quote:

---

The question for auntie comes from a woman who is bisexual and who feels that all outsiders need to know is that she is married, monogamous and therefore not available. This is complicated by one of her pet peeves — the fact that a significant number of people tend to perceive bisexuals as incapable of monogamy. Should she sacrifice her desire for privacy in the name of honesty and potential for educating people, or is it morally justifiable to keep her sexual proclivities in the bedroom with her husband where they belong?

---

Here's auntie

(Edited to change the headline.)

[ 27 February 2006: Message edited by: Sharon ]

auntie seems to be implying no, and I think that would be my answer too. Certainly, no one has the right to project a political responsibility on to you or make assumptions about your politics just because s/he can tell you are a member of a particular group.

My question is, "How do you shorten that into a snappy headline?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sharon:
I went for a more generic headline, however.

---

quote:

---

People are stupid when it comes to sexuality. What else is new?

---

The first thing that pops into my head is what do you suppose is the *reason* why people are stupid when it comes to sexuality?

Which segues (in my mind anyway) to:

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Maybe one further question that this letter raises is: "Merely because one is a member of a particular group, is one required to become an activist on that issue?"

Each of us has to decide what kind of political responsibility we feel, or where we want to direct our energies - maybe that is what Bi is really deciding right now.

---

I agree, to a point. But if you find yourself belonging to a sexual minority I do think it is your responsibility try to educate someone, sometime... maybe just once, maybe just your parents or a sibling, maybe just your best friend... but *somebody*.

If you don't do that, not ever, then the question becomes what exactly do you think is so wrong about you that you have to endure a lifetime of hiding?

[ 27 February 2006: Message edited by: Crippled_Newsie ]

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: Makwa ]

quote:

---

But if you find yourself belonging to a sexual minority I do think it is your responsibility try to educate someone, sometime... maybe just once, maybe just your parents or a sibling, maybe just your best friend... but *somebody*.

---

quote:

---

If you don't do that, not ever, then the question becomes what exactly do you think is so wrong about you that you have to endure a lifetime of hiding?

---

If the world requires education, there are plenty of natural-born pedants, documentarians and exhibitionists to supply it. Possession of a non-average trait - whether it be sexual orientation, musical talent, skin pigmentation, a photographic memory, second sight or short bones - does not oblige you to share your private decisions and experience with the world, any more than average traits oblige their possessors to share.

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: nonsuch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonsuch:

A question doesn't 'become'; it is asked. Someone has to ask it. Someone has to feel entitled to ask it.

---

Perhaps I was unclear. Apologies.

By saying 'the question becomes,' I meant that, in the circumstances described, the original question of whether or not one has a responsibility to educate is ineluctably less important than the broader question: i.e., 'what exactly do you think is so wrong about you that you have to endure a lifetime of hiding?'

quote:

---

...you should also include the corollaries: "Is a secret necessarily about something bad?" ...and "Is keeping a fact about myself private necessarily a trial to endure - or might it be an empowering choice?"

---

In general, I don't believe in the balm that some would say the closet provides. Except in circumstances where it's required to directly preserve personal safety, staying in the closet is a parasitical act.

quote:

---

If the world requires education, there are plenty of natural-born pedants, documentarians and exhibitionists to supply it.

---

I'd have to say that is manifestly untrue, given the incredible numbers of people who have, as yet, managed to live to ripe old ages entirely uneducated on these matters.

quote:

---

Possession of a non-average trait - whether it be sexual orientation, musical talent, skin pigmentation, a photographic memory, second sight or short bones - does not oblige you to share your private decisions and experience with the world, any more than average traits oblige their possessors to share.

---

Apart from skin pigmentation (which has direct parallels, IMO), sexual orientation is unique among the traits on that list insofar as people are persecuted when thiers just happens to be 'non-standard.'

quote:

---

Except in circumstances where it's required to directly preserve personal safety, staying in the closet is a parasitical act.

---

I fail to see how being a minority gives anyone the right to oppress others like hemself, any more than being a majority gives anyone the right to oppress those who are different.

This isn't the first time i've heard and argument along the lines of: "You are one of us; therefore you owe us loyalty". In its more benign forms, it puts some unfair pressure on an individual to conform for the sake of solidarity. In the more extreme forms, it translates as: "You are one of us; therefore we own your ass." In the extreme form, it is exactly like any other persecution.

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: nonsuch ]

The woman who wrote this is entitled to privacy, and is under no obligation to disclose her sexual orientation to anyone if she doesn't want to. She's chosen to marry a man, that's a choice she made, and people should simply leave her alone and they have no business making "assumptions" about her availability because she happens to be bisexual. Married =\= availabile, it's that simple.

