I don't see a better thread to put my two cents in, and don't feel like starting one, so.... here. This is going to ramble a bit. Lots, rather. Sorry.

I think a lot of this (sexuality?) is formed through cultural lenses, etc. The idea that some men have difficulty finding other men beautiful baffles me, and I can only assume that it's because repeated messages send out some kind of signal that they shouldn't be able to do so. Apparently I missed that signal: go figure. It wouldn't be the first thing I've missed though. Anyhow... while I can think of plenty of attractive men (shatteredmirror in a nice suit, Brad Pitt, etc)....I don't want to have sex with any of them. I suppose there's a spectrum of sorts, as some people have said. The only (or main, rather) reason I wouldn't have sex with another man is purely personal ... the method of doing it is not something I'm interested in trying. Ever. If you disagree and are up to it... more power to you. It shouldn't be my concern, and I don't think it should be anyone's concern. Emotional connections to people go beyond sexual relations, but my being particularly connected to X, Y, or Z doesn't make me bi or gay (imo, at least). That's what friendship is. And friendship is a valuable thing, no matter what it's predicated on.

The first contrast that pops to my mind I suppose would be the ancient greeks, where relations between men were much more common - even if/when they weren't marriage type relations. I'm not an ancient greek insider by any means, but my understanding is that a lot of it was fueled by a platonic sense of beauty qua beauty, and the appreciation of it as such. So you could appreciate another man, and stand to gain from relating to him or acknowledging that he was a closer approximation of beauty as such than X, but that didn't tie you into exclusively homosexual relations.

In the US though, that isn't enough to stop a majority (or significant minority, perhaps) from acting like sexuality is their concern. That's an artificial assumption of burden, but when enough people assume it anyways, it's hard to do very much about it. It turns into a public debate. Abortion is a fairly close parallel to sexual relations in this sense, if you ask me (not that I'm overwhelmingly qualified here either). The government is not in a position to genuinely regulate either (if the state prohibits abortions, that won't stop them... it will just outsource them to foreign countries for the rich or make them much riskier for the poor, imo ... and the state clearly can't regulate love as such), but the government nonetheless decides that it must act. To be fair to the US government (and I apologize if I offend anyone), straight relations are, broadly, natural. Or at the very least relations that encompass having sex with the opposite gender. That's just how it goes.... that's how species survive, and there's no way around it. It's also how new citizens are born, in countries where birth equals citizenship. I don't think humans are /that/ fundamentally different from other organic creations that we can just toss those rules out the window on the whole.

Why modern governments should concern themselves with this is somewhat beyond me. The most logical reasoning I can figure out (beyond simple political pandering to redneck types) is that the State presumably gains benefits and obligations when straight people form a union and produce children (which, really, isn't possible in other types of relations). Because the state is incurring benefits and obligations, it has some obligation to regulate marriage (which is otherwise a religious thing, and beyond the state's regulation). This is similar reasoning to various statutory rape laws - the government doesn't care in a broad sense if an 18 year old is having sex with his 16 year old girl friend, but the government /does/ have a legitimate interest in staturory rape because a 16 year old girl is - in many cases - not capable of rationally planning out her future/the future of her potential child. If she can't support that child, it will become a government burden though, that must be supported through public means.

As far as people "spotting" you as a lesbian, or bisexual, or whatever.... how are they supposed to? Some of you act as if it's puzzling that people can't do this, but I'm not sure why. A person looks like a person. The first lesbian/gay people I got to know.... I had no idea until they let me know. And there's really no reason I should have known either, until we got to talking and they felt like opening up some and letting me know more about themselves than their appearences alone would let on. There's no "bi" look, that I know of.... but hey. I'm out of it. If you're bi and put yourself out there as lesbian or straight, I don't see why anyone would question you.

Anyways.... in sum: this post has no specific point or argument. It's just a few things I wanted to toss out there.

mmm, just to clarify here, sexual orientation and sexual identity are NOT the same thing. I like flowers, but that has nothing to do with who I want to get naked with. The language is a little vague and ambiguous here, which is problematic, but the point is, if I think of someone as bisexual, I think of them that way because they have sexual interest in males and females to some degree. I hope I didn't imply that bisexuals are in any way more libidinous than anyone else, I didn't mean that at all. I mean, I happen to be more libidinous than a lot of people I know, and I don't think that has anything to do with me being straight (or nearly straight, or whatever).

Re - Willow

I don't know if you can necessarily say that this is an inaccurate portrayal. There are real people who had heterosexual relationships that were for the most part healthy, who eventually never dated the opposite sex again and will tell you they are fully gay or lesbian despite their hetero pasts. Nor will they tell you they are bisexual.

