Survey Question (r.e., bisexuality & biamory)

[River]

These questions are mainly for the hetero- folks in the forum.

(You may also chime in if you are gay or bi, if you like, but I'm mainly interested in what the hetero- folks have to say on this matter.)

Would you be as likely to "date" a bisexual (or biamorous) person of the opposite sex as a hetero- person of the opposite sex?

Why? Why not?

===

[biamory is a term coined to distinguish bisexuals who aren't interested in same-sex "-amory" (loving relationships) from those who are. Many bisexuals are not actually biamorous. Some are only interested in same sex encounters if they involve only recreational ("casual") sex.

[Ariakas]

Yes. Actually...I am more inclined to date bi-sexuals. I find them more open in general (yes, and for the obvious threesome factor :p). I haven't been with a straight girl (barring our ex who was bi-curious when we met) in...13 years.

[Edward]

Not that I'm likely to get the opportunity, but if someone was interested in me, and I liked them, their being bi or not wouldn't enter my thinking. Other than how this orientation affected their personality, and how well they got along with A and A2.

[AutumnalTone]

I suppose so. I married a bi woman. I'm currently flirting with a bi woman (who is also a bit genderqueer).

[jkelly]

These questions are mainly for the hetero- folks in the forum.

Would you be as likely to "date" a bisexual (or biamorous) person of the opposite sex as a hetero- person of the opposite sex?

Why? Why not?

I idenitfy as straight. According to a 2002 CDC survey, 2.8% of women identify as bi-. After a rough count off the top of my head, something like a third of the women I've been involved with have identified as either bi- or lesbian. It seems pretty clear statistically that I am vastly more likely to date someone who is bi-.

As for why, I couldn't say with any confidence. I suspect that there are two things going on. One is that I tend to date people who are, well, awesome people. Someone who goes through the process of coming out in the society I've lived in has already done an enormous amount of personal growth and has taken a a courageous stand against homophobia. That level of self-knowledge and courage is very attractive! The other thing is that people who have already had to leave the mainstream by being bi- are more likely to wind up exploring other non-mainstream social circles, such as by also being poly-, Pagan, into kink, a Burner, etc. so I'm more likely to meet them.

[vandalin]

I'll be the first hetero-female to chime in one this one.

I'm honestly not sure. To the best of my knowledge, I do not know any bi- men in RL. I may still suffer from a little bit of stereotyping, but if I was to form a relationship with a bi-man then I think that these would disappear rather quickly.

I don't think I would have a problem if he was open and honest about it and didn't hide it.

As for statistically, well, like I mentioned I don't actually know any bi-men off the top of my head so unless my friends circle grows in that direction, I'd be more likely to date hetero.

A last minute add on... If I were to date a bi-man, then he would have to be respectful of the fact that my hubby is completely hetero (not to the point of phobic though).

[rpcrazy]

he would have to be respectful of the fact that my hubby is completely hetero

uh...what?

[jkelly]

uh...what?

Rpcrazy, don't you know that all bi- people are attracted to every single person that they meet and that they have no innate sense of when making a pass is inappropriate? I thought everyone knew that (http://nathanr.ca/bisexuality-myths-debunked/#awp::bisexuality-myths-debunked/).

[River]

I pretty much run around the streets all day, pinching random male and female butts and winking. ;)

[rpcrazy]

I didn't mean to poke fun. I think it's a bit crass to assume things like that, but I was actually just confused by the statement. I read the whole thread and gained more understanding of the context she was writing in. In any case, myths clear up easy once you experience whatever "it" is in real life. I know this well being a whatever-sexual, intelligent black man.

[phoenix762]

These questions are mainly for the hetero- folks in the forum.

(You may also chime in if you are gay or bi, if you like, but I'm mainly interested in what the hetero- folks have to say on this matter.)

Would you be as likely to "date" a bisexual (or biamorous) person of the opposite sex as a hetero- person of the opposite sex?

Why? Why not?

===

[biamory is a term coined to distinguish bisexuals who aren't interested in same-sex "-amory" (loving relationships) from those who are. Many bisexuals are not actually biamorous. Some are only interested in same sex encounters if they involve only recreational ("casual") sex.

Don't know. I suppose, if generally they had the same interests, if I was attracted to them in every other way.
Mind, I'm not poly at all, I'm just interested with the concept, that's why I've joined.

I'd actually find it a bit intriguing, I suppose...but then I'm odd that way...

[DD123]

Rpcrazy, don't you know that all bi- people are attracted to every single person that they meet and that they have no innate sense of when making a pass is inappropriate? I thought everyone knew that (http://nathanr.ca/bisexuality-myths-debunked/#awp::bisexuality-myths-debunked/).

I have to disagree - Im bi and Im not attracted to everone I meet. Im still picky, I still look for certain characteristics in a partner, and I still am more attracted to women than men; maybe because I have been with more women than men, but that doesnt mean that Im not open to having fun with a guy, cuz I am. But I am certainly not attracted to eveyone I meet - for me personally there is a greater number of people that I meet that I am NOT attracted to than people I am attracted to, regardless of them being male or female.

As for the original question: The sexuality of the people I date doest really matter, as long as their sexuality includes me Im happy ;)

[vandalin]

JKelly said: Rpcrazy, don't you know that all bi- people are attracted to every single person that they meet and that they have no innate sense of when making a pass is inappropriate? I thought everyone knew that.

Oh, ouch!

Ok, so maybe that did come across poorly, but it is more just pointing out that we don't have a lot of experience socializing with the LGBT community in person and that he (hubby) might be a little more squeamish than me if I were to date a bi-man. I definitely did not mean to imply that bi people go around drooling over anything on two legs. :P

DD123 said: I have to disagree - Im bi and Im not attracted to everone I meet. Im still picky, I still look for certain characteristics in a partner, and I still am more attracted to women than men; maybe because I have been with more women than men, but that doesnt mean that Im not open to having fun with a guy, cuz I am. But I am certainly not attracted to eveyone I meet - for me personally there is a greater number of people that I meet that I am NOT attracted to than people I am attracted to, regardless of them being male or female.

Actually jkelly is kinda joking here. Poking fun at my comment from earlier.

[redsirenn]

YES.
It's HOT.

[SchrodingersCat]

While I identify as bisexual, I tend to lean towards men, if nothing else because they're easier to meet.

I didn't always identify as bisexual, mostly due to not really giving it much though, I just "was". Before I started thinking about it, I had a few bisexual boyfriends. It was AWESOME!

Like Ariakas said, I find bisexual people to be more open-minded in general. I'm going to stereotype now, and I want a disclaimer that I'm not saying this applies to all heteros, bis, or gays. I've found a lot of heteros to be stuck in their Barbie & Ken lifestyle. They think it's fine for "those people" to do what they're going to do, but they want no part of it. A lot of gays seem to be anti-bi, possibly due to some experiences with bi-curious people using them to test the waters, without a real intention for it to go anywhere.

