What is bisexuality?

Ravenscroft

Banned
Actually, it's a real question, & one that I've pondered since I started thinking about sexuality at all (like, ~1973).

I'm not intending any definitive answers, but rather unpacking things I've learned. If the thread is better relocated to another forum, I'm fine with that.
________________

Firstly, there's the Kinsey scale. Briefly, it runs from 0 (not interested in same-sex intimacy) to 6 (interested only in same-sex intimacy).

That would seem at first glance to place "bisexual" at 3... but where does that leave the 2s & 4s? Are the 1s & 5s just outliers of the "true" groupings at either end, or more properly placed with the bisexuals?
________________

I figure everyone's heard the "one in ten" trope. Used to mean that one person in ten is homosexual, which always seemed like a stretch, & the world might be a better place if it were actually so.

Over the years, it was stretched to include pretty much anyone non-heterosexual, & transfolk as well, so maybe it's a bit closer to reality.

But for anyone who's ever pondered the Klein grid, "sexual orientation" soon looks less like a definitive personal fact, & more like an exercise in particle physics.

Hey, here's OKC's Klein Sexuality Test. Has anyone mentioned this before...?

Somewhere in my jumble of books is an article from the 1970s that (IMO) did a great job of defining the problem, simply to get at a proper population study of homosexuals. I wish I could find it, but to the best of my recollection it defined a "homosexual" person as someone who
in the previous three years has primarily had sexual contact with members of the same gender, and intends to continue in this mode.
They found that 8.4% of the people they interviewed fit the criteria.
________________

In the mid-1980s, Equal Time, the Twin Cities' biweekly LGBTQ paper (since defunct), polled local women who declared themselves lesbian, & found that about 20% had willingly had sex with a male in the previous two years.

In something like 40% of these instances, the male was gay.
________________

I knew a gay man & a lesbian who were members of the Morris dancing community. They quickly became total bff, & eventually surprised us all by marrying. Last I saw, they were still disgustingly happy together & had three kids.

They consider themselves totally homosexual, & see it as a huge fluke to have mutually found "the only exception."
________________
 
Last edited:
Seems like I once heard it said somewhere that "We're all a little bit gay."
 
Heteroflexible is a term I've been seeing more and more. I have never seen homoflexible used though.
 
I actually sorta like the Klein grid concept.

I use the word "bisexual" just because it's easy.

I'm attracted to women, admire the beauty of women, and feel an emotional draw to women, but actual desire for sexual intimacy with one...there is something I can only call "a good energy match" and it is so rare for me. So my actual female sexual partners have been very few, compared to the many men I've had sex with.

It feels like men are just "easier." And my sexual desires for them not as picky and particular. For some reason I've been willing to have sex with men many times in the past where the energy match wasn't even good, I had no particular bond or limerance or love or anything, but they wanted to so I went with it. That never happens with women. I have to want them enough to pursue them, court them, work for them...they don't tend to come after me. Women do not tend to make me feel desired.

And honestly, I would like to have more women in my love life and my social life. I have felt a lack of feminine energy and a desire for more of it. So the past/present/idealized future element of that grid thingie was relevant to me.
 
I tend to identify as heteroflexible over bi. I have been attracted to women, and have had relationships with women, but my taste is significantly picker and requires a higher emotional component than when I am attracted to a man. Functionally I'm heterosexual, with exceptions made for individual women.

Tails is similar: he tends to prefer guys, too, but is attracted to individual women. He identifies as bi, as he thinks "homoflexible sounds stupid".

Jaeger is more or less dead center. He has no real preference for men or women. He is more attracted to the person inside.

Basically, I'm fine with people identifying as they would like to be identified. I am no one's sexuality police lol
 
If we fail to identify clearly the terms we use, then it's waaaay too easy to find we're talking right past each other, & soon enough that opposing concepts wind up treated as "the same."

For instance (& as I'll go into someday), back around 1980 it was widely believed that there was a necessary gulf between the gay & lesbian communities -- that they literally had nothing in common & lived entirely different lifestyles.

Us bisexuals were an island somewhere else entirely :eek: & generally looked down upon as being "indecisive" or (not exaggerating at all) claiming the coolness & flexibility of being queer without giving up the safety of the heterosexual fold.

In Minneapolis, it was the Wiccan community & the University of Minnesota's well-established gay & lesbian groups (official U-backed student organizations founded in 1969) that actively worked on building bridges instead of walls.

