"Dear Prudence" column: What your girlfriend should know about your bisexual past.

[glantern954]

Source: Slate - "Dear Prudence" Advice on manners and morals column.
Title: Gay Old Times.
What your girlfriend should know about your bisexual past.
Date: Aug. 10, 2006


Dear Prudie,

I am a 29-year-old man who's been seeing a woman now for about 10 months. Everything has been going great, but I've kept something from her. There was about a three-year time in my life just after college when I considered myself bisexual. I never had gay sex or even really dated men, but it was how I defined myself and I did go through a coming-out process to my parents, friends, etc. However, I entered into a serious relationship with a girl not long after, and since that relationship, have never veered from women. Today, I don't consider myself bi and am committed to a heterosexual life. The only problem is that some people in my life know about my past and others don't. One of those who doesn't is my current girlfriend, yet she often interacts with people from my past. No one ever really talks about it, but I'm afraid it will slip out to her. I've thought about telling her myself, but it's a strange thing that wouldn't necessarily shock her but would mean, to some extent, I've been lying, since at times she has jokingly asked me if I am gay. I'm not sure if I should say something or not.

—Silent but Concerned


For her response visit the link below:

http://www.slate.com/id/2146626/

[JrzGuy3]

I didn't read the response; Slate is to politics and issues what my appendix is to my digestive system. But anyways...

It sounds like this guy didn't much like being out.

"I never had gay sex or even really dated men, but it was how I defined myself ... However, I entered into a serious relationship with a girl not long after, and since that relationship, have never veered from women. Today, I don't consider myself bi and am committed to a heterosexual life."

Ok, I'm getting major bad juju here. First of all, I never [b]veered[b] from women? Since when is being bi veering from anything? And I am committed to a heterosexual life? I can commit myself to living an African-American life. Doesn't mean my skin color is magically changing tomorrow. Though if it does, I'll post my full apologies.

My opinion? This guy can go ahead and be straight. If he chooses to live like this, acting straight but not really being straight, particularly after having come out and going through the hard parts, his confusion will be his punishment and it'll last his life. He's punishing himself. Also, I consider excising every person who thinks sexuality is a choice from our cause addition by subtraction.

Don't let the door hit ya where the lord split ya.

[swag85]

so what, did this guy just think it was "cool" at the timme to say hes bi. was he thinking well everyone else is dooing it i might as well, too. and when he finds a girl to love hes not bi anymore????? kind of confusing to me. sounds to me like at that time he was looking for attention from his famally and friends. this guy is a discrace, to everything that im proud of. what a joke.

:flag3:

[JohnnyV]

Whoa, JrzGuy! Give the guy a break.

By the way, I think sexuality is a choice we all make. The desires, we don't choose, but we choose the life we're going to lead. If you're going to start "excising" people for believing things you don't like, then you should join a cult or start reading issues of Pravda from the 1960s.

J



I didn't read the response; Slate is to politics and issues what my appendix is to my digestive system. But anyways...

It sounds like this guy didn't much like being out.

"I never had gay sex or even really dated men, but it was how I defined myself ... However, I entered into a serious relationship with a girl not long after, and since that relationship, have never veered from women. Today, I don't consider myself bi and am committed to a heterosexual life."

Ok, I'm getting major bad juju here. First of all, I never [b]veered[b] from women? Since when is being bi veering from anything? And I am committed to a heterosexual life? I can commit myself to living an African-American life. Doesn't mean my skin color is magically changing tomorrow. Though if it does, I'll post my full apologies.

My opinion? This guy can go ahead and be straight. If he chooses to live like this, acting straight but not really being straight, particularly after having come out and going through the hard parts, his confusion will be his punishment and it'll last his life. He's punishing himself. Also, I consider excising every person who thinks sexuality is a choice from our cause addition by subtraction.

Don't let the door hit ya where the lord split ya.

[JrzGuy3]

Whoa, JrzGuy! Give the guy a break.

By the way, I think sexuality is a choice we all make. The desires, we don't choose, but we choose the life we're going to lead. If you're going to start "excising" people for believing things you don't like, then you should join a cult or start reading issues of Pravda from the 1960s.

J

First off, what exactly do you mean by "sexuality"? I'd assert that sexuality indeed is or desires as well as our actions.

Anyhoo, the way I read this, I think this guy is purporting one of two things (I'm just not sure which).

1) "I gave it up." I agree with you we can choose our actions, but we do not choose our feelings. If this is the case the guy is making, then he's not doing himself any good by going through the mental anguish all over again (just in reverse) and he does us no good by asserting that you can give up being attracted to men.