Besides, aren't most known cheating partners hetero in orientation?

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]

quote:

---

Besides, aren't most known cheating partners hetero in orientation?

---

quote:

---

Second, she hasn't asked for a free ride; she's not taking anything that rightfully belongs to another; she's not breaking any promises. So how is it parasitic?

---

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Raos ]

quote:

---

Because she's willing to accept the hard-won acceptance (such as it is, so far) of bisexuals by the wider society that was won by the many "out" bis who put their ass on the line, often in physical danger, just by being "out", every day of their lives.

---

quote:

---

...if her privacy is what is most important to her, Raos, and people are just making their own assumptions (misguided or otherwise), then WTF is her problem?

---

quote:

---

And why shouldn't she have that right to privacy?

---

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonsuch:
If the world requires education, there are plenty of natural-born pedants, documentarians and exhibitionists to supply it.

---

So I don't get the "educating" connection either.

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

The writer's problem was a choice between solidarity and privacy.
Staying in the closet (which might also be stated as not advertising the other, dormant, aspect of her sexuality) was the right choice in her private and social life, because she isn't looking for new partners and doesn't want anybody getting the wrong idea and calling her nasty names when she refuses to put out.
But that seemed disloyal - letting the side down - in her political life, because there is pressure to proclaim and explain and educate the public at large, for the greater eventual weal of the minority to which she secretly belongs. And which seems to want to beat her up for ... not putting her ass on the line, because some other people, without any prompting or pressure from her, chose to put theirs on the line. Which they wouldn't be able to do if she'd stayed in the closet and hadn't given them a lever. Which she did, for no gain, but from a sense of loyalty that she's now accused of betraying.

Well, that's humans. Can't win for losin'.

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: nonsuch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonsuch:We sort of forget that this is meant to be an 'agony aunt' column, rather than a political forum. The people who write in are asking for help with their private, personal, emotional conundrums, not their political decisions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Sorry, but until sexual orientation causes no more comment than eye colour or which hand is dominant, the 'politics' of it all comes with the territory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gunnar gunnarson:
Why Heph, you slut!

(God help me, I laugh every time someone does this.)

---

Heh. Shades of, "Jane, you ignorant slut."

quote:

---

to keep her sexual proclivities in the bedroom with her husband where they belong?

---

Excuse me, what? "Where they belong"?

Also, from auntie's response:

quote:

---

It makes sense that if you are married to, and living with a man and you tell people you are bi, they will assume you are looking for some nookie. Why else raise it?

---

Why should telling people she is bi make them assume she's on the hunt, any more than it would a gay or straight person in a monogamous relationship telling people their sexual orientation? Why else raise it? Because it's part of the person's psyche and identity. I don't go around telling people, "Hey, I'm straight!" out of the blue, but it does come up sometimes and I do say so, and as a single person, I don't believe that when I tell someone that, I'm projecting, "I wanna get laid!"

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

I think that depends a lot on the individual, and the circumstances, Raos -- and I don't mean just the personal circumstances of who you're talking with at the minute. Ever since the whole Bill C-38 dealy came up, I find that I am a *lot* more vocal and open (and public) about the whole issue of equal rights for gays.

---

Exactly, and that was a personal choice you made when you felt it was necessary. I don't think anybody has the right to claim that the writer is neglecting a public responsibility by keeping her private life private, and I don't think anybody could claim the same about you before you become more open with your views. Everybody's going to have a different situation where they feel they have a responsibility to stand up for their community.

quote:

---

So I don't get the "educating" connection either.

---

Because no matter how much you tell somebody something, having a concrete example is going to make a huge difference. I'm sure there are many many people, who despite "knowing" that such and such a minority group doesn't have some negative generalized characteristic, but would still mistrust somebody from that group at first, and then have somewhat of an epiphany when they discover that they ACTUALLY don't have that negative generalized characteristic.

quote:

---

For non-heterosexuals, the personal is political, in many ways.

---

Nobody should be forced to make their personal life political, that should be a choice. Using your example of "straight acting" homosexuals being dismissive of outrageous queens, I'm sure having the "outrageous" queens villify the "straight acting" homosexuals for not being political enough with their personal lives wouldn't cause the "straight acting" homosexuals to warm up to the "outrageous" queens that have done so much for the homosexual community.

quote:

---

Why should telling people she is bi make them assume she's on the hunt, any more than it would a gay or straight person in a monogamous relationship telling people their sexual orientation?