However, our intent WAS NOT to present this as some sort of bland "it's all the same" tree-hugger nonsense, but rather as a coalition with overlapping interests, & loose enough that individuals could find the best place for themselves, at this moment.

That's where "LGBTQetc" came from --being inclusive. Somewhere along the line, as with "BDSM," the "all the same" bullshit crept in & screwed up the conversation.
________________

Actually, let's step back & see what Alfred Kinsey himself had to say, back in the Dim Ages (1948-1953). (My editing.)
There is nothing known in the anatomy or physiology of sexual response and orgasm which distinguishes masturbatory, heterosexual, or homosexual reactions.

The classification of sexual behavior as masturbatory, heterosexual, or homosexual, is, therefore, unfortunate if it suggests that only different types of persons seek out or accept each kind of sexual activity.

It would clarify our thinking if the terms could be dropped completely out of our vocabulary.

Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into pigeonholes. The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.

Instead of using these terms as substantives which stand for persons, or even as adjectives to describe persons, they may better be used to describe the nature of the overt sexual relations, or of the stimuli to which an individual erotically responds.

It has been possible to maintain this dichotomy only by placing all persons who are exclusively heterosexual in a heterosexual category and all persons who have any amount of experience with their own sex, even including those with the slightest experience, in a homosexual category... The attempt to maintain a simple dichotomy on these matters exposes the traditional biases which are likely to enter whenever the heterosexual or homosexual classification of an individual is involved.
Which kinda demonstrates why Scheff's "poly homophobia" screed strikes me as terribly, terribly off-base, somehow peeling bisexuals away from "queer" one moment then pretending it's "all pretty much the same."
 
If we fail to identify clearly the terms we use, then it's waaaay too easy to find we're talking right past each other, & soon enough that opposing concepts wind up treated as "the same."

I guess I don't really see the problem here. One, I don't have an issue with sexual identities being treated the same. Isn't that... kind of the point? If someone is treating people who identify as one thing over another differently, then they need to sort out their priorities.

The only time I could maybe seeing this as a concern is if someone was trying to figure out if they should or should not hit on someone...but they can just ask that, too, or- you know- start a conversation like someone who isn't a creeper and go from there. Being the right gender/using the right gender identifier doesn't mean that hitting on someone is okay anyways. It's not like: "this person like boobs, I have boobs, match made in heaven!".

Two, if someone identifies as "blahblahsexual" and I want more information on what that means to them, well, I can just ask. It's still their right to decline to answer. I don't see it as being any different than asking someone what pronoun they would like to use. If someone only wants to have sex with men and identifies as heterosexual, I'm on board with that. "Not my circus, not my monkeys", as they say.

Holding a strict set of definitions for sexuality feels false to me, in any case. Not everything has to be defined universally, not when individuals can just discuss what their chosen term means to them. Love by itself is not universal in my experience anyhow, and it makes sense to me that if individual emotions are individually defined and labelled, then sexuality would operate under the same set of rules.
 
If we fail to identify clearly the terms we use, then it's waaaay too easy to find we're talking right past each other, & soon enough that opposing concepts wind up treated as "the same."
Well, yeah, that's what conversations are for. I know I've said many times on this forum that, when dating or thinking about dating someone, it's a good idea to get clear on how each person defines words like "relationship," "commitment," "love," and so on. Of course, if a certain term about sexuality is important to someone, they would definitely do well to let people know why. I don't think there has to be, nor could possibly be, a mutually agreed-upon vocabulary established in advance of having that kind of conversation. And if it's an issue for some people but not for me, I don't need to be a part of figuring it out nor defining anything for them - I'll deal with whatever presents itself in my life. However, it seems to me that inclusiveness would mean everyone is treated the same.
 
Last edited:
I have had friends who run the gamut of heterosexual, heteroflexible, bisexual, homoflexible, and homosexual.
And on a slightly separate spectrum, demisexual, sapiosexual, and pansexual.

It comes down to one's personal experiences, preferences, and concept of self.

For myself, I have experienced physical attraction to men, and greatly enjoyed the single, limited experience I have had of another man's body.
But I have never experienced a real emotional connection or romantic attraction to another man.
I have realized over time that, in large part due to my negative relationship with my father growing up and even now, I never learned how to relate to other men, and even my friendships with men nowadays feel stilted.

But I always remain open to finding and forming that kind of connection.
Thus, I choose to identify as "heteroflexible".


I understand the need for objective terms.
It has been a struggle for me to let go of that need when studying the interactions of the Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation spectra.
It comes down to tending one's own garden, and letting others do the same.
 