2) "I tried it on but it didn't fit." It bugs me when people will dabble in bisexuality knowing full well they aren't bi. It makes both gays and straights view bisexuality as just trendy rather than just the way some people are.

Either way, advancement of the bisexual community takes a step back because of this idiot.

[swag85]

i agree with you JrzGuy3, "I tried it on but it didn't fit." perfect.
Being Bi is not a fad, its a life, our life. and if we cant be proud of that, like this guy isn't. then what are we dooing? i understand everyone cant feel the way i do. mabey im just to proud. i doubt it! like i said a discrace!

:flag3:

[DiamondDog]

i agree with you JrzGuy3, "I tried it on but it didn't fit." perfect.
Being Bi is not a fad, its a life, our life. and if we cant be proud of that, like this guy isn't. then what are we dooing? i understand everyone cant feel the way i do. mabey im just to proud. i doubt it! like i said a discrace!

:flag3:
what's wrong with trying something sexually and finding out you don't like it?

One of my friends is het and he had sex with one guy and didn't enjoy it but it was one of those things he had to try to see if he enjoyed it or not.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained, and who knows you might enjoy it?

But still though, IMO the guy should have at least tried having sex with another man if he identified as bisexual then.

But honestly, I don't care if he identified as bi at one time and then discovered that he's not. Some of my best friends who are gay were like this. Someone's sexuality can be complicated and honestly I don't think that the labels matter that much unless you're going to have a relationship or have sex with someone, and even then they sometimes don't matter. For example I have friends that label themselves as gay when they're technically bi.

I know TONS of men that are bi who never have had sex with a man and then wake up one day when they're middle aged or older and discover this and there's nothing they can do since they want to be monogamous and don't want to cheat on their wife.

[Avocado]

This geeza's got some serious issues. I wonder what he means to leading a heterosexual life? Being monoganous while with his woman or whatever happens? In any case there's only one way to live the life of a sexuality - to be that sexuality.

[Azrael]

I wonder how much of this is guilt on the part of the dude. Her response was fairly sensible. Also, I see nothing wrong with experimenting, provided it's not to keep with some stupid trend.

[KatieBi]

Ouch! Some of the opinions here are exactly the kind that scare me about coming out as bi to anyone - even my GBL(and someday T) pals.

I've had lots of metaphorical party conversations with folks who know I'm probably of a non-het orientation that run something along the lines of: "Some people like beer, some like cider. Though more might prefer beer than cider, I wouldn't think less of someone who liked cider" (or the like). I generally respond with "And some people like both beer and cider", but the truth of the matter is, my desires for one gender or the other fluctuate, and when I finally settle down with someone, male or female, all these folks are going to say "Oh, you were really a beer/cider-drinker all this time."

I think we should take the guy's word that his tastes have developed (no value-judgement implied, but I can't think of another word) with time to favor women. I don't think we should question his previous identification as bi - most of us are aware of our strong attractions to one sex and/or the other before ever having sexual encounters (ie as virgins). To say it is premature or irresponsible to acknowledge that attraction in a public way at whatever point in life we recognize it is not an opinion I share. I prefer to think it was brave of him to do so. His courage created space for other people to be courageous. And his choice to try and find a female life partner and identify as het are just that - his choice. If we want to live in a world that grants us the space and freedom to define our own sexualities without fear of discrimination or attack, we need to create that space for those around us too.

[LouiseBrookslover]

Hmmmm.....

I don't think desire is that easily defined. While I feel that we are all born with certain desires and predilections, our experience and our openness to new experience is what allows us to explore and perhaps accept these desires. Sometimes those desires are hard to see, hidden deep within us. Sometimes they are bold, assertive, obvious, and we don't need to look very hard for them.

For time immemorial, the debate between free will and predestination has gone on. Could it be that we ARE predetermined to be certain things, but that the scope of the possibilites that we are "granted" is so wide, so various, so all encompassing that most of us never explore most of the possiblities that we are supposedly "predestined" to explore? Could it also be that certain predilections are stronger in certain people, but that others have them, in an amount that they only discover upon long reflection?