In order to identify as bisexual, you have to have given it some thought. Anything that forces you to think that hard about life tends to open some mental barriers, and that's never a bad thing.

[Ariakas]

Like Ariakas said, I find bisexual people to be more open-minded in general. I'm going to stereotype now, and I want a disclaimer that I'm not saying this applies to all heteros, bis, or gays. I've found a lot of heteros to be stuck in their Barbie & Ken lifestyle. They think it's fine for "those people" to do what they're going to do, but they want no part of it. A lot of gays seem to be anti-bi, possibly due to some experiences with bi-curious people using them to test the waters, without a real intention for it to go anywhere.

I would agree with this. Most have a pre-disposed viewpoint on what being a married couple is. Heck even throw kink in there. They just want the prescriped house, picket fence, 2 cars, happy kids - all 2.5 of them. If they have that, that is their perfection...

And Pengrah has run into the above backlash. We come from a very lesbian community. When I was younger I think the ratio was 7 to 1 girls to guys. In a town with a lot of bi-sexual women, there was still backlash, almost violent, to the bi-sexuals. There was even an anti-toy movement, the lesbians claiming "if you like toys, you like boys"...I would not have envied her in those days.

Its quite a lot to work with and think about :)

[MonoVCPHG]

I definitely agree that bisexual people are more open minded. I have a student who is gay and he does not even believe in bisexuality, not to mention not even knowing the word pansexual (which made him roll his eyes).

But back to the question...I am hetero but not poly. So hypothetically if I was single, I would be less likely to date a bisexual woman. Naturally, I would seek out a mono partner so this wouldn't be an issue though. If she was wired mono, she wouldn't be interested in others and I'm not into the two women one guy thing anyways.

I don't think I qualify for this question:o

[River]

I don't think I qualify for this question:o

Sure you do!

The world has a fair share of people who are both bi- and mono. And a fair share who are both bi- and poly. Not all bi- folk are poly!

As I see it, I evolved or transformed into poly from mono. (And when I say "evolved" I'm not meaning to suggest that poly is better than mono-.) So I've been a bi mono guy. Yet I'm old enough at this point to have lived these two very different modes of being. I don't think I was a poly guy hidden inside a mono mindset (heartset?) then. I really did transform. Who knows how or why, but I did.

[MonoVCPHG]

Sure you do!



Inclusion is nice :) Great comment River.

[SayYes]

I'm a more or less straight female; I've had one sexual experience with another woman and have never been in a relationship with one. It's not something I'm closed to the possibility of in the future, but also not something I'm concerned with actively pursuing. My boyfriend is bi, and that's just fine with me. His only other relationship while we've been together was with another guy. I'm not a real big fan of the traditional gender binary, though, and I've always been attracted to androgynous men (which of course isn't necessarily attached to sexual orientation, but often is).

[nycindie]

These questions are mainly for the hetero- folks in the forum.

. . . Would you be as likely to "date" a bisexual (or biamorous) person of the opposite sex as a hetero- person of the opposite sex?

Why? Why not?

Hmm, just found this thread and thought the question interesting. And being hetero, I qualify to answer!

I know I would be much less likely to date a bi guy than I would a straight guy. Not only do I rarely meet any bi guys, nor hang out in social situations that attract a large number of LGBT people where I possibly would meet more of them, but -- and I am about to make a stereotyping statement (but I'm not the only one to do that in this thread) -- I have a certain picture in my head of the kind of masculinity I find attractive and a bisexual guy does not fit that picture. So, in general, I'm not usually attracted to a guy who identifies as bi. I know that conditioning is hard to get past. I know it's a prejudice I've been taught, and I am totally willing to challenge it, but I am not going to run out and seek a bisexual man just to resolve my own issues. That would feel like I'm using him.

There is someone I did flirt with for a while who is openly bi, but I admit that I have not pursued anything with him partially because of his bisexuality (besides his already having several poly relationships, a busy schedule, and not a lot of time). Something about him... I just feel if he's not totally into women, then I wouldn't have his whole attention, or something, almost like he'd be too "easy" sexually to trust. That might have something to do with the stereotype of gay guys being very promiscuous... I'm not quite sure if I can express what my trepidation is about. Like I said, I know it's a stereotype that was put in my brain somewhere along the line.

I suppose if I met someone I was crazy about and we were very compatible on lots of levels, being bisexual wouldn't completely deter me from getting involved. It's just that, based on my experiences thus far, it would be much less likely for me to seize such an opportunity.


I find these statements rather intriguing:
I am more inclined to date bi-sexuals. I find them more open in general I find bisexual people to be more open-minded in general.I definitely agree that bisexual people are more open minded.
I wonder if the general idea is that bisexual people are "more open-minded" in about all things in life or just sexually? Personally I've known many, many people who are extremely open-minded about everything, who just happen to be straight. But I used to hang out in some very New Age-y crowds, maybe that's why.

[MeeraReed]

I would LOVE to date a bi guy. I guess that makes me bi-guy-curious? :)

Although I have met many bi women, I have never (to my knowledge) met a bi guy. This is very strange to me, and I think represents an area in which our society has not yet achieved full openness about sexuality. (I think men are not always able to be in tune with their own sexuality, or there are stereotypes about bi men, or something).

I'll second what Mono said--I too have met gay men who insist there is no such thing as bisexual men. So obviously, there are a lot of unhelpful stereotypes at play.

I was rather taken aback once when a straight male friend/potential lover assumed I was bi because I was "so open-minded about sex." (When I asked him why he wasn't bi, he had no answer for me).

As for why I'd like to try dating a bi guy--mostly just because it might be fun to be with someone who gets as turned on watching Queer as Folk as I do!

[AnnabelMore]

Nyc, I agree that you shouldn't seek out a bi man just to broaden your horizons. And I appreciate your honesty. And I know this thread is not targeted at me and I'm about to engage in a slight derail.

But but but...

"Something about him... I just feel if he's not totally into women, then I wouldn't have his whole attention, or something, almost like he'd be too "easy" sexually to trust."

I've gotta say, that's just a tough thing for me to read, as a bisexual. I am *totally* into women... AND *totally* into men. When I'm with someone that person absolutely has my full and utter attention. When I'm with a man I savor him for exactly what he is, and when I'm with a woman I do the same. I certainly don't think loving more than one gender divides your attention any more than loving more than one person does.

And as for the "easy" thing... I currently live with three men, all friends from college. We share a house, to save costs and because we get along. All three are bi (one is also F-to-M and in an open marriage with one of the other dudes). Of the three, the unattached dude hasn't dated or even done more than fool around a little with anyone that I know of in the year he's been living with us, the trans guy has had a handful of partners in his life and is eager for more but very choosy, and the third dude has had exactly one other sexual partner ever aside from his husband.

So, while my household is hardly, like, a scientific study of bi men worldwide, I can at least say that in *my* experience, bi men are in no way easier than non-bi men.

