I had an encounter with a dude recently who, immediately after our (unremarkable) first sexual encounter starts speechifying me about how he’s “not looking for a relationship” and “doesn’t want to put labels on things” and I was like *WORLD’S HEAVIEST SIGH* because, even though I agree with both of those statements on paper, the kind of guys who say them are always defining “relationship” in the most banal way and assuming that’s what all women want and it’s just…stop. Why can’t we explore possibilities of types of relationships we could have? Either way, I’m probably too tired and apathetic to fuck around. (I ended up ghosting him.)
Lol I was once hooking up with a friend who bristled when I said something about “our relationship” like… even when we were just friends we were technically in a relationship! We’re two people relating to one another!
Ooh! The same! The same! I happen to currently have a girlfriend, but during my polyamory practice of more than 20 years, I have had both male partners and female partners, and one androgynous partner (I don't think gender-fluid was a widely used term at the time, but "androgynous" was the label they preferred). But I have also had long stretches where my legally defined spouse (male) was my only partner. I did not cease being bisexual during those times, but I did feel invisible and/or get looked at askance in Pride book clubs and LGBTQ social groups. As a writer I wrestle with writing my own bisexual characters, because unless I put it in the blurb explicitly, many readers will miss the fact that my female main characters are bisexual (seeing them as straight if involved with men, and seeing them as gay if involved with women). One reviewer even wrote that a romance story of mine wasn't "lesbian enough" (and shouldn't have earned an award) because one character had divorced a man and became involved with a woman in the story. Of course she wasn't lesbian. If she'd chosen a label for herself, she was bisexual. (I facepalmed for days after reading that review). Shortly after though, the organization redefined its mission statement to include the word "sapphic," to umbrella-cover all female-centered sexualities and romantic attachments. Bisexuality does reject the binary of both gay/straight and monogamous/nonmonogamous, instead making a statement about life being a journey where our relationship practice and our loves can be anywhere on a scatter plot map at any given time along our lifetime, and <b>it does not ever change who we are</>. Oddly that last part has been the main argument gay men and lesbians have been making for decades and yet they often are the ones that most struggle to see and accept the B (or the T) within the rainbow.
I have often wanted to get as specific as possible when talking to a potential partner about a "relationship" and the flavors therein, but that's a bit off the point I'd like make: The words "possibilities" and "obligation" were used in the essay and to that I would like to add "inevitability." The fact that I am sometimes attracted sexually to men doesn't mean it's inevitable I will pursue that attraction if I'm in a romantic relationship with a woman. I may never have sex with another man again. At this point in my life I certainly don't have the energy or inclination to pursue a tryst with a man. But I still "really" like the idea!
I have—at various times in my life—practiced or desired non-monogamy (as well as monogamy). That doesn't mean that it's inevitable I will want that at any time in my future. However, the sad truth is that, for many, many people, the mere mention of the words bisexuality and non-monogamy trigger such a strong reaction that any nuanced discussion is off the table.
Bisexuality, hell, sexuality in general illuminates great difficulty for many people who don't have enough practice or curiosity to hold two—or more—seemingly opposing choices and imagine that both, or all, are possible.
ooh! this: "the mere mention of the words bisexuality and non-monogamy trigger such a strong reaction that any nuanced discussion is off the table." I totally agree this is so frustrating
If someone never pursues relationships with anyone but those of a different binary gender, it's safe to say they're likely not a good match for an openly queer person of the same gender seeking fulfilling, healthy relationships.
'monogamy always seems to lead to discussions about things like “emotional affairs” and “is flirting cheating” and frankly, I would prefer not to be policed like that' -- holy crap, yes, thank you.
I had an encounter with a dude recently who, immediately after our (unremarkable) first sexual encounter starts speechifying me about how he’s “not looking for a relationship” and “doesn’t want to put labels on things” and I was like *WORLD’S HEAVIEST SIGH* because, even though I agree with both of those statements on paper, the kind of guys who say them are always defining “relationship” in the most banal way and assuming that’s what all women want and it’s just…stop. Why can’t we explore possibilities of types of relationships we could have? Either way, I’m probably too tired and apathetic to fuck around. (I ended up ghosting him.)
Lol I was once hooking up with a friend who bristled when I said something about “our relationship” like… even when we were just friends we were technically in a relationship! We’re two people relating to one another!
Ooh! The same! The same! I happen to currently have a girlfriend, but during my polyamory practice of more than 20 years, I have had both male partners and female partners, and one androgynous partner (I don't think gender-fluid was a widely used term at the time, but "androgynous" was the label they preferred). But I have also had long stretches where my legally defined spouse (male) was my only partner. I did not cease being bisexual during those times, but I did feel invisible and/or get looked at askance in Pride book clubs and LGBTQ social groups. As a writer I wrestle with writing my own bisexual characters, because unless I put it in the blurb explicitly, many readers will miss the fact that my female main characters are bisexual (seeing them as straight if involved with men, and seeing them as gay if involved with women). One reviewer even wrote that a romance story of mine wasn't "lesbian enough" (and shouldn't have earned an award) because one character had divorced a man and became involved with a woman in the story. Of course she wasn't lesbian. If she'd chosen a label for herself, she was bisexual. (I facepalmed for days after reading that review). Shortly after though, the organization redefined its mission statement to include the word "sapphic," to umbrella-cover all female-centered sexualities and romantic attachments. Bisexuality does reject the binary of both gay/straight and monogamous/nonmonogamous, instead making a statement about life being a journey where our relationship practice and our loves can be anywhere on a scatter plot map at any given time along our lifetime, and <b>it does not ever change who we are</>. Oddly that last part has been the main argument gay men and lesbians have been making for decades and yet they often are the ones that most struggle to see and accept the B (or the T) within the rainbow.
Somehow I'm hearing the "Pure Imagination" song from the Gene Wilder Charlie And The Chocolate Factory movie.
I have often wanted to get as specific as possible when talking to a potential partner about a "relationship" and the flavors therein, but that's a bit off the point I'd like make: The words "possibilities" and "obligation" were used in the essay and to that I would like to add "inevitability." The fact that I am sometimes attracted sexually to men doesn't mean it's inevitable I will pursue that attraction if I'm in a romantic relationship with a woman. I may never have sex with another man again. At this point in my life I certainly don't have the energy or inclination to pursue a tryst with a man. But I still "really" like the idea!
I have—at various times in my life—practiced or desired non-monogamy (as well as monogamy). That doesn't mean that it's inevitable I will want that at any time in my future. However, the sad truth is that, for many, many people, the mere mention of the words bisexuality and non-monogamy trigger such a strong reaction that any nuanced discussion is off the table.
Bisexuality, hell, sexuality in general illuminates great difficulty for many people who don't have enough practice or curiosity to hold two—or more—seemingly opposing choices and imagine that both, or all, are possible.
ooh! this: "the mere mention of the words bisexuality and non-monogamy trigger such a strong reaction that any nuanced discussion is off the table." I totally agree this is so frustrating
If someone never pursues relationships with anyone but those of a different binary gender, it's safe to say they're likely not a good match for an openly queer person of the same gender seeking fulfilling, healthy relationships.
'monogamy always seems to lead to discussions about things like “emotional affairs” and “is flirting cheating” and frankly, I would prefer not to be policed like that' -- holy crap, yes, thank you.