I suspect many people have a predestination, if you will, for a small amount of bisexual attraction. Call them low digit Kinsey examples, if you will. These are people who really don't know if bisex is for them before actually experimenting with it. With others, I think the predestination towards bisexuality is so clear as to make any insinuation of choice to be insulting. I think this is what is going on with a couple of posters here. I understand where they are coming from, but I think there is room for both types of person here. I think with some people their heterosexuality, their homosexuality, their bisexuality is so clear, so obvious that there seems to be no element of choice in it. Maybe there isn't for them. I don't think all predilections and potentialities have the same force in every person. Some people have a very mild bisexual attraction that can only be discovered through open mindedness and exploration. Some people know from the day they are born that destiny, in this matter, has a much louder voice and listening to it is not hard at all. Not so for all of us.

[Driver 8]

I think we should take the guy's word that his tastes have developed (no value-judgement implied, but I can't think of another word) with time to favor women. I don't think we should question his previous identification as bi - most of us are aware of our strong attractions to one sex and/or the other before ever having sexual encounters (ie as virgins). To say it is premature or irresponsible to acknowledge that attraction in a public way at whatever point in life we recognize it is not an opinion I share. I prefer to think it was brave of him to do so. His courage created space for other people to be courageous. And his choice to try and find a female life partner and identify as het are just that - his choice. If we want to live in a world that grants us the space and freedom to define our own sexualities without fear of discrimination or attack, we need to create that space for those around us too.
Although I completely agree with you in principle ... I can certainly understand the frustration that one more person has, through his actions, undermined the reality of bisexuality for the people around him. His courage may have created space for others to be courageous - which is a nice way to put it - but we all know that when the non-bi's around him hear him say "I called myself bisexual, but I never had any same-sex experience, and I've concluded I was straight all along" they're going to slot that neatly into their existing assumptions about all of us.

[Boogie2u]

First off, what exactly do you mean by "sexuality"? I'd assert that sexuality indeed is or desires as well as our actions.

Anyhoo, the way I read this, I think this guy is purporting one of two things (I'm just not sure which).

1) "I gave it up." I agree with you we can choose our actions, but we do not choose our feelings. If this is the case the guy is making, then he's not doing himself any good by going through the mental anguish all over again (just in reverse) and he does us no good by asserting that you can give up being attracted to men.

2) "I tried it on but it didn't fit." It bugs me when people will dabble in bisexuality knowing full well they aren't bi. It makes both gays and straights view bisexuality as just trendy rather than just the way some people are.

Either way, advancement of the bisexual community takes a step back because of this idiot.


Wow man, what can i say, your angry...
a lot of what you say i agree with but cmon , lets not call people idiots. i have to ask you: do you have the monopoly on the definition of bisexuality, coz what it means for you isnt what it may mean for others.
that is a good thing, individuality and tolerance of that individuality is a good thing.
i also think people never 'dabble in bisexuality knowing full well they arent bi' thats a crazy statement and a very judgemental one from you. Your feelings betray you mate, i ask you to think on this statement:
'dont become as bigoted and intolerent as much as those that may have been bigoted and intolerent towards yourself' dont become the same as the enemy, leave your doors open not closed...

[jedinudist]

what's wrong with trying something sexually and finding out you don't like it?

One of my friends is het and he had sex with one guy and didn't enjoy it but it was one of those things he had to try to see if he enjoyed it or not.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained, and who knows you might enjoy it?

But still though, IMO the guy should have at least tried having sex with another man if he identified as bisexual then.

But honestly, I don't care if he identified as bi at one time and then discovered that he's not. Some of my best friends who are gay were like this. Someone's sexuality can be complicated and honestly I don't think that the labels matter that much unless you're going to have a relationship or have sex with someone, and even then they sometimes don't matter. For example I have friends that label themselves as gay when they're technically bi.

I know TONS of men that are bi who never have had sex with a man and then wake up one day when they're middle aged or older and discover this and there's nothing they can do since they want to be monogamous and don't want to cheat on their wife.

I tend to agree here.


C'mon - how many of us have argued that sexuality is fluid, and at times we tend to fall on different palces on the "kinsey sliding scale" depending on our mood, what's going on in our lives, etc.

I know, personally know, a few guys and gals who tried it to see if they liked it. They were CURIOUS, ya know, that innate part of the human spirit that drives science, exploration, and trying new foods? At least these people were open minded enough to consider it. They tried it, figured out it didn't really "light their fire" so to speak, and moved on. There's nothing wrong with that! Don't villify the open minded people who were just curious enough to experiment! Just because one tries something does not mean that he or she must define their identity with it.