[Lucinda]

I'm a straight woman. Being polyamorous has led me to meet a lot more bisexual/pansexual guys than I would have otherwise. In mainstream society they seem quite rare. Or maybe they're just not visible? Knowing so many bi men means I'm more likely to date them.

I admit that I find something attractive about bisexuality in men, but I can't describe what it is. It's shallow, I guess, because sexual orientation is not controlable, but there you have it.

[AnnabelMore]

Or maybe they're just not visible?

This. I've had... I don't remember exactly for sure, but at least three guys I've known over the years (not my roommates mentioned above) come out to me as bi, dudes who lived as straight and weren't widely, or at all, out. I guess I'm just a confide-able person, and it probably doesn't hurt that I've been completely out as queer since my freshman year of high school so people know I'm not going to not accept them.

If you're a gay guy, you have to come out if you want to have sexual and/or romantic relationships without living a life of constant secrecy and paranoia. But if you're a bi guy, you can date women and be happy with them and think about guys from time to time and just not ever publicly explore that part of yourself.

Cuz female bisexuality is largely accepted and even embraced in our culture. But male bisexuality still brings up ideas that they're not really "real" men, or that they're actually gay and can't quite admit it yet, or that they're probably on the down-low seeking seedy sex on the side and giving their girlfriends or wives diseases. Why would a guy choose to deal with that? Why be visible?

It takes a brave man to boldly pinch whatever ass he pleases. Kudos to you River, for being one of those men.

[nycindie]

Nyc, I agree that you shouldn't seek out a bi man just to broaden your horizons. And I appreciate your honesty. And I know this thread is not targeted at me and I'm about to engage in a slight derail.

But but but...

"Something about him... I just feel if he's not totally into women, then I wouldn't have his whole attention, or something, almost like he'd be too "easy" sexually to trust."

I've gotta say, that's just a tough thing for me to read, as a bisexual.I wasn't referring to bi women, though. I knew when I wrote that, I should have explained what I meant.

Since this thread is looking for straight people's responses to the idea of being with bi people of the opposite sex, I thought I'd take the opportunity to honestly explore some of the prejudices I have. I know that, for some reason, if I had an opportunity to be in a romantic or sexual situation with a bisexual man, I would not be totally comfortable. I can be friends with gay men, bi men, transmen, but there is something in me that only wants to be in intimate/sexual relationships with straight men.

I am being honest and admit that this is a prejudice I have, based on assumptions. And the definition of prejudice is to pre-judge someone before you have the facts about them, before you really know them, and I do not like to admit that I do that. But we all pre-judge others in some way, abut some things, in some areas of our lives, and I'm just taking a look at this one because I know it's there. Once I get to know someone well, pre-conceived notions disappear, but sometimes the initial prejudices I might have keep me a little distant and get in the way of my becoming closer.

About the "easy" part of my post -- I only think that way about bi men, not bi women, basically because of testosterone. I guess that my image of bi men is blurred a bit with the stereotype of gay men. I have always thought that when men get together with men, testosterone with testosterone, there's an idea there of them having more of a promiscuous leaning, more of a focus on sex above other things. Of course, I know such generalizations aren't true for everyone, but they do color my attractions to someone. I did make out a few times with the bi guy I had a little crush on for a while, and couldn't get past thoughts of him being with other men. And that was a big part of the turn-off for me. But he's poly with quite a number of partners, so it could've been part of also wondering just how many people this guy fucks and how open his relationships are, because he did not tell me.

I never even really thought of bisexual women in this way, I guess because at least a woman's sexuality is familiar to me, even if her preferences are outside my own. But maybe I'm a little scared of gay and bi male sexuality, almost as if all that testosterone would be too overwhelming for me. I really don't know - I'm just trying to deconstruct it so I can understand myself better. I'm certain most of this was taught to me as part of my cultural conditioning, so it's very strongly ingrained -- I still recall a conversation with my sister when we were in our late teens or early 20s, and she was saying how men are like dogs and can't control themselves, so when you have men with men, it's even more intense. Of course I know better now, all these many years later, but I'm sure it made an impression on how I look at guys and sex and relationships. At least I'm aware and looking at it! Just wondering where prejudices end and just plain old preferences for whom I find attractive begins.

[marksbabygirl]

I know that, for some reason, if I had an opportunity to be in a romantic or sexual situation with a bisexual man, I would not be totally comfortable. I can be friends with gay men, bi men, transmen, but there is something in me that only wants to be in intimate/sexual relationships with straight men.

I understand this.

I try to look past it because it would be somewhat hypocritical of me, being bi, but I don't find the *idea* of bi men attractive.

On dating sites, I sorta "gloss over" bi men and go to the the straight men.

Its a bit of a circular issue for me.

What it comes down to (for me) is that I'm not attracted to SUBMISSIVE men, and in my head, as stupid and illogical as it is, bi men = submissive men.

Its even more convoluted in my head because my husband is bi-curious and I still find him wildly attractive.

So while I don't and won't seek a bi man, if I were to MEET one and get to know him, I'd be able to move past my initial reaction.

[River]

I was just thinking that it may well be that some of the women here who are attracted to bi (particularly biamorous) men are attracted, in part, because we tend to be more emotionally androgynous. By which I mean that we tend to embody the full range of human emotional responsiveness. Many women desire a quality of companionship which many or most men cannot offer, simply because they are caught up in lots of masculinity training (and perhaps also some biological traits).

Were I a woman, I'd definitely prefer biamorous or otherwise more androgynous sorts of guys. And I don't mean he wears mens' workboots, a flowery skirt, and a mens' shirt. Appearance has little to do with what I'm talking about. Most biamorous men are like myself. We "pass" as regular straight dudes ... until we get to talking. And when we get to talking ... we're just what the women generally want. We're kind, sensitive, thoughtful, tender, vulnerable, feeling..., but also tough and rugged and "masculine" when the situation calls for it.

Okay, enough bragging on myself.

[River]

What it comes down to (for me) is that I'm not attracted to SUBMISSIVE men, and in my head, as stupid and illogical as it is, bi men = submissive men.

Okay, everyone here who thinks I'm "submissive," raise your hands.;)

[Magdlyn]

Cindie and mbg, thanks for being open about sharing your biases about bi men. Bi biases, heh.

First of all, if a woman has dated 10 guys, she's probably dated at least one bi guy. Most men don't admit to their homosexual cravings to themselves, much less to friends, much less to women they date. Since I am listed as bi on okc, I have been contacted by countless guys who list themselves as straight, but can't wait to tell me how gay they are. They also tell me they don't list themselves as bi, for fear of turning off women, even bi women (like mbg).

Second of all, interesting that mbg thinks of bi men as weak because of their craving for gay sex. Of course, being penetrated in our society is seen as womanly. And women are understood in the patriarchal culture (6000 years and still going strong) to be weak and second class. Since we have vaginas that enjoy being penetrated, penetration must equal weakness and being second class. (This flies in the face of the manly Spartan warrior culture of old, where MM sex was considered superior, and women were married only for procreation.)