How one defines their sexuality tends to be largely a personal affair - what is bisexual to one person may be homosexual to another person experiencing the same basic scenarios.

Ashnod wrote: I don't know if you can necessarily say that this is an inaccurate portrayal. There are real people who had heterosexual relationships that were for the most part healthy, who eventually never dated the opposite sex again and will tell you they are fully gay or lesbian despite their hetero pasts. Nor will they tell you they are bisexual.

Fair comment, Ashnod - I take your point.
I guess, seeing as how one possible interpretation of Willow could be bi-ness, and she's a cool positive character, it would have been nice to see her as a positive portrayal of a bi in media (from my viewpoint). But she makes a great "now I am only a lesbian ta-da!" too.

Sexual orientation that differs from strictly hetero is much more acceptable today than it was twenty years ago, so it's easy to forget that for a lot of people growing up the idea of not being straight is horrifying. I never examined my sexuality closely until about two years ago, and I actually am straight. So for those who are not, there can be a lot of self-deception. Add to the mix that in women more than in men, sexual orientation itself is fluid and can change over the course of life.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that prior relationships don't matter because someone either realized that they were different, or in fact became different. But at the same time, I don't know that it's alright to demand that someone make a choice at some arbitrary moment and then stick with it. It smacks of that excuse-for-sex business again to me...

Ashnod wrote:

There are real people who had heterosexual relationships that were for the most part healthy, who eventually never dated the opposite sex again and will tell you they are fully gay or lesbian despite their hetero pasts. Nor will they tell you they are bisexual.

How one defines their sexuality tends to be largely a personal affair - what is bisexual to one person may be homosexual to another person experiencing the same basic scenarios.

I tend to file it as less a personal decision and more a political decision, but that's because I'm pompous and judgmental like that, and have to pull back and remember it's not really my call.  But, yes, there is a definite strain of people who have positive sexua experience with both men and women, who decide to label themselves 'gay' and to adopt a position of ew! ick! I could never... despite yesterday's evidence, or perhaps even today's.

A friend of mine is very very gay in his public and businesss (big time Hollywood producer - without the 'big time' part, anyway), despite obvious reflex attraction to women and to many examples of the female form.  In more private situations, amongst people who've known him for years, or, say, with women he's trying to convince to sleep with him, he can't not cop to being bi.

I see this more often than not, anymore.  The public face, the business face, and the well, shit, everybody already knows face.  The people committing to those portrayals of themselves seem to believe it isn't hypocritical or self-effacing, and maybe it's not.  I can't shake the feeling it's a deliberate lie, et cetera, et judgmental cetera.  Homosexual lifestyle versus homo/hetero/bisexual... I dunno... being, I guess.  Maybe?

And I just got hit up by sisters - yes, blood siblings - on a shoot, because they assumed I'd be into that sort of thing.  Because, being bisexual means you're, y'know, down for anything, apparently.  And, much in the dlaire-a-few-posts-back vein, I ain't good-looking or fab enough to warrant this sort of random come on.  No further comment on that, but to say, if there'd been a wall I would have been banging my head against it.

Like_Autumn wrote:

I suppose bisexuality is the "most acceptable" non-hetero sexuality that could be presented in the media, even though the character is pretty and feminine and obviously appeals to male viewers.

If rather than even though, I'd say.  And that's through a veneer of straight male perspective, if anything.

Nonfemme, lesbian-who-can't-be-turned?  Bisexual man with a preference for men, or out and out gay man?  Woman with marked preference for women even if she is interested in some men, can be swung, but only if the narrative puts her in a place where she's falling for a specific guy (see Chasing Amy, May, et al).

Torchwood's Jack is still all it takes to make a lot of people nervous.

American/English-language television has come a ways since, say, Star Trek: TNG felt the need for Beverly Crusher to drop her FtM lover, Picard and Q to've done absolutely nothing in bed, and androgynous aliens to get properly genderboxed before the credits roll.  But, we ain't gone very far.

Last edited by Decrescent Daytripper (09-19-2008 07:19:13 PM)

Decrescent Daytripper wrote:

I tend to file it as less a personal decision and more a political decision, but that's because I'm pompous and judgmental like that, and have to pull back and remember it's not really my call.  But, yes, there is a definite strain of people who have positive sexua experience with both men and women, who decide to label themselves 'gay' and to adopt a position of ew! ick! I could never... despite yesterday's evidence, or perhaps even today's.

I wish I didn't agree with this as much as I did. Having had sex or sex-related activities with straight-identified guys and lesbian-identified girls... on the one hand, I don't have the right to define others' identities, but... please, people, don't suck my dick one day and say you're not into guys the next.