[JrzGuy3]

Wow man, what can i say, your angry...
a lot of what you say i agree with but cmon , lets not call people idiots. i have to ask you: do you have the monopoly on the definition of bisexuality, coz what it means for you isnt what it may mean for others.
that is a good thing, individuality and tolerance of that individuality is a good thing.
First off, I think you paint it like I'm the only one who feels this way. If not, I apologize for reading too deeply. If so, I think that this thread shows I'm not a lone voice.

I don't attempt nor claim to monopolize language. Language is a living, breathing thing that changes with time. However, I'd contend that pretty universally, it implies an intrinsic ability to be attracted physically/sexually/affectionately to both genders. In other words, bisexual != monosexual.


i also think people never 'dabble in bisexuality knowing full well they arent bi' thats a crazy statement and a very judgemental one from you.
Oh really?


There was about a three-year time in my life just after college when I considered myself bisexual. I never had gay sex or even really dated men, but it was how I defined myself and I did go through a coming-out process to my parents, friends, etc. However, I entered into a serious relationship with a girl not long after, and since that relationship, have never veered from women. Today, I don't consider myself bi and am committed to a heterosexual life.
Door #1: He was and is bisexual, but has now decided to repress it.
Door #2: He wasn't and isn't bisexual, but decided to go with the latest trend once he hit the real world.

Is there a Door #3 I'm missing?

Perhaps it's simply a case of time going by and his sexuality continuing to develop on it's own as he matures into an independent person.


Today, I don't consider myself bi and am committed to a heterosexual life.
Sorry, but this just sounds to me like this guy considers being attracted to men akin to biting his nails; something that's not a good part of him, and something which can be exorcised through hard effort.

I wonder if he's framed his True Directions (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0179116/) diploma.

[ScifiBiJen]

Door #1: He was and is bisexual, but has now decided to repress it.
Door #2: He wasn't and isn't bisexual, but decided to go with the latest trend once he hit the real world.

Is there a Door #3 I'm missing?

Perhaps it's simply a case of time going by and his sexuality continuing to develop on it's own as he matures into an independent person.


I think the point other posters here are trying to make is that Door #3 = "He might have been / might be bisexual. He wasn't sure but didn't do anything about it. Decided to come out anyway, but is now going with "straight" ... maybe because it was easier than figuring things out...."


I'm not weighing in on either side of this. Just relaying what seems to be implied by some of the people here.

[swag85]

"CLAP CLAP CLAP" to: JrzGuy3! said perfectly!

:flag4:

[citystyleguy]

i didn't read the response; no particular need as the question is put to us. not very sure what the point of his inquiry, other than the sexuality question is over, and his biggest fear/concern is the new girlfriend.

as he has told others, and in particular others that are still present in his current and future life, then he should confess and let the gf decide from there; secrecy of this type never leads to good things.

in so far as reponding to what i precieve is the question, the above is my answser; as to the sexuality, pants, a shirt, shoes you try on, your sexuality is a state of being, an essential part of yourself.

this poor man has much bigger problems than honesty of the past to the new gf; he needs to understand and come to terms with exactly what is his own sexuality. :2cents:

but he didnt ask me, so i can only hope that he finds the truth, both asked and not asked!

[Boogie2u]

[QUOTE=JrzGuy3]

Door #1: He was and is bisexual, but has now decided to repress it.
Door #2: He wasn't and isn't bisexual, but decided to go with the latest trend once he hit the real world.

Is there a Door #3 I'm missing?

QUOTE]

Door #3: he is still confused and cant define himself as anything
door #4: He wasnt bisexual, but didnt 'go for the latest trend' (your words not his.) just dabbled enough to find it wasnt for him
door #5: he totally believed 100% that he was bisexual and now totally believes that he is 100% straight....thats ok, it happens....
door #6: he is a character that bows to social pressure and yes....'went with the latest trend' HA! are you telling me that there is someone on this planet that doesnt bow to social pressure at some time in there life....perhaps you dont.....perhaps you are super human.....perhaps pigs fly
door #7: perhaps in years to come this man will define himself as bisexual again.....is that ok by you?? does he have your permission? or should he hide away not daring to ask for advice again because he is afraid he might get abuse again??
door #8:......you know what? you figure out the rest of the doors....i can see at least another 15, but then again im open minded and tolerant unlike some round here

[neveen]

Whoa, JrzGuy! Give the guy a break.

By the way, I think sexuality is a choice we all make.

J


i think lifestyle is the choice, not sexuality :2cents:

[Avocado]

The reason people think he's got issues is the "heterosexual life" part. The only heterosexual life is being heterosexual. If you're bi and in a monogamous relationship with someone of the same or opposite sex, you're still living a bisexual life! The problem people have is that he seems to think that being in a monogamous relationship makes him straight - it doesn't. No-one has a problem with a bi person turning straight or gay.