Of course, this leads men to not allow themselves to enjoy the prostate stimulation available to them from being anally penetrated, even in masturbation or with their female partners, much less with men.

Not all men enjoy anal penetration though, not even all fully gay men. Lots of gay men never do anal.

Crazy cultural constrictions.

[River]

Cindie and mbg, thanks for being open about sharing your biases about bi men. Bi biases, heh.

Ditto. It's refreshing to read such honest and vulnerable words. It takes courage to tell the truth in the face of possible rebuke.

[AnnabelMore]

Ditto. It's refreshing to read such honest and vulnerable words. It takes courage to tell the truth in the face of possible rebuke.

Absolutely, absolutely. Thank you, guys. Please don't take it amiss that those of us who know many bi men, or who are bi men, feel the need to comment.

On the question of submissiveness, my married roommates are in a total-power-exchange D/s relationship, as it happens. The trans guy is the sub, his husband is the dom. :)

[JuliaGay]

Were I a woman, I'd definitely prefer biamorous or otherwise more androgynous sorts of guys. And I don't mean he wears mens' workboots, a flowery skirt, and a mens' shirt. Appearance has little to do with what I'm talking about. Most biamorous men are like myself. We "pass" as regular straight dudes ... until we get to talking. And when we get to talking ... we're just what the women generally want. We're kind, sensitive, thoughtful, tender, vulnerable, feeling..., but also tough and rugged and "masculine" when the situation calls for it.


Abso-effing-lutely! You have hit the nail on the head, River. I have found biamorous men to be more in touch with their emotional sides. And I find that immensely attractive. I also find that, even though I am open to dating straight men, the ones I fall for are bi.

I'd never really thought about it in these terms. Thanks!

JG

[River]

JG,

Were it not for my plate being full....

[River]

At all personal send today?

A unique variety of CrazySpam? A computer program gone berzerk? A grammar swirling neurological condition? :confused:

[marksbabygirl]

Cindie and mbg, thanks for being open about sharing your biases about bi men. Bi biases, heh.

Yeah, that was difficult to post. Because it IS a bias.


Second of all, interesting that mbg thinks of bi men as weak because of their craving for gay sex. Of course, being penetrated in our society is seen as womanly. And women are understood in the patriarchal culture (6000 years and still going strong) to be weak and second class. Since we have vaginas that enjoy being penetrated, penetration must equal weakness and being second class. (This flies in the face of the manly Spartan warrior culture of old, where MM sex was considered superior, and women were married only for procreation.)

I don't think of submissive/bi as weak. Its interesting that you took my bias (tee hee, now I'm going to giggle about that) of bi men as a position that I think bi = weak. I don't think bi = weak anymore than I think submissive = weak.

And strangely enough, I think gay men are fucking HOT.

But the line between bi/submissive gets blurred for me with men AND women, and I don't find submissive men sexually attractive. On the other hand - when I'm in a mood, its then that I wish I was fully Domme because my sadistic side is out in force ;) :eek:


Of course, this leads men to not allow themselves to enjoy the prostate stimulation available to them from being anally penetrated, even in masturbation or with their female partners, much less with men.

I like anal play. With men, with women. I have enjoyed it with my husband.

Thanks for this discussion. Its helped me clarify in my OWN head where that comes from. :)

[River]

But the line between bi/submissive gets blurred for me with men AND women, and I don't find submissive men sexually attractive.

I'm one of those biamorous guys who isn't into role-playing in general, and especially not with regard to dom / sub. We do exist! I'm neither a top nor a bottom with a man or a woman. I'm just River. I like kissing, cuddling, ... and giving and receiving pleasure. I don't think of any of this stuff in terms of who is on top in a figurative sense, and am VERY willing to have her literally on top ... or him wherever he'd like to position himself, so long as he doesn't hurt me.;)

[nycindie]

I was just thinking that it may well be that some of the women here who are attracted to bi (particularly biamorous) men are attracted, in part, because we tend to be more emotionally androgynous. By which I mean that we tend to embody the full range of human emotional responsiveness. Many women desire a quality of companionship which many or most men cannot offer, simply because they are caught up in lots of masculinity training (and perhaps also some biological traits).

. . . we're just what the women generally want. We're kind, sensitive, thoughtful, tender, vulnerable, feeling..., but also tough and rugged and "masculine" when the situation calls for it.
Well, that's interesting, but I have known many guys who met your description of being in touch with their emotional lives, and were totally straight. But again, I often hung out in circles that are either "New Age-y" or focused on personal growth, the human potential movement, 12-step programs, etc. I think the more people look inward, the more expansive they become emotionally, so their sexual orientations doesn't really come into play in that regard. So, I think straight men get a bad rap in that area, as if they're all insensitive cave men. So not true!

Since we have vaginas that enjoy being penetrated, penetration must equal weakness and being second class. (This flies in the face of the manly Spartan warrior culture of old, where MM sex was considered superior, and women were married only for procreation.)
Slight tangent:

To fulfill my general requirements for school, I am taking aclass right now on Ancient political thought, and the prof was talking a bit about life in Athens during Socrates' and Plato's time. She was saying that while it's well-known that the ancient Greek males had sexual relationships with younger men and boys, there is now some evidence coming to light that the women had similar relationships with younger females. The men and women definitely had their own communities and only came together to make babies.

In fact, the way the Greeks instilled their soldiers to fight for their country was to encourage them to become lovers with their fellow soldiers and defend that love. She said, "But before you think, wow, the Greeks were so chill and open-minded, a large part of that division was due to the men not thinking women worthy of loving relationships. They served a purpose and that was procreation." Also, the social strata was not based on wealth but by inherited position. In other words, a Greek could have lots of money, and be the wealthiest in Athens, but if he had that money as a result of work rather than inheritance, he would be considered lower class (the nouveau riche always get put down some way, right?). Then she said that either Socrates or Plato (I can't recall which) had the dream of creating a "community of women and children," as she put it, for the upper class men to procreate with so there wouldn't be any focus on whose woman or child was whose, like the lower working class would do, to focus on survival. This would keep the wealth within that upper strata of society and there would be no danger of a man having to go out and work to support a family that "belonged" to him. Interesting, indeed.

[Magdlyn]

I don't think of submissive/bi as weak. Its interesting that you took my bias (tee hee, now I'm going to giggle about that) of bi men as a position that I think bi = weak. I don't think bi = weak anymore than I think submissive = weak.

OK. For the record, my gf's bf/"Master" is pansexual (bi being under that umbrella) and a switch. He's sub to his primary gf and Top to miss pixi.

I didn't mean to imply subs are weak. In the BDSM community, this is not so. I am talking about in the general public perception, any man that gets anally penetrated, or even orally penetrated, must be "weak and womanly."

So... yeah, it's odd that you, a sub, think bi men are always sub and therefore not attractive.

