For those of you that don't read the comments, it seems there is a debate brewing over bisexuality. Nobody asked for my opinion (well, I guess you do read my blog...) but I'm going to offer my thoughts. My first observation is that we're actually having two debates. For the sake of clarity, it's probably important to recognize the two and keep them separate. The first debate is over
semantics. The second is over the question of whether bisexuality really exists at all.
As for semantics, some people seem to want to say that if a guy likes dick (even a little) then he's gay, because "gay guys like dick, so if you like dick you must be gay." Apart from being a gross oversimplification, it's just bad logic. It's like saying "
obligate carnivores like meat, so if you like meat, you must be an obligate carnivore." But that's just not true, because
omnivores like meat too. Of course, omnivores
also like plants. Liking meat is not mutually exclusive with liking vegetables. An animal who likes meat
might be an obligate carnivore. But he might also be an omnivore.
The reason we can all agree that my carnivore/omnivore reasoning is correct is because we agree on the definitions of those words. They're "scientific." Some people might have trouble analogizing it to the homosexual/bisexual situation, however, because we're in disagreement concerning those definitions. But unless you want to argue that the word "gay" means the exact same thing as the word "bisexual," it's simply wrong to say "if you like dick, you're gay."
Obviously we can quibble about exactly where the line is between the terms "gay" and "bisexual". Is it enough to have once got a hardon when looking at a woman? Is it enough to have once enjoyed having sex with a woman? Is it a numbers game, requiring that out of every 10 people you think are hot, at least 3 be women? Is it necessary that you like men and women equally (as if there's any way to quantify that)? I don't know. We can debate it. But the only point I'm trying to make is that it's incorrect, as a matter of semantics, to say that everybody who likes dick is gay.
So, just for the sake of having a clear conversation, let me get my definitions out on the table. If you want to disagree with them, that's fine. But let's not mix and match. It gets confusing to say that somebody is "a little gay." If they're "a little gay," I'd put them somewhere in the bisexual range.
Straight = only being attracted to members of the opposite sex.
Bisexual = being attracted to members of both sexes.
Gay = only being attracted to members of the same sex.
As for whether bisexuality exists, it seems to me that it would be kind of ridiculous for a vegetarian to deny the existence of omnivores ("He doesn't really like meat. He's just caving to societal pressure and pretending he likes meat. Just give him time. He'll come around and realize he only likes jicama and chickpeas.") The reason that's ridiculous is that nobody can really know what other people like. I find it hard to believe that people think
Vegemite tastes good, but they say they do. Who am I to disagree? They're
their tastebuds!
It seems equally ridiculous for a gay or straight guy to deny the existence of bisexuals. How could any person know what anybody else likes? They can extrapolate based on their own personal experience. But to universalize one's own experience is the highest conceit.
If there are "gay" genes, maybe there are also "bisexual" genes. So, someday, if we discover these genes, we may actually be able to tell whether somebody
else is attracted to women. Until then, I think we have no choice but to take their word for it.
As far as taking their word for it, a skeptic's next argument might be that they are deluding themselves. Maybe so. I can tell you that for me, for a while, it felt better to pretend that I was still attracted to women. I wanted to hold onto the hope that I just needed to find the right one, and that I'd then be able to marry and have 2.5 kids and the white picket fence and all that. I grasped onto the fact that I used to get hard and leak precum when I fooled around with my high school girlfriend, and the fact that I really do appreciate the sight of a beautiful feminine neck or back or hands.
Yes, for ME, it was a crutch. When I still thought being gay was wrong, it allowed me to pretend I'm not a TOTAL pervert. I'm not TOTALLY unnatural. I'm not a TOTAL fag. And I have a feeling it might be that way for a lot of guys who are really gay. But because that's true for me does NOT mean it's that way for all guys.
Even if you believe bisexuals are full of shit, I think you should give them a break. I bet most of you would think it sad for a 'mostly straight' guy to feel pressured by society and himself not to admit that he might also be attracted to a guy. He would never be able to express that side of himself. And maybe that little glimmer of attraction to a guy is the first sign of full-blown homosexuality blossoming, but he'd never know it. And I think that would be a loss. If he really is even a little attracted to men, he should know it, and enjoy it.
I don't think that's any different from the pressure gay guys put on 'mostly gay' guys who think they might also be attracted to women. What if they can derive a lot of pleasure from, and have a loving relationship with, a woman? Should they be pressured into never discovering that by gay guys who tell them they're sell-outs and confused and in denial? I don't think so.
It seems to me that sexuality is on a continuum. I don't think gays should consider the heterosexual side any more taboo than I think straights should consider the homosexual side taboo. If a straight guy wants to veer a little toward the the gay side, let him! (and send him my way! yum!) And if a gay guy wants to veer a little toward the straight side, let him!
I think the reality is that a lot of people are bisexual to some degree, but feel pressured into declaring for one team or the other. I realize there have been more comprehensive and accurate studies since then, but even in the 1950's people were admitting bisexuality.
Kinsey's studies showed that 11.6% of white males between 20 and 35 had an equal number of heterosexual and homosexual experiences. I would guess that most of that was due to actual desire. So, I just don't think it has to be one or the other.
This makes sense, don't you think? Isn't bisexuality ideal? As far as the biological imperative to procreate goes, widespread bisexuality is less ideal than if everyone were totally heterosexual, but will result in a lot more babies than if everybody were totally homosexual. As far as enjoyment goes, wouldn't it be nice to have the potential to be attracted to 6 billion rather than 3 billion people? That's SO many more opportunities! How cool would it be to go to a club and know that you could potentially wind up with ANYBODY in the room (assuming everybody were bisexual)?
Of course, the act of having sex is only a small component of the romantic/sexual interaction between humans. People can be attracted to a person's personality, their potential to provide for them, their pedigree, or even their car. And that's obviously not a complete list. Both men and women can have good and bad personalities, earning potentials, pedigrees and cars. So, even if I am not attracted to a woman's body, I am attracted to people who are funny, caring, selfless, confident, modest, intelligent etc etc. Even though I consider myself totally gay in terms of my physical attractions, I can't rule out that I could someday fall in love with a woman, and want to spend my life with her. Her personality could outweigh my lack of physical attraction, or it might give rise to physical attraction. Who knows? I don't think that's likely, but I can't say it's impossible, because I'm not exclusively motivated by physical attraction. And if that did happen, I might just have to call myself bisexual.
Anyway, the main point I'm trying to make is that gay men have no more right, or ability, to say bisexuals are really gay (but in denial) than straights have to say that gay men are really straight (but confused). We can't know what's going on inside somebody else's head, or heart.
Ok, that's my two cents. As always, I freely admit that I do not have all the answers, nor have I had time to sit and really think this stuff through. I welcome your comments, and look forward to a lively discussion. I am willing to have my mind changed by the smart and articulate people that read this blog, and I hope you guys are too.