[canuckotter]

The reality is that we know virtually nothing about this guy or his situation. All we know is that he did go through the process of coming out but that he now doesn't consider himself bisexual. Beyond that, anything we come up with is pure speculation based on our interpretations of his choice of wording -- which is dangerous because we all seem to be assuming that he's a native English speaker. It's quite possible that he is, say, Armenian and while his English is pretty good for a non-native speaker, he hasn't caught some of the finer nuances of words and is unintentionally giving his letter meanings that he isn't aware of. (I ran into that a few weeks ago. :) ) Heck, for that matter, he could indeed be a native English speaker who doesn't read or write a lot and is struggling to express himself coherently, with the same results.

Really, all we're doing at this point is projecting what we want to see onto his letter and complaining or defending what we see, which isn't remotely the same thing as discussing what's actually there. It's kind of silly, since then we're not discussing the same thing at all -- JrzGuy's upset at someone totally different from the person whose courage KatieBi is admiring. And while I am good at silly, there are much more fun ways of being silly. :tong:

[Boogie2u]

yep its all guesswork and maybe silly... but cmon guys lets not call each other names on here like 'idiot' ...or you get peoples backs up...

[Driver 8]

but cmon guys lets not call each other names on here like 'idiot' ...or you get peoples backs up...
Unless I missed something, the only guy who got called an idiot is the author of the Dear Prudence letter, who isn't on this board and will likely never see the discussion.

I'm completely with you about not calling other posters names, but if we can't call random unknown strangers names, what will become of all the politics threads?

[JrzGuy3]

Edit: When I quoted text, for some reason the equals signs seem to have changed to not equals signs. I didn't make textual changes.


Door #3: he is still confused and cant define himself as anything
I disagree with the second half of that. Apparently he can, cuz he did. As for the first half, I have no doubt he's confused. This is now no different than either option I presented.


door #4: He wasnt bisexual, but didnt 'go for the latest trend' (your words not his.) just dabbled enough to find it wasnt for him
Ok, so if he wasn't bowing to social pressure... what then? Do straight guys occasionally just wake up and declare "Mmm... I feeling like sleeping with a dude today!"? This is basically the same than my second option.


door #5: he totally believed 100% that he was bisexual and now totally believes that he is 100% straight....thats ok, it happens....
Just because his perceptions of his own sexuality can change, his sexuality itself doesn't. This is certainly not mutually exclusive with my first option, and not totally with my second.


door #6: he is a character that bows to social pressure and yes....'went with the latest trend' HA! are you telling me that there is someone on this planet that doesnt bow to social pressure at some time in there life....perhaps you dont.....perhaps you are super human.....perhaps pigs fly
Nope. I'm guilty of this as well. Furthermore, this is simply a restatement of my door #2.


door #7: perhaps in years to come this man will define himself as bisexual again.....is that ok by you?? does he have your permission? or should he hide away not daring to ask for advice again because he is afraid he might get abuse again??
First, whom was abusing him?

Next, when did I say this guy needs any permission from me to do anything? Go back and read my previous post. I'll wait.

::taps fingers::

Now that we're clear on what I did and didn't say, let's continue.

I have no say over whether this man can or can't closet/recloset/define/redifine himself as many times as he wants. Likewise, I have no control if you tomorrow decide to call your newspaper and say that you're a reformed queer, that bisexuality is a choice and that most bisexuals were brainwashed by atheist parents into loving their own gender.

I do however, reserve my right to go on the internet and say that your/his actions probably aren't that good for our community's advancement.


door #8:......you know what? you figure out the rest of the doors....i can see at least another 15, but then again im open minded and tolerant unlike some round here
I'll pass. But thanks for being so civil in your post. :)

[JrzGuy3]

The reality is that we know virtually nothing about this guy or his situation. All we know is that he did go through the process of coming out but that he now doesn't consider himself bisexual. Beyond that, anything we come up with is pure speculation based on our interpretations of his choice of wording . . . Really, all we're doing at this point is projecting what we want to see onto his letter and complaining or defending what we see, which isn't remotely the same thing as discussing what's actually there. It's kind of silly, since then we're not discussing the same thing at all -- JrzGuy's upset at someone totally different from the person whose courage KatieBi is admiring.

Well said, and I'll certainly agree with your point.