We have one male married poly couple we know rather well. The one guy is bi, or pan; he likes femmes of any gender. Definite Top. The couple are lifestyle BDSM people, complete with collar and contract.

[nycindie]

I think it's important to note that we who have admitted to having a bias or prejudice are expressing what our initial or general impressions are, not what we really think of an individual person. We are simply shedding light on reactionary thoughts that we know we have, but it's been stated by me and others that getting to know someone usually dissipates those thoughts and I think that's important to remember.

[River]

... I have known many guys who met your description of being in touch with their emotional lives, and were totally straight. But again, I often hung out in circles that are either "New Age-y" or focused on personal growth, the human potential movement, 12-step programs, etc. I think the more people look inward, the more expansive they become emotionally, so their sexual orientations doesn't really come into play in that regard. So, I think straight men get a bad rap in that area, as if they're all insensitive cave men. So not true!

As I see it, being one of the letters in LGBT --[or LGBTQ(eer)]--makes a great many of us "look inward" quite a lot. We question all kinds of socially approved notions about gender, sex, love, relationship... more than the average non-LGBT/Q person is apt to do. We do so in large part because we've felt excluded, or because we had hidden fearful in the closet (with milage varying here depending on both age and geography), or because we've not fit in (we're misfits).... Emotional pain often becomes the root and
cause of both inquiry into the world's norms but also into our own values, hopes, fears, desires.... So I do think, for these reasons and others, that bi men are -- on average -- more rounded and whole (in the androgyny sense). That is, they tend to embody both masculine and feminine traits in abundance. But this is just a game of averages. I'm well aware of the existence of hetero men who are also very well rounded. (One of them is my cuddle buddy!)

[River]

To fulfill my general requirements for school, I am taking aclass right now on Ancient political thought, and...

Yes, Athenian society was horribly sexist and classist. Their "democracy" was -- like early American "democracy" -- of by and for the bearers of power: men of a certain social class. These were also the official creators of "culture".

Sound familiar?

[marksbabygirl]

So... yeah, it's odd that you, a sub, think bi men are always sub and therefore not attractive.

I don't play with absolutes... "always" "never" those words don't work for me.

I have a feeling if I continue to try to explain myself, it will just get less clear.

I will leave this conversation with these points:

- I have had a reaction to a male who identifies as bi on a dating site; I tend to shy away.
-Somewhere in my head, the bi = sub line is blurred.
-Dom/sub play has been a part of my sexual activity for so long, I don't know if I would know how to respond in a *vanilla* sexual situation... although I will get to find out this weekend :)
-Nothing is absolute, and if I were to get to know someone who then later told me he was bi, it wouldn't affect my feelings for him.

Last but not least:

This conversation has been awesome for helping me to examine those feelings and hopefully restructure some of them :)

[River]

This conversation has been awesome for helping me to examine those feelings and hopefully restructure some of them :)

Cool! :)

[River]

-Dom/sub play has been a part of my sexual activity for so long, I don't know if I would know how to respond in a *vanilla* sexual situation... although I will get to find out this weekend :)

Congratulations on that opportunity!

I remember that artificially flavored "vanilla" ice cream crap that they boxed up for suburban American kids in the 70s. It was white, oderless, flavorless... and my child's mind thought of it as both "plain" and "needing chocolate syrup", or raspberry, or....

Plain, white, colorless, flavorless, odorless, bland -- that's how I sometimes think the dom / sub kinky folks think of the sex we vanilla people have. How's that for admitting my own ignorant bias? I've never been tied up, roped down, whipped, chained, peed on, or whatever the dom/sub people do in their dripping black torchlit basements. (Joking!):p

Still, I'm excited about the possibility of her on top. Hopping up and down on me. (Can I SAY that in here?)

Anyway, one fine day I had REAL vanilla ice cream. I and some other kids made it from scratch, using actual freaking vanilla beans. No one with a sense of taste and smell could possibly find such a flavor lacking in the exotic!

I demand that anyone reading here who has not smelled actual vanilla beans to run out to Whole Foods and get some just to smell it!

Then give them to someone who has an ice cream maker thingie. Or buy one. And get to work. You'll never think of vanilla as "plain" again. I promise.

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=3&pictureid=1406

[nycindie]

As I see it, being one of the letters in LGBT --[or LGBTQ(eer)]--makes a great many of us "look inward" quite a lot. We question all kinds of socially approved notions about gender, sex, love, relationship... more than the average non-LGBT/Q person is apt to do. We do so in large part because we've felt excluded . . .

And hetero people have never felt excluded? Sure, not for our gender or orientation, but everyone has had the feeling of being excluded forsome reason or another. Certainly I was ostracized growing up for many reasons, which cut deep. It makes sense, and I can certainly accept that LGBT people are more prone to and have had to dig down deep and examine emotions and issues surrounding sex and sexuality moreso than anyone else in contemporary society. But I thought you were saying that LGBT people are more self-examining and open-minded in general, and I don't see it that way. Hetero people look what it means to be in love and in relationships, question who they are, what they want, explore both the tender and agressive sides of themselves, ask why they are on the planet and search for a purpose and to reconcile their emotional lives. Obviously, the generalizing and stereotyping go both ways.

[NeonKaos]

Obviously, the generalizing and stereotyping go both ways.

It's not always as obvious as it is this time.

[AnnabelMore]

River was saying that LGBTQ people have more reason to question society's norms about sex, love, gender and relationships, and that seems to me perfectly true. I would also include other sexual minorities in that category, including kinky folks and naturally-poly folks (I see poly as an orientation for some, a choice for others).

That doesn't mean that straight, vanilla, or mono folks aren't often deep or don't have plenty of reasons to think about life, but, on those particar fronts that River mentioned, lgbtq folks do usually have a very different experience than their peers. I mean imagine *never* seeing the type of emotional or sexual relationship you crave depicted in books, movies or songs growing up!

There are lots of statistics showing that lgbtq kids are more likely to be bullied, more likely to be kicked out of their homes and are at greater risk for suicide. This by no means implies that other kids don't experience these things! But if it's more likely for queer kids, doesn't it also stand to reason that queer kids are also more likely -- on average -- to have reason to sympathize with the outsider's point of view and see things differently than their peers in some ways?

So, yeah. I think River had some perfectly salient points and I don't think he was trying to disparage straights, Nyc.

[AnnabelMore]

Note that I can say "In my experience, the queer community tends to exhibit less racism overall than society at large, which may be due to a greater general sympathy for the outsider's perspective" and this is not the same as saying "Straight people are racist."

[River]

And hetero people have never felt excluded? Sure, not for our gender or orientation, but everyone has had the feeling of being excluded forsome reason or another.

Of course you have. We have. We all have. I never implied we don't, all of us.

What I was saying is that faggots have been niggers. Think of the John Lennon song, "Woman is the nigger of the world". If you are not a faggot or a nigger, you're not a faggot or a nigger. You get to go through life a little easier than those who are faggots or niggers. Not that it will be easy. Hell no. Even women are the faggot/niggers of the world. Or "poor people". Or homeless or "Third World" people.