---

Because for many, it implies that she needs sexual relationship(s) with both genders, rather than is capable of sexual relationship(s) with both genders. For many who identify as being sexually compatible with one gender, the reality of having only one group to choose from leads many to think that they need every aspect of that group that an individual represents. For them, somebody who identifies as Bi has a sexual need for the characteristics of both groups, and thus cannot be satisfied, because they believe she has "needs" that aren't being met. It would be a little like somebody with an amputee partner missing both legs to claim to have a foot fetish. At least some amount of interest cannot be met within the relationship, so there's the assumption that those interests are satisfied, or want to be satisfied, elsewhere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I don't go around telling people, "Hey, I'm straight!" out of the blue, but it does come up sometimes and I do say so, and as a single person, I don't believe that when I tell someone that, I'm projecting, "I wanna get laid!"

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

I'm afraid Auntie's answer on this one left a wee bit of a bad taste in my mouth. She seemed to be saying that by all means stay in the closet, because people are just going to assume you want to get laid if you tell them you're bi and married.

quote:

---

It makes sense that if you are married to, and living with a man and you tell people you are bi, they will assume you are looking for some nookie. Why else raise it?

---

I'm with Michelle on this one. It's surprising that Auntie would imply that talking about your sexual orientation is talking about getting laid!

This answer just reinforces a negative message that a lot of bisexuals get (I'd say women especially, but that might be a generalization) that bi = slutty = available to fulfill straight male fantasies = incapable of monogamy. In that respect, it's a whole lot easier to stay in the closet. But that doesn't solve anything and it sure as hell doesn't change anything.

(Caveat: I know that polyamoury and bisexuality are not synonymous and each has different challenges and issues; I'm not dissing polyamoury but rather pointing out some stereotypes that I've found pretty noxious.)

I am out and bisexual and to me this is a lot more about politics than about having sex (heavy sigh, BWAGA fees are in the mail).

Why not challenge the assumptions? Is there a good way to be an out bi woman without having to launch into a 1000-word disquisition on sexual politics?

It is not the only way to go, but for a bi woman it appears to be one way that bisexuality is comfortably compatible with marriage.

What we have described is a woman who is not living bi, but rather straight, keeping the bi tendency hidden.

Try this:

"It makes sense that if you are married and you tell someone you're gay, they will assume you are looking for some nookie. Why else raise it?"

or,

"If this person then announces that she is a lesbian, it does suggest an opening for a woman to join the menage a trois. That could prove a problem if the woman is not really into a menage a trois."

quote:

---

In honesty, the only bi women that I have known personally have been living in a bigamous relationship, both ladies sharing each other and hubby.

It is not the only way to go, but for a bi woman it appears to be one way that bisexuality is comfortably compatible with marriage.

What we have described is a woman who is not living bi, but rather straight, keeping the bi tendency hidden.

---

Your experience of someone who is bi is your experience but those who are bi make other choices in their lives.

I question that there's one way to "live bi". The world is full of people whose sexual attractions and/or acts are very diverse, bi folk among them.

My understanding of what it means to be bi-sexual is that one can feel an attraction to members of both sexes. (OK, sorry if that should have been genders -- I'm trying to be clear here but might have muddied the waters further.)

That doesn't translate into meaning that a bi-sexual person who has made a decision to be in a monogamous relationship with a member of the opposite sex is no longer bi any more that it would mean they were no long bi if they chose to be in a monogamous relationship with a member of the same sex. They are choosing not to be sexually active with other people of both sexes -- it's their right to make that choice just like we all have the right to choose those with whom we partner.

quote:

---

Originally posted by donf:

What we have described is a woman who is not living bi, but rather straight, keeping the bi tendency hidden.

---

And is a single person then by definition asexual? They clearly aren't living a sexual relationship, so how can they have a sexual relationship?

quote:

---

My understanding of what it means to be bi-sexual is that one can feel an attraction to members of both sexes. (OK, sorry if that should have been genders -- I'm trying to be clear here but might have muddied the waters further.)

---

quote:

---

Should she sacrifice her desire for privacy in the name of honesty and potential for educating people, or is it morally justifiable to keep her sexual proclivities in the bedroom with her husband where they belong?

---

Just because you have a wider variety of people you're attracted to doesn't mean you're any less capable of monogamy than anyone else. The logic doesn't hold up. Straight people and gay people are also potentially attracted to different types of people. I'm certainly attracted to different "types" of men, physically and personality-wise. But no one assumes that I'm incapable of monogamy, or assumes that the "ideal" relationship for me would be to marry a fat guy, a tall guy, a short guy, a jovial guy, an introvert, an extrovert, and let's throw in a chef and a lawyer and a mechanic while we're at it.