However, I wouldn't say that this discussion is not worthwhile. While we probably can't have enough information to pass judgement on this specific person, we can present hypothetical cases which this person may be in, and pass judgement on a relative basis; that being any person in a specific situation which is laid out by one of us critiquing a certain way to handle said hypothetical situation.

[JrzGuy3]

cmon guys lets not call each other names on here like 'idiot' ...or you get peoples backs up...Unless I missed something, the only guy who got called an idiot is the author of the Dear Prudence letter, who isn't on this board and will likely never see the discussion.

I'm completely with you about not calling other posters names, but if we can't call random unknown strangers names, what will become of all the politics threads?

Agreed, but I'd take it a step further. If we can be all rainbows and butterflies on people whose opinions we agree with, shouldn't we at the same time challenge those we disagree with?

I'm not talking about cases where facts are involved so much as viewpoints. If I all of a sudden began espousing about hating Jews, would everyone be polite and just say "Oh it's his opinion and he's entitled to it."? I hope not. For the record, if I see this in a site where I post, I'll be the first poster calling whoever says it a racist asshat, and I hope I won't be the only one doing so.

Now, I believe that most people are basically good and reasonable down inside. I think that ultimately, the only way that good thoughts, opinions and stances will win out over bad and evil ones is through the process of debate and the expression civil discourse. In the words of Voltaire, "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." It is only by everyone speaking their true feelings civilly but not at the expense of honesty and forewardness that society moves foreward. Likewise, self-censorship is the first step towards society's regression and eventual downfall.

[canuckotter]

However, I wouldn't say that this discussion is not worthwhile. While we probably can't have enough information to pass judgement on this specific person, we can present hypothetical cases which this person may be in, and pass judgement on a relative basis; that being any person in a specific situation which is laid out by one of us critiquing a certain way to handle said hypothetical situation.
But what you're doing is defining the entire situation and then arguing from that, even though others have proposed alternative possibilities. Basically, you're trying to force everyone to agree that the hypothetical situation you present is the only one up for consideration. Look at Boogie2u, he posted a half dozen different possibilities and you refused to consider any of them except in terms of how they related to your own hypothesis. That's not civil debate, that's ranting. I do appreciate a good rant, but that doesn't make it a debate any more than a fistfight is the same as a martial arts sparring match. :)

The biggest assumption you make is that the guy was, is, and forever will be bisexual. We've had several discussions lately about how some of our members' tastes and preferences change over time, and for some of us that means periods where we are essentially straight. For myself, when my wife's around, my rating on the scale is generally around 1.5, but it jumps when she goes on trips or whatever. Perhaps this guy's going through an extended period like that, where his interest in men has actually declined to the point of being irrelevant? If there are no men he would currently be attracted to, then he is, in fact, now straight. Or, perhaps he was always (basically) straight, but mistook an exceptionally strong platonic friendship with a man for a romantic involvement, and on that basis reached an incorrect self-evaluation of bisexuality; with further experience in relationships and life, he later came to realise the true nature of his prior relationship and has changed his self-definition to more accurately reflect the true situation. :) Remember, as we've demonstrated on here repeatedly, sexuality is often fluid; that's not at all the same thing as saying that it's a choice. You're saying this guy made a choice to be straight, whereas others are reading his letter to say that his sexuality continued to evolve with time.

Anyway, this post is sounding rather meaner than I intended it to, and it's going WAY longer than it's supposed to, so I'll be quiet now. :bigrin:

[JrzGuy3]

But what you're doing is defining the entire situation and then arguing from that, even though others have proposed alternative possibilities. Basically, you're trying to force everyone to agree that the hypothetical situation you present is the only one up for consideration. Look at Boogie2u, he posted a half dozen different possibilities and you refused to consider any of them except in terms of how they related to your own hypothesis.

I agree and disagree. I am not asserting that this person is definitely in one specific instance. What I am doing is making an educated guess and arguing what I feel about that specific hypothetical test case, if true. I did consider his points (in fact, I even replied and critiqued them).

Moving along, what I did was state 2 very broad scenarios which disregard specifics of this situation. I feel that when you examine the specifics of the case (which we can't, but if you did), this guy would probably fit into one or the other. I felt that Boogie2u was enumerating scenarios which were far more specific than what I attempted. I feel that most the specific scenarios Boogie got into could be a more specific instance of either (or both) of the very broad scenarios I describe.


The biggest assumption you make is that the guy was, is, and forever will be bisexual.

Sorry to break up the paragraph, but let me interject here- I make no such assumption. In fact, my second hypothetical is quite the opposite of this. What I do assume is that if he ever was bisexual, then he still is. Anyhoo...


