This is a fantastic description of something that so many people make needlessly confused. I too reside happily in the land of Bi, although I live in the suburbs of Basically Uninterested (but maybe I just haven't met Mr/Ms Right) and I've never really fought too hard over that, but I do know people who have. Maybe I should point them here so that they could see just how straightforward it is.
Standing where I've always lived - in Straightville - I look at this and feel that it seems a lot of people's identity (particularly that of JoAnn Loulan) is bound up in their sexuality. I don't feel that so much about myself, although I've never been in a position where my sexuality has been made an issue; so that's probably the huge difference.
I find this an uncomfortable conclusion because, for me, the end aim is for sexualities to be accepted equally and for all partnerships to be assessed on equal merit (eg. marriage - or some future renamed equivalent - to be available to all). However, I read this and wonder whether there is more of a fundamental difference between (or is the word among?) straight, bi and lesbian than the sex of who you are attracted to.
I found my way here via a link on my flist. Your analogy is brilliant. Now I think I've overthought everything and I'm sure any second now my brain will explode.
I have to respectfully disagree. Or maybe not *disagree*, but... counter-agree?
What I mean is, I see your logic. I see how this could be bothersome, and especially to the partner who feels alienated by the choice of identity. But I also think that identity is *so* socially constructed that it really doesn't matter. I mean, I kind of feel like if it works for you, and it works for your partner, then I'm happy with whatever label you choose - gay, straight, bisexual, pansexual, polka-dotted. Then again, I've never been in the situation of being with someone where that relationship didn't "fit" my current identity, so I'm no expert. I just think that labels are, well, whatever you want them to be.
Comments 52
Reply
You rock.
Reply
Standing where I've always lived - in Straightville - I look at this and feel that it seems a lot of people's identity (particularly that of JoAnn Loulan) is bound up in their sexuality. I don't feel that so much about myself, although I've never been in a position where my sexuality has been made an issue; so that's probably the huge difference.
I find this an uncomfortable conclusion because, for me, the end aim is for sexualities to be accepted equally and for all partnerships to be assessed on equal merit (eg. marriage - or some future renamed equivalent - to be available to all). However, I read this and wonder whether there is more of a fundamental difference between (or is the word among?) straight, bi and lesbian than the sex of who you are attracted to.
Reply
Reply
What I mean is, I see your logic. I see how this could be bothersome, and especially to the partner who feels alienated by the choice of identity. But I also think that identity is *so* socially constructed that it really doesn't matter. I mean, I kind of feel like if it works for you, and it works for your partner, then I'm happy with whatever label you choose - gay, straight, bisexual, pansexual, polka-dotted. Then again, I've never been in the situation of being with someone where that relationship didn't "fit" my current identity, so I'm no expert. I just think that labels are, well, whatever you want them to be.
Reply
Leave a comment