Poly people are also the faggot/niggers of the world.

Anyone not playing by "the rules" is a faggot and a nigger.

Sensitive, kind people are the faggots and the niggers. This is, after all, a world where the "winners" combine with the other "winners" to win at the cost of making losers out of the rest.

By no fault of your own, you just don't know, from the inside, what it is like to have feared honest self-disclosure at a tender young age about a matter that could prove emotionally or physically deadly. You have a hint of the damage The Closet can wreck. And that's about it. By no fault of your own.

[River]

But if it's more likely for queer kids, doesn't it also stand to reason that queer kids are also more likely -- on average -- to have reason to sympathize with the outsider's point of view and see things differently than their peers in some ways?

So, yeah. I think River had some perfectly salient points and I don't think he was trying to disparage straights, Nyc.

Thanks, Annabel.

I wish I could show folks here the movie of my young life. I stayed in the closet until age 24, for terror. I'm old-ish now, so the young folk here may not relate. There was not a single "out" person in my childhood or young life. I had almost no support at all -- and then AIDS hit. Right at the moment I was "coming of age". Empathize with me and those of my generation and you shall see, folks. I'm not needing any narcissistic hand-holding here. I'm standing up for a cause.

[River]

And hetero people have never felt excluded?

Did white people in the deep South sometimes feel excluded? Of course they did, and legitimately so. Think of the cannon fodder! Think of .... So many!

Honey, I've been at the back of the bus. We had no drinking fountains or restrooms of our own. We were expected to be invisible, preferably non-existent or dead. I've had figurative fire hoses turned on me.

Have you had?

[nycindie]

I survived a horrible childhood, which I won't discuss here, but suffice it to say that I have had to overcome my own seemingly insurmountable odds. You think that just because I'm straight, I "don't know, from the inside, what it is like to have feared honest self-disclosure at a tender young age about a matter that could prove emotionally or physically deadly," but that is not true. No, my issues did not pertain to my sexuality, but I had secrets to keep about myself/my family that were very damaging to do so. However, this is not about who has the "best worst story."

More to the point... I just do not see the correlation that makes one who has been the victim of discrimination more open-minded or more in touch with emotions than anyone else. In fact, people who've been victimized can be even more shut down emotionally. What I was taking exception to is the almost-blanket statement that LGBT people are just more open-minded and emotionally evolved than heteros. Perhaps they are when it comes to matters of sex, sexuality, sexual identity, gender, but not necessarily love and relationships, nor anything else. You seem to be asserting that, since LGBT people have had to struggle with the issues surrounding their sexual identity and coming out that it makes them more sympathetic and sensitive overall, and therefore more in tune with their feelings and emotional development. This is similar to when someone says that poly people are more evolved than mono people.

I am not saying that LGBT folks have not suffered at the hands and attitudes of others. I am not saying they haven't been treated unfairly. I am not challenging the idea that LGBT people have had to overcome many obstacles and deep hurts to accept and overcome any issue surrounding sex, sexuality, sexual orientation, identity, etc, including the risk of danger for doing so. I am simply saying that hetero people can be just as emotionally developed, evolved, sensitive, and in touch with their inner lives than anyone else, and can have struggled with similarly devastating or radically life-impacting issues. Different paths to self-knowledge and emotional development, but pain is pain, confusion is confusion, and loss is loss. People can be marginalized for any reason. It is part of the human condition to question who we are and what we're about, so gender and orientation doesn't make one more adept at doing so in general, though one's experiences may make one more adept at such inner exploration in a particular area of life and/or personal identity.

River, I've seen you scold members here when generalizations are made about differences between men and women. Someone who says something like, "Women are just more sensitive and compassionate than men are," often gets a rebuke from you. You would tell them not to generalize, that to do so is bullshit because there are plenty of sensitive, compassionate men out there and you are one of them. But now you're doing the same thing!

This branch of the discussion started when you stated that bisexual men are more sensitive and in touch with their emotions than straight men, and I objected to that because it's my experience that hetero men can be just as deep and emotional as you described. You said women are attracted to bi men like yourself probably because "we tend to embody the full range of human emotional responsiveness. Many women desire a quality of companionship which many or most men cannot offer, simply because they are caught up in lots of masculinity training (and perhaps also some biological traits) . . . we're just what the women generally want. We're kind, sensitive, thoughtful, tender, vulnerable, feeling..., but also tough and rugged and "masculine" when the situation calls for it." Now I know you weren't making a blanket statement about all bi men (surely there are many who are bi and not very emotionally responsive nor psychologically evolved), nor about all straight men, but your statement was an implication that most straight men tend to be less than fully responsive emotionally, and that they are not able to be kind, sensitive, thoughtful, tender, vulnerable, feelingful, while also tough, rugged and "masculine."

To me, this thinking paints a picture of straight men as mostly a bunch of unevolved, insensitive clods only interested in looking like tough guys. Geez, if Al Bundy is all I have to look forward to in my attraction to hetero men, I might as well throw in the towel now. But fortunately I have known many a straight guy who is not a cave man, and is all those things you say bi men are. I doubt they were all anomalies. All I am saying is that, while it is true that most men in our culture, gay, straight, bi, or whatever, have been taught what being a man and masculine is "supposed to be," just like women have been taught about femininity and being a woman, I don't think it's accurate to assume that one's sexual orientation determines how sensitive and able to "embody the full range of human responsiveness" a person is. You yourself point to experience rather than anything else as putting you in touch with those sensitivities (having experienced brutal forms of discrimination, for example). So, I say, it's experience, curiosity, and a willingness to challenge what we've been taught that I believe will make someone more open-minded and emotionally available than anything else.

[JuliaGay]

By no fault of your own, you just don't know, from the inside, what it is like to have feared honest self-disclosure at a tender young age about a matter that could prove emotionally or physically deadly. You have a hint of the damage The Closet can wreck. And that's about it. By no fault of your own.

Well put, River. I have tried to explain this before and not done nearly so well as you have here. Thank you.

[River]

I am not challenging the idea that LGBT people have had to overcome many obstacles and deep hurts to accept and overcome any issue surrounding sex, sexuality, sexual orientation, identity, etc, including the risk of danger for doing so. I am simply saying that hetero people can be just as emotionally developed, evolved, sensitive, and in touch with their inner lives than anyone else, and can have struggled with similarly devastating or radically life-impacting issues.

I've not even finished reading your whole post, NYCindie, but I just had to say something about the above quoted material before reading on.

I've never said that LGBT people are more developed, evolved, sensitive than those who are not LGBT--except, perhaps, on average, and about certain particular issues. Nor have I said that hetero people are less evolved. What I did was to agree with your own words, which I can only paraphrase here (since I did not memorize them and cannot readily go back and read them at the moment). You said that some people (roughly paraphrasing) are forced by circumstances to look more deepy at some matters than others, and doing so generally raises their consciousness about those matters. This I agreed with. It was YOUR statement (we can go back and find the exact quote, so my paraphrase can be adjusted).