We've had several discussions lately about how some of our members' tastes and preferences change over time, and for some of us that means periods where we are essentially straight. For myself, when my wife's around, my rating on the scale is generally around 1.5, but it jumps when she goes on trips or whatever. Perhaps this guy's going through an extended period like that, where his interest in men has actually declined to the point of being irrelevant? If there are no men he would currently be attracted to, then he is, in fact, now straight.
This would assume, however, that (bi)sexuality is no more a product of whom you're attracted to at any given time. Currently, I have two guy crushes; my friend Jon Borst (resisting urge to drop more things like TCNJ and Student Finance Board here so he finds this when he Googles himself next... oops :angel: :devil:) and Orlando Bloom. If these two people suddenly ceased to exist, I'd have no attraction to any men right now. However, does that make me not bisexual? No. It makes me a bisexual whom doesn't happen to be attracted to any guys at the moment.


Or, perhaps he was always (basically) straight, but mistook an exceptionally strong platonic friendship with a man for a romantic involvement, and on that basis reached an incorrect self-evaluation of bisexuality; with further experience in relationships and life, he later came to realise the true nature of his prior relationship and has changed his self-definition to more accurately reflect the true situation. :)

Maybe it's my own naivete getting the better of me, but does this happen? Like, is anyone aware of a specific instance of this?


Remember, as we've demonstrated on here repeatedly, sexuality is often fluid; that's not at all the same thing as saying that it's a choice. You're saying this guy made a choice to be straight, whereas others are reading his letter to say that his sexuality continued to evolve with time.
I didn't say that. He did.

Today, I don't consider myself bi and am committed to a heterosexual life.
Am I really making a huge inferrential leap here? I'll admit, if it was only the first half of that statement alone ("Today, I don't consider myself bi") I'd buy that it could just be the evolution of his sexuality (though I personally feel bisexuals don't lose their attraction to the same gender, it simply goes dormant). However, the other half ("committed to a heterosexual life") tells me that this man is making a conscious decision to no longer be bisexual, and if sexuality indeed can change between straight/bi/gay, it certainly doesn't happen consciously. Otherwise, many of us would have changed a long time ago, myself included.


Anyway, this post is sounding rather meaner than I intended it to, and it's going WAY longer than it's supposed to, so I'll be quiet now.
Again, I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

[JrzGuy3]

Just arrived in my inbox:
I feel the time has come to grant you an official monopoly on the word "bisexual," so that no one may further challenge your right to say who is or who isn't. I actually knocked out a cheesy certificate proclaiming just this in an web-based certificate app before realizing there was no simple way to save it as a file and send it to you.

This is getting old. I do not purport to have monopolized the word bisexual, nor have I attempted to do such. I do have my own opinion on what it means.

Anyway, like I said, I appreciate discourse. But please. If you want to call me an idiot, have the conviction to do it publically rather than sending an e-mail, and do me the favor actually backing what you say. Furthermore, I have the utmost respect people who disagree with me. I have none for those who can only revert to name calling.

[Boogie2u]

your right, this is getting old, and id love to kiss and make freinds but for one simple statement you made:

"Either way, advancement of the bisexual community takes a step back because of this idiot."

everything else you said i am happy to agree or disagree with no problem. but this statement as far as im concerned owes someone an apology...

and posting rules state 2. Be polite - flame the idea , not the person

[Driver 8]

Just arrived in my inbox[...]Anyway, like I said, I appreciate discourse. But please. If you want to call me an idiot, have the conviction to do it publically rather than sending an e-mail, and do me the favor actually backing what you say. Furthermore, I have the utmost respect people who disagree with me. I have none for those who can only revert to name calling.
JrzGuy3,

1. I didn't call you an idiot.
2. I didn't engage in any name-calling whatsoever.
3. It was a joke based on someone else saying you didn't have that right.
4. Posting private messages publically (http://www.studygs.net/netiquette.htm) without asking first has (http://www.our-kids.org/Archives/email_netiquette.html) long (http://www.herdomain.org/netiquette.html) been (http://www.futureustore.com/publications/papers/netiquette.html) considered (https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/public/CNED505/netiquette.html) rude (http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/internet/netiquet.htm). It may not be against the listed rules here, but you were in the wrong to do this.

[KatieBi]

Continuing Boogie4U's alternate doors:

Maybe the fellow just defines bisexuality differently than other people participating in this chat. I've seen folks who define bisexuality as attraction to both sexes, others who define "true bis" as those who actively have or do engage in sex with both sexes, and those who define bisexuality as non-existent.