Last edited:
I've wandered all over any sexuality categorization one can think of. How I have identified has changed over the course of my life. I was initially bisexual in my college days. However, that was mostly because I was terrified to be an actual, *gasp* lesbian. Fortunately, I got over that. I then identified as a lesbian for about twenty years. Then, around the time my marriage was ending (although I did not realize that at the time), I decided to date men. I considered myself bisexual again, this time for 'reals', not out of fear and internalized homophobia.

I also started exploring poly around the same time as dating men. And a year or so later, I also started checking out my local kink scene. So that was another identity wrinkle. (Not everyone considers kink to be a sexuality, or even sexual at all. It's definitely is linked to sex for me.)

Also a few years ago, someone online explained that pansexual was a term used to indicate that one was open to being involved with all varieties of gender expression. While I felt my bisexuality was not limited to the two cis genders, I also felt the point was valid.

So most recently, I have identified as pansexual. But if I had to pick one single word, it would be fluid. My sexuality ranges all over the place. Fluid suggests that the best to me, without being too confining a definition.
 
Last edited:
I definitely identify as bi rather than pan, and I've been pretty consistently bi for twenty five years now, even when in a long term monogamous marriage to a man, I had an eye for the ladies. When I'm with a man I love, I feel more hetero, when I'm with a woman I love, I'm a big lez. I like men who look and act basically masculine, women who look and act basically feminine. I've never gone for the androgynous type or gender-benders, though I do require a person who is comfortable enough in their gender identity to be able to act in ways not necessarily traditionally masculine or feminine. Though I've had many trans friends, I've never met or seen a trans person I was attracted to. I did go home, once, with a m to f trans who was a friend and coworker, in the interest of being equal opportunity. It didn't do much for me.
 
Certainly, part of my brain is in total agreement with "it's up to the individual, & maybe to the situation."

But then along came that Sheff article, to remind me that these largely imaginary pigeonholes are still often used in a divisive manner.

As the Kinsey quote points out, we have inherited two main camps,
  • heterosexual -- has never had even the least desire for sexual contact with anyone of the same gender
  • homosexual -- everyone else
One version of Kinsey's studies said that approximately one-fourth of all adult males had had at least one positive male/male sexual experience -- by the "usual definition," they were therefore homosexual & would so be unto death & beyond. That's just a teensy bit more than the "one in ten" meme. ;)

Rewrite the first definition to fit the second category: a "homosexual" is thus someone who has never had even the least desire for sexual contact with anyone of the other gender.

Sheff makes clear that even someone (supposedly) "an expert on polyamory and sexual-minority families" can be at the very least terribly misguided. She's a full-on shrink & writes for a national magazine -- she shapes thought & represents misguided people who DO have influence on how us outlaw "minorities" are perceived, treated, & controlled, & even how we think about ourselves.

The words we use reflect how we think.
The words we use shape how we are able to think.


Most of the queerfolk I've met over the years have at some time been attracted to someone of the other sex, & sometimes happily sexual. In fact, that's where I first encountered the term "pansexual"... used by a beautiful man who called himself "a total fag" yet was unconcerned about not fitting neatly into his pigeonhole. :)

So, if we apply to "homosexual" the parallel "heterosexual" definition, I figure that bisexuals -- being the "everyone else" category -- outnumber everyone else, & likely by a HUGE amount.

:eek:
 
When I'm with a man I love, I feel more hetero, when I'm with a woman I love, I'm a big lez.
Now that you mention it, Ive generally been kinda the opposite -- a little more butch with men, a bit more femme with women. Maybe it's a "reflecting" sort of thing, or an unconscious way of "fitting better" with my partner.

Could also be that's why I've always preferred sex one-on-one -- less complicated! -- even though there's lots of happy "moresome" memories. :)
 
non sequitur

The memories, they do resurface...

Meeting my friend Bronwyn at our usual coffeeshop, she introduced me to Tim.

Wow. The guy's like six foot, at least ten years younger than me, well-built, waist-length black hair, chiselled features, well-spoken, & butch. Totally gay, as he soon told me. The two of us chatted for a half-hour before I needed to head home, & I was totally flattered. Only a flirtation, maybe a teensy crush, & that was plenty.

Next time we met, he had his boyfriend along, a charming teddybear & a bit of an Eeyore though able to laugh at himself. Again, fun socializing was had.