[River]

River, I've seen you scold members here when generalizations are made about differences between men and women. Someone who says something like, "Women are just more sensitive and compassionate than men are," often gets a rebuke from you. You would tell them not to generalize, that to do so is bullshit because there are plenty of sensitive, compassionate men out there and you are one of them. But now you're doing the same thing!

I sorta doubt that I am, but I'm certainly willing to explore the possibility. This stuff isn't exactly plain and easy!

What I tried to say is that LGBT people OFTEN have to much more deeply explore issues around sexuality, gender and relationships than many hetero / straight / "normal" people have had to do, and this fact has deepened our perspective on some of these matters "on average".

It is similar to saying that racial minorities have often had to examine very deeply the racial issues in our society, and that doing so has caused them, on average, to have more awarness and sensitivity -- and often insight -- into social power dynamics (for example) than those who are not racial minorities -- all on average.

Are there exceptions to these trends? No doubt there are.

Do I think average women are more aware of power dynamics with regard to patriarchy and sexism? Damn right I do. As a guy, I have to work a little harder to see the world the way a woman can here. And I think my being one of the marginalized has helped me to be sensitive in this way.

I've never meant to suggest that "straight" people are somehow less sophisticated than LGBTQ folks. Instead, I've suggested that LGBT folks have been handed a lot of lemons and some of us have creatively made lemonaide out of some of these lemons (though rarely all of them).

What is more, I know and love many straight/"normal" people (non-LGBTQ) who are extraordinarily conscious, intelligent, developed, sophisticated, awake, loving and beautiful. I don't have a preference for LGBTQ people over non-.

There are still many white people living in the deep South who think they are superior to black folks. If only they could be black for a little while, ideally in childhood, they'd perhaps wake the f**k up? And there are men who think they're better than women, etc.... Same for them. Right?

[River]

... but your statement was an implication that most straight men tend to be less than fully responsive emotionally, and that they are not able to be kind, sensitive, thoughtful, tender, vulnerable, feelingful, while also tough, rugged and "masculine."

This is where you misunderstood my words. I never said anything about "most straight men". Rather, I compared two groups of people. Biamorous men and "straight" men, on average. I think it must be a scientific fact that biamorous men are more androgynous, on average, than "straight" men. I don't have any documentation of that fact handy, but I think this must be a fact. If it hasn't been established scientifically, somebody has got to get on it. (No pun intended.) Realize, of course, that biamorous men are a tiny fraction of the category: men. Not all bisexual men are also biamorous, and even these are a tiny fraction of the category: men. Biamorous men are capable of being fully in love with persons of either sex. Merely being sexually turned on by persons of either sex is being "bi" in the conventional (bisexual) sense. My point is that we're talking about a tiny sliver of men, on average.

Now, bring together the biamorous men of the world. And bring together the non-biamorous men. I'm saying that the biamorous men will be, on average,
more emotionally androgynous than the "straight" men.

I have money to back up my bet. You wanna bet?
;)

[River]

Once again: I really like straight men. I have nothing against straight men. Some of my best friends are straight men. My very closest male friend, aside from my boyfriend, is a straight male. I do NOT believe most straight men are cave men, or unevolved, etc.... I simply suggested that biamorous men, on average, tend to be more emotionally androgynous, and that an awful lot of women are attracted to this aspect of our being. We are, on average (as suggested by some women in these fora) "more in touch with our feeling sides" (read, tenderness).

Well, ... duh?!

[MonoVCPHG]

I am about to make a stereotyping statement (but I'm not the only one to do that in this thread) --I have a certain picture in my head of the kind of masculinity I find attractive and a bisexual guy does not fit that picture. So, in general, I'm not usually attracted to a guy who identifies as bi. I know that conditioning is hard to get past. .

Wow! I really respect your honesty on this thread Nycindie. I'll be honest as well. While I do think a lot of guys hide same sex desires, I also find openly bi-sexual men pretty easy to spot. I'm not alone in this and I don't think it is a negative thing. People who meet RP's hubby often ask me if he is gay or bisexual. Who really cares thought?

Common traits I see in bisexual men...kindness, increased empathy for the world around them, less violent and ego driven personalities and increased gentleness. Do I think these attributes are stereotypes? Nope..they are what I observe.

I don't see expectations of "masculinity" to be a conditioned prejudice to get over. I believe those "old" views and attributes still hold validity in certain environments and social circles. Keep in mind I work in the military where the classic idea of "toughness" and emotional repression is not only expected but critical in certain situations regardless of gender - in this sense my views are skewed and more one dimensional.

[Mya]

I'm not the target audience for this question since I'm bi myself. But I have to say that I find bisexuality/biamory in a man very attractive. I admit, one part of it is the thought of two men together which I find incredibly hot. But the bigger thing is what many people here have written and I have to agree with them: I can see the relation between being bi and being more feminine (soft, kind, emotional...) in a way. My husband is a bit bi-curious and he is like that, which I adore. Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone and you can find the same features in a hetero man and also not find them in a bi man. But because I see the relation between these two things, I'm intrigued if a man tells me he's bi. It's definitely a plus.

[Magdlyn]

I'm not the target audience for this question since I'm bi myself. But I have to say that I find bisexuality/biamory in a man very attractive... I can see the relation between being bi and being more feminine (soft, kind, emotional...) in a way. My husband is a bit bi-curious and he is like that, which I adore. Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone and you can find the same features in a hetero man and also not find them in a bi man. But because I see the relation between these two things, I'm intrigued if a man tells me he's bi. It's definitely a plus.

I think we might be blurring the line between sexual preference and sexual identity. It's not so much to whom you are attracted than it is to how you identify. Any guy who is more on the trans/queer scale as ID is less likely to ID as a "manly man," John Wayne solider type, and be more on the feminine scale, impelled by their makeup to be more in touch with their feelings, more likely to be into traditionally feminine pursuits (like being discriminating about food and fine wines, clothes shopping, crafting such as sewing, nurturing babies, etc) and less into just cheap beer drinking and sports and cars. There are plenty of "metrosexual" men who are not bi or gay.

I kinda dislike the LGBTQ tag because it covers sexual preference and sexual identity. Trans is sexual identity. Queer can mean preference or identity. LGB is sexual preference.

miss pixi's bf IDs as bi, but right now he's kind of being a douche about her feelings. She'll pour out her heart about her inner feelings, and he'll just go, and I quote, "Yeah people are assholes. Wanna watch TV?"

[JuliaGay]

I survived a horrible childhood, which I won't discuss here, but suffice it to say that I have had to overcome my own seemingly insurmountable odds. You think that just because I'm straight, I "don't know, from the inside, what it is like to have feared honest self-disclosure at a tender young age about a matter that could prove emotionally or physically deadly," but that is not true. No, my issues did not pertain to my sexuality, but I had secrets to keep about myself/my family that were very damaging to do so. However, this is not about who has the "best worst story."

