sex and/or gender" because that seems to cross into a definition of polysexual which would include an attraction to gender bending transgendered or transvestited.

    Also I've an issue with defining as bi "the potential to be attracted—romantically and/or sexually" because you can be romantically attracted without it being sexual at all. That by definition is not a definition of the sexual orientation of bisexual. I'm a gay man who is not only capable but has fallen in love with women. That doesn't make me bisexual.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 2:21 AM GMT
    theantijock saidI didn't know it needed to be newly defined. For me, a bisexual is sexually turned on by both same sex and opposite sex attractions.


    Also I've an issue with defining as bi "the potential to be attracted—romantically and/or sexually" because you can be romantically attracted without it being sexual at all. That by definition is not a definition of the sexual orientation of bisexual. I'm a gay man who is not only capable but has fallen in love with women. That doesn't make me bisexual.


    yes and yes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 2:23 AM GMT
    theantijock saidI didn't know it needed to be newly defined. For me, a bisexual is sexually turned on by both same sex and opposite sex attractions.

    One of my friends identifies as bisexual but lived for a while as str8, then for a while as bi and is now in a monogamous str8 marriage, I've always considered her to be more of an open minded str8 person who enjoys experimenting, pushing their limits, etc., than an actually bisexual but she would get very offended at that and so I do acknowledge how she enjoys identifying even if that doesn't fit my definition and I certainly don't push how I define on her.

    My 10 years partnered to a bisexual guy (who was actually polysexual) gave me the sense that a bisexual is someone who always is attracted to both same sex and opposite sex, whether equally or not, the attraction is always there. Just like being gay is always there or being str8 is always there.

    Sexual identity might fade, but I think of orientation as being more stable.

    I question the idea that bisexuality is an attraction "to people of more than one sex and/or gender" because that seems to cross into a definition of polysexual which would include an attraction to gender bending transgendered or transvestited.

    Also I've an issue with defining as bi "the potential to be attracted—romantically and/or sexually" because you can be romantically attracted without it being sexual at all. That by definition is not a definition of the sexual orientation of bisexual. I'm a gay man who is not only capable but has fallen in love with women. That doesn't make me bisexual.

    I had to look up polysexual, thought that you might be into parakeets.icon_wink.gif

    I like the definition in the op, because it is so broad and inclusive. So I could see polysexual as an aspect of Bisexuality, but not as a "competing" term.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 2:43 AM GMT
    It's a better definition but to answer the question I would say "no" because the fundamental problem is that gays are monosexual and can't identify with how someone can be attracted to men and women. Even with a better definition bisexuals will continue to be regarded by gays as hedging their bets, unwilling to commit to (or accept) being gay, wanting the best of both worlds, etc.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 2:43 AM GMT
    David3K said
    bhp91126 said
    xavier92 saidI don't like the definition. It implies that everyone is innately bisexual. When will people understand that some people are just 100% monosexual?

    Pretend for a moment that this isn't all about you and TRY to see things from another person's perspective... FOR ONCE.

    +1

    + A Zillion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 2:43 AM GMT
    bhp91126 said
    I had to look up polysexual, thought that you might be into parakeets.icon_wink.gif

    I like the definition in the op, because it is so broad and inclusive. So I could see polysexual as an aspect of Bisexuality, but not as a "competing" term.


    Not the first time I've been accused of being crackers.

    Poly's a newish term. Before that I used to call my bud either bisexual (which never in my mind ever quite hit the mark) or better yet tri-sexual. In fact I've a retired friend who was a sex therapist who'd never heard the word before I used it in conversation the other week.

    I tend to think of it as different than bisexual (and why I thought the proposed definition too inclusive) for what might be a very good reason. Because, while I don't have the stats, I'd bet there are plenty of bi people who find trans people a turn off. Just like gay people find opposite sex to be a turn off.

    So polysexual as being separate from bisexual allows for recognizing a category of sexual orientation which is only turned on, not off by the object of their affections. In doing so, it elevates the status of transexuality to be on the same playing field as other orientations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 2:50 AM GMT
    Lumpyoatmeal saidIt's a better definition but to answer the question I would say "no" because the fundamental problem is that gays are monosexual and can't identify with how someone can be attracted to men and women. Even with a better definition bisexuals will continue to be regarded by gays as hedging their bets, unwilling to commit to (or accept) being gay, wanting the best of both worlds, etc.

    This is from an email exchange I had this evening, that deals a little with what you brought up. Read it from the bottom up

    ---- FROM bhp91126 May 01, 2014 at 1:51 AM
    If the men agree to be in a exclusive relationship with them, I don't see where the problem is. Monogamy is the same for all.

    ----
    Women are very comptetive and they dont want to share their men with other men.