If the guy defines a bisexual as someone who has (or is open to) sexual relations with both sexes and is not interested in pursuing sexual relations with both sexes any longer, he could choose to redefine himself as het.

I also agree with someone who pointed out that these questions/concepts (and the subsequent waffling) are probably viewed much differently by folks lying closer to the middle of the Kinsey scale than those of us (including me) lying closer to the edges. It's regrettable (and I agree) that folks looking in from the outside will take this as evidence that bisexuality "is not real", but the reality is that these folks aren't likely to change their opinion (one way or the other) based on a single occurrence. I think we're only ever going to "win " this battle when we appear in numbers. So like I said, I'll choose to applaud this guys' earlier courage instead of demeaning his current "cowardice"

There are more doors, I know, but it's time for me to head to bed ;-)

[canuckotter]

I agree and disagree. I am not asserting that this person is definitely in one specific instance. What I am doing is making an educated guess and arguing what I feel about that specific hypothetical test case, if true. I did consider his points (in fact, I even replied and critiqued them).
You critiqued them in the context of your prior assumptions. Not quite the same thing as considering them on their own merits. :)


Sorry to break up the paragraph, but let me interject here- I make no such assumption. In fact, my second hypothetical is quite the opposite of this. What I do assume is that if he ever was bisexual, then he still is.
Which is still an assumption that not everyone agrees with.


If these two people suddenly ceased to exist, I'd have no attraction to any men right now. However, does that make me not bisexual? No. It makes me a bisexual whom doesn't happen to be attracted to any guys at the moment.
Let's take the Klein Grid. Suppose this guy's behaviour and appetites have changed such that he now is not attracted to any men; does not have sex with men; does not fantasize about men; is emotionally attracted only to women; lives a purely heterosexual lifestyle (whatever that means); and self-identifies entirely as straight. He forsees none of those things changing in the future, and has no interest in trying to change any of those things. In what way would you say he's still bisexual?



Remember, as we've demonstrated on here repeatedly, sexuality is often fluid; that's not at all the same thing as saying that it's a choice. You're saying this guy made a choice to be straight, whereas others are reading his letter to say that his sexuality continued to evolve with time.
I didn't say that. He did.
No, you infer that he made a choice from his wording. It's a plausible inference, but it's not the only possible interpretation. Personally, I think he wrote the letter under the influence of a lot of emotional stress and wasn't as careful as he could have been with the wording. It's just as likely that he meant "committed" in the sense that a train is committed to its track -- it is a preordained path from which no deviation is possible.

[JrzGuy3]

your right, this is getting old, and id love to kiss and make freinds but for one simple statement you made:

"Either way, advancement of the bisexual community takes a step back because of this idiot."

everything else you said i am happy to agree or disagree with no problem. but this statement as far as im concerned owes someone an apology...

and posting rules state 2. Be polite - flame the idea , not the person

I'll try to make my stance clearer. I don't know this man nor do I know his situation. I cannot comment on one vague person specifically. I can make an educated guess from his letter and come up with a hypothetical situation that I feel would likely describe him. I did pass conditional judgement if the hypothetical I posed happens to be true, and non-conditional judgement for the hypothetical in and of itself. If this was not clear, I will go back to my previous posts and change any instances of "the guy" to "the guy in the hypothetical situation I posed.

Driver 8: Whatever, after this I'm done arguing with you. However, I'm sorry, but I do feel at liberty to let other members of a community know when someone is willing to take potshots at me in private but lacks the cohonas to do it publically.

[Driver 8]

Driver 8: Whatever, after this I'm done arguing with you. However, I'm sorry, but I do feel at liberty to let other members of a community know when someone is willing to take potshots at me in private but lacks the cohonas to do it publically.
I don't understand why you're arguing with me. I have done nothing in this thread but back you up, and I did nothing in private but try to make a joke about something another poster had said, in a way I didn't think would be publically amusing. If it wasn't funny, well, it wasn't funny. But it wasn't meant as an insult, and frankly I think you're unreasonable to feel that it constitutes something that the "community" needs to be warned about.

I NEVER took a private potshot at you. And you know the reason the little number under my name is more than four times as large as the little number under your name? It's because I do have the cojones to get out here and post. And I've somehow managed to make that many posts here without telling anyone else that they're cowardly, or that they lack balls.

[Boogie2u]

lol, i thought id just renew this thread because i enjoyed it so much ! hehe