Weeks later, stopping by after work for a take-home latte, in my spiffy silver-grey three-piece suit (yes, I was a minor executive for a while :rolleyes:), Tim spies me from the far corner & belts out in that wonderful rich voice, "Oh, who IS that dashing man?" I don't blush often...

Further on, the two of us were back again, socializing calmly. Bronwyn (who's just had her first girl/girl hookup) walks over & demands to know the last time I had a boyfriend. She knew it'd been years, as I reminded her. "Well!" she said, smirking, "I guess you're not very bisexual!" & flounces away.

I swear, I heard Tim's jaw drop.

When I turned back to him, he looked as though she'd just bitch-slapped him, wanting to be offended on my behalf but too stunned by the bizarreness.

She is, of course, a New Age "energy healer." :D I put on Beck Hansen's "Nitemare Hippy Girl" sometimes & laugh like a loon.
 
Although I try and keep an ever-open mind on such matters, I tend to think of the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual' and "bisexual" (etc.) as an unfortunate accident of history -- a relic of a time when who one was sexually interested in was more important than who one was relationally interested.

As such, I think of one's "relational orientation" as more important and meaningful than one's so-called "sexual orientation".

My relational orientation is biamorous, which is to say I'm amorously attracted to both men and women. I'm not so sure I'm fully pan-amorous (about equally attracted in loving relationships between men, women and trans folk, I suppose).

In "amorousness," as I conceive it, sexual attraction may play a very important role. Though not always! But usually, I suspect.

Amorousness is more about who (and what kinds of person) one is likely to fall in love, or otherwise want to engage in a long-ish term, deeply intimate, loving relationship. Sex is typically part of this mix, but need not always be. It's certainly not at the center of it -- as some folks (in my view) mistakenly believe.

My biamorousness is -- to my way of thinking -- a much more important part of who I am than my bisexuality. Bisexuals are far more common than are biamorous people. Many men (I'm a man, so this is my primary emphasis and frame of reference) who are bisexual are certainly not anywhere near being biamorous! Lots of gay and bi men are simply not in the least interested in forming lasting, deeply intimate, loving relationships with other men. One's sexuality turns out to be (from my perspective) a more trivial factor about who we are than our "relational orientation" -- again, from my point of view. Love is, in short, more important than sex. In human lives. Generally. And again, in my own personal opinion.

Many 'straight' men (sexually 'straight') are either more homo-relational or bi-relational (or bi-amorous, or homo-amorous) than some 'gay' or 'bisexual' men are. Many straight men tend to be more emotionally and socially interested in -- attracted to -- men than they are in women in this sense. That is, they are more -- or equally -- interested in men in terms of loving, intimate relationships. So why do we speak of "orientation" in such strictly sexual terms? My answer?: a kind of accident of history. Homosexuality was recognized as a phenomenon prior to a thoroughgoing acknowledgement of the existence and fact of bisexuality. In this acknowledgement of fact, homosexuality and heterosexuality were born as concepts and words. They did not -- in some sense -- exist previously. Bisexuality was born of this conceptual matrix, as a third alternative.

What this history never acknowledged or considered is amorousness -- until recently. Or relational orientation. But now we know that just because a man or a woman is "homosexual" or "bisexual" or "heterosexual" is no reason to assume that he or she is also homoamorous, biamorous or heteroamorous.

The difference is who we love, who we fall in love with, who we seek to keep close to in our lives. Plenty of gay and bi people (in the sexual sense) aren't amorous at all! Plenty do not seek lasting, loving relationships which we sometimes (probably ineptly) call "romantic relationships".

Bisexuality, in my view, is just no big deal. Show me a biamorous man or woman! Now that's a big deal! And I'm MUCH more apt to find myself sexually attracted to a biamorous human than one who only "loves" me for the kind of genitalia I happen to have.
 
Last edited:
I actually think that I am biamorous more than I am bisexual.

On the sexual spectrum, I'm far more hetero than not. I just find it way easier to get with men for sex stuff. Not that I lack attraction for women...it's just rare that I will feel sexual sparks a-sparking and feel comfortable to proceed in that direction, with a woman.

With men, it's relatively easy. Maybe because they drive things in that direction a bit more aggressively once they know they've got consent. Working out the romantic connection, on the other hand, with a man...hit or miss. Way too often where I felt big romantic lovey feels and they did not, or vice versa.

My female partners are a very small percentage of my overall partner count, but there have been a few.

However, I do form romantic emotional crushes and adorations of women relatively easily. I have felt romantically "in love" with most of the women I've been sexual with.
 
Back
Top