    ---- FROM bhp91126 May 01, 2014 at 1:36 AM
    I don't have any female friends, so I have no idea how women feel about Bisexual men here. The problem with your friends' attitude of only dating straight men is, that it will drive the Bi-men on the down-low/into the closet. Which is of course very dangerous for them

    ----
    I'm not biophobic, as you mentioned that would the easiest solution.. I have many straight female friends and they have said to me that they would never date bisexual men because they can't compete men.. They only will date straight men.

    I'm open to love and I wouldn't care if my future boyfriend is bisexual.

    ---- FROM bhp91126 Apr 30, 2014 at 8:19 PM
    That would be the easiest solution, but Bisexuals reject it as "Biphobic". I think when you fall for someone (in lust and in love) and that person also falls for you, the risk for that relationship to end is the same, whether you fall in love with a Gay or a Bisexual.

    ----
    I personally believe that bisexual people should date other bisexuals because woulb be very complicated for gay and straight being with someone who's attracted to both genders.

    ---- FROM bhp91126 Apr 30, 2014 at 8:08 PM
    Sorry to hear that. Stuff like that weighs on the relationship between Gays and Bis
    ----
    I have had bad experiences with bisexual men because most of them dumped my ass for women..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 2:56 AM GMT
    A committed person is a committed person.
    It doesn't matter if your partner finds Pamela Lee Anderson hot or not,, what matters is that he stays focused on you.
    I've heard from so many gay friends on RJ recently that have had their BF cheat on them with another man. Not woman, but man.
    So, I think the secret is to find someone that CAN be monogamous. From there, who cares who all he finds attractive.
    My man and I are comfortable enough with each other to be able to have dialog when we see someone on TV or in RL that we find attractive. We say so and almost always 100% agree. We have the same tastes overall.
    We mean nothing by it, other than to recognize someone else's attractiveness.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 3:01 AM GMT
    Lumpyoatmeal saidIt's a better definition but to answer the question I would say "no" because the fundamental problem is that gays are monosexual and can't identify with how someone can be attracted to men and women. Even with a better definition bisexuals will continue to be regarded by gays as hedging their bets, unwilling to commit to (or accept) being gay, wanting the best of both worlds, etc.



    Do they?

    I didn't know that gay men held that view of bisexuals.

    *Muttering to himself.* As if being Asian didn't cause me enough flack already, now being bi does as well? Figures.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 3:02 AM GMT
    theantijock said
    So polysexual as being separate from bisexual allows for recognizing a category of sexual orientation which is only turned on, not off by the object of their affections. In doing so, it elevates the status of transexuality to be on the same playing field as other orientations.

    I admit that I didn't think of Trans-people at all in this, previously. I'm neither bi nor trans-sexual, so I don't want to determine who and what should feel included or excluded in the OP-definition. I still would like that definition to be as widely inclusive as possible.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 3:03 AM GMT
    TheGuyNextDoor said
    David3K said
    bhp91126 said
    xavier92 saidI don't like the definition. It implies that everyone is innately bisexual. When will people understand that some people are just 100% monosexual?

    Pretend for a moment that this isn't all about you and TRY to see things from another person's perspective... FOR ONCE.

    +1

    + A Zillion.


    +10000000

    This Xavier fellow is a real dickhead.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 3:08 AM GMT
    TheGuyNextDoor saidA committed person is a committed person.
    It doesn't matter if your partner finds Pamela Lee Anderson hot or not,, what matters is that he stays focused on you.
    I've heard from so many gay friends on RJ recently that have had their BF cheat on them with another man. Not woman, but man.
    So, I think the secret is to find someone that CAN be monogamous. From there, who cares who all he finds attractive.


    I'm not certain the terms (of the contract) apply. What you've said is very much the argument of orthodoxy which tries to rationalize being gay. It was proposed by a rabbi and cited on a past post. The idea is that it's okay to be gay because while Torah says don't be gay, it also says that people should be happy. So if someone can not find happiness in an opposite sexed relationship, then being happy is more important than not being gay so therefore Torah would say the gay is okay.

    However, if a person is bisexual, then being gay is never okay because that person can find happiness (or at least the semblance thereof) in a str8 relationship.

    You've just rationalized in the very same way.

    If a person is bisexual, then how does eating pussy satisfy their desire for dick? So I'm not certain how the monogamy rules apply to those contracts. Bisexuality is not just a matter of finding someone attractive. It's a matter of being attracted sexually. I find some women attractive but I am never sexually attracted to them.

    What is the difference of being bi-attracted and not satisfying part of that or being gay and not satisfying that?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2014 3:10 AM GMT
    TwisttheLeaf said
    Lumpyoatmeal saidIt's a better definition but to answer the question I would say "no" because the fundamental problem is that gays are monosexual and can't identify with how someone can be attracted to men and women. Even with a better definition bisexuals will continue to be regarded by gays as hedging their bets, unwilling to commit to (or accept) being gay, wanting the best of both worlds, etc.



    Do they?

    I didn't know that gay men held that view of bisexuals.

    If you want to ruin your mood, go research older threads on here to the topic of Bisexuality.