More to the point... I just do not see the correlation that makes one who has been the victim of discrimination more open-minded or more in touch with emotions than anyone else. In fact, people who've been victimized can be even more shut down emotionally. What I was taking exception to is the almost-blanket statement that LGBT people are just more open-minded and emotionally evolved than heteros. Perhaps they are when it comes to matters of sex, sexuality, sexual identity, gender, but not necessarily love and relationships, nor anything else. You seem to be asserting that, since LGBT people have had to struggle with the issues surrounding their sexual identity and coming out that it makes them more sympathetic and sensitive overall, and therefore more in tune with their feelings and emotional development. This is similar to when someone says that poly people are more evolved than mono people.

I am not saying that LGBT folks have not suffered at the hands and attitudes of others. I am not saying they haven't been treated unfairly. I am not challenging the idea that LGBT people have had to overcome many obstacles and deep hurts to accept and overcome any issue surrounding sex, sexuality, sexual orientation, identity, etc, including the risk of danger for doing so. I am simply saying that hetero people can be just as emotionally developed, evolved, sensitive, and in touch with their inner lives than anyone else, and can have struggled with similarly devastating or radically life-impacting issues. Different paths to self-knowledge and emotional development, but pain is pain, confusion is confusion, and loss is loss. People can be marginalized for any reason. It is part of the human condition to question who we are and what we're about, so gender and orientation doesn't make one more adept at doing so in general, though one's experiences may make one more adept at such inner exploration in a particular area of life and/or personal identity.

Well, I had a big response all ready to go when Firefox decided to crash. :( Hopefully that doesn't happen this time....

I, too, had a horrible childhood. But those circumstances were not related to my sexual orientation. The journey I took to heal those wounds was vastly different from the one I took to accept and be proud of my queerness.

Because it’s the dominant paradigm, it doesn’t take any introspection to have acceptance of your orientation and live your life as a healthy, out and proud heterosexual. It just is the expected way to be. It does take a huge amount of internal work to be a healthy, out and proud homosexual or bisexual. I don’t know anyone who has attempted or committed suicide because they were straight. I do know of a large number of people who did because they were queer. It’s my observation, over nearly 30 years, that queer folks in general are open minded about many things because of the work they did coming to terms with their sexual orientation. This is also true for poly folks in general, because of the work required to live a different kind of life than is socially ordained. Is it possible to be straight and open minded? Absolutely. I just find the percentage of straight folks who are open minded to be smaller than the percentage of queer folks.

I can tell you that living life as an assumed heterosexual is very different from living life as an assumed homosexual. (I’m using the word assumed because on the surface that’s what people see, unless they are close enough to me that I bother to explain being bisexual/biamorous.) My first primary partners were women, so the first 20 years of my adult life I publicly identified as lesbian. For the last 9 I’ve been with a man. The amount of heterosexual privilege in our society is astounding. Among other things, I don’t have to worry about being beaten up or worse because I’m holding my partner’s hand or giving him a kiss. Now those things get benevolent smiles if they get any reaction at all. I have no societal struggle associated with being in a heterosexual relationship whereas being in a homosexual one was always a societal struggle.

Because of my struggles and internal work, I’m hyper-aware that I can’t know what it’s like to live in our society as part of other groups. And I believe that work has made me more open minded and more tolerant than I would have been had I been born straight.

JG

[Hardison]

But back to the question...I am hetero but not poly. So hypothetically if I was single, I would be less likely to date a bisexual woman. Naturally, I would seek out a mono partner so this wouldn't be an issue though. If she was wired mono, she wouldn't be interested in others and I'm not into the two women one guy thing anyways.


Why do you seem to assume that if someone is Bi they can't also be mono?
I think it is quite possible to have an interest in both male and female (or even trans and gender-queer too) and still only want one partner.

[nycindie]

Why do you seem to assume that if someone is Bi they can't also be mono?
I think it is quite possible to have an interest in both male and female (or even trans and gender-queer too) and still only want one partner.
I was just saying a similar thing to Lively, my lover, a few days ago! He said that if he were interested in being monogamous with someone, he couldn't do that with a bi woman because she would always want "one of each" (as he put it) and therefore would always be looking for more partners. And I told him that for a monogamous person who takes commitments and "vows" seriously, it's the love and commitment that would override any kind of attraction to other people, whether they were straight or bi or what-have-you. When you're mono and you've found The One, it's The One! That's it, and you don't want to keep looking! I think you can still have a bisexual orientation and only want to be with one person -- I guess it just means that you wouldn't have a preference over what sex/gender The One would be. I don't think being bi automatically makes someone poly and in need of multiple relationships, just as being/living poly doesn't automatically require being bi.

[River]

I have spent basically all of my adult life in committed, long term relationships--mainly two of them. The first lasted about six years. The second is still going at 15+ years. The first was entirely mono. The second has been mostly mono in effect/experience while being mostly poly in theory and design. Thing is, neither myself or my partner (Kevin) has
found or been found by anyone suitable for long term love, until recently. And I don't really do casual sex. And he mostly doesn't either, especially lately. So, in effect, I've been mono in effect, or something like that, most of my life. Until recently. Only difference being, until recently, that Kevin & I are cool about the other finding--or being found by--another love, or two.

While I've had snuggles and cuddles and lots of hugs and a few kisses with others (apart from Kevin) over the last several years, that's as far as it has gone. I guess I'm just pretty damned selective. And whenever I haven't been highly selective things have gone pretty bad, fast.

I'm not looking to complete a set of two, "one of each". By chance, my Faraway Sweetie
is female. That's pretty neat! But not planned.

[MeeraReed]

Just to add a new angle:

The stereotype I had (in my own head) of a bisexual man is totally the opposite of what's being discussed here.

I imagined (without putting a lot of thought into it) that the "typical" bisexual man would be hyper-masculine, hyper-sexual, dominant, interested in sex over emotions, and not particularly self-reflective or introspective.

I suppose I was thinking of some historical research I've done on sexuality in Roman times (which is slightly different than the Greek views of sex). A properly masculine, upper-class Roman man was expected to have a high sex drive and to desire both women and men. (Actually, not so much men as boys, and more specifically, slave boys).

Obviously, that's not at all relevant today, but for some reason I did have a notion in the biased recesses of my mind that a bi man would be promiscuous and dominant.

And I do think that both bi men and bi women suffer from a stereotype that because they are bi, they must be more sexual and more promiscuous than the average straight person. They're bi, so that means they must just be not very particular! Or else they must want "one of each"!

On the other hand, to arrive at the conclusion that you are bi (and to identify as bi rather than as gay, straight, or simply bi-curious), you probably have had to become more in tune with your sexuality, and perhaps more open to experimentation, than the average straight person.

(I'm a straight person, but not average!)