Bi =/= Poly

G

GreenAcres

New member
Frequently, I see bisexuality (predominantly in women) touted as the "reason" for being poly, opening a marriage, only "allowing" female partners in a relationship to sleep with women in a polyship, etc. This misunderstanding of what it means to be bi has been the cause for a lot of issues in my life, and I often feel that some of what I see here suffers from the same misunderstandings.

Why is this an issue I bring up? Because I see here, and have heard a lot in Real Life, that someone who is bisexual "needs" to be poly/have partners of both sexes to be happy, or they need to be poly because they were looking to "Be true" to their bisexuality. And, of course, it is a huge excuse given for unicorn hunting.

But, bisexuality doesn't have any of those things attached to it. It just means liking both men and women. That's it.

Being bi does not mean I need to be sleeping with people of both sexes (or even want to). It does not mean I need partners of both sexes in my life at the same time. It does not mean my deepest desire is to have two partners of opposite sexes, preferably as a whole big threesome unit. It does not mean that I am unfulfilled by my partner sexually unless I am also having sex with a partner of the opposite sex (this one usually comes from guys, who seem to assume I "need" to sleep with a woman in addition to them, in order to be fulfilled and happy).

You get the idea.

My interest in poly isn't linked to being bisexual. I'd be just as likely to have multiple exclusively female partners rather than multiple partners of both sexes. I've been in happily monogamous relationships with partners of both sexes. I think a functioning triad or quad would be awesome, but it's not something I search for, and it certainly wouldn't need to contain partners of different sexes. I have many bisexual friends who are strictly monogamous, some that are a asexual (which would, I suppose, make them biamorous rather than bisexual), some that are poly.

I guess the point is that bisexuals are bisexual, not inherently poly or in need of multiple partners, which is often what people seem to think. A bisexual person might be poly, just like a heterosexual person might be, but there's no actual or necessary connection between the two. I feel like separating the two could be really helpful in many cases, rather than treating bisexuality and polyamory as inextricably linked, as it often seems to be.

I don't think one needs an "excuse" to be poly, and I also think separating the two allows for more honest conversation about relationships, motives, jealousies, etc.
 
I really felt like I had this enormous hole in my life because I really wanted a romantic relationship with a woman. I happened to get with my ex before I fully realized my desires (even though his desire for sexual exploration was what opened our relationship). I had a girlfriend for a few months, but chemistry was lacking. Later I met and fell in love with my husband, but never found another female partner. However, Nate has a lot of feminine energy that satisfies that desire I had. I actually felt completely satisfied with just him and wasn't seriously seeking an additional partner when I got with Sam.
 
That would be great. I didn't see one specific to this when I searched, but I'd love to read it!
 
I'm pretty sure the poly community itself is aware that bisexuality doesn't automatically mean non-monogamy, let alone polyamory. I think this mostly comes from ill-informed mono folk who see that many poly folk are bi and make assumptions.

To be fair, it's easier for bi folk to be poly. A minority of people appear to be comfortable with multiple ROMANTIC relationships (though I'd argue that the majority of people are not sexually monogamous, even if it means a simple attraction to multiple people at once). Opening your pool to both sexes means you're more likely to find another poly partner to connect with. If a large percentage of poly folk ARE bi, it's easy for people to misread that as "All bi people are poly." Not necessarily true, but I can see how it happens.

Also, on the "making it easier" side, bisexuality/homosexuality (and I do think there are more bisexual than homosexual folk, that would make biological sense, since bisexual people could still reproduce) allows triads (or other group relationships) to exist, thus representing a good chunk of poly folk. You cannot have a triad with all straight people. Unlike straight folk, bi people can be in vees (and various related networks), triads, or be solo poly. (Yes, a straight person could be in a triad, but the other two would have to be bi.)

Flexibility makes it easier to be poly.
 
Last edited:
I originally opened up my marriage to be with another woman. I thought it was all about reclaiming my bisexuality after over a decade of heterosexual monogamy. But then, after she and I broke up, I found no women around I was compatible with, but there were some guys. So, out the door flew my alibi that poly is all about being able to be with both genders at once, though I do feel that my ideal relationship formation would involve one male and one female in my life, probably not in a closed triad.
 
In some other forums, I've noticed this idea get tossed out a lot as an excuse for avoiding the other kind of penis envy. "It's not that my wife wants to date other MEN. I'm the only man she needs. It's just that she's bi so she needs a woman, that's all. And that's why being poly is not a threat to our marriage, because I'm the only penis in her life."

It's usually not phrased exactly that way, but the meaning comes through.
 
Being bi does not mean I need to be sleeping with people of both sexes (or even want to). It does not mean I need partners of both sexes in my life at the same time. It does not mean my deepest desire is to have two partners of opposite sexes, preferably as a whole big threesome unit. It does not mean that I am unfulfilled by my partner sexually unless I am also having sex with a partner of the opposite sex (this one usually comes from guys, who seem to assume I "need" to sleep with a woman in addition to them, in order to be fulfilled and happy).
Click to expand...

I never really thought about bisexuality much before, as I identify as straight myself. However, I've started dating a bi-guy and I dunno, I just assumed he needs both male and female partners to be happy. Your post has given me a lot to think about. Thank you!
 
Bluebird said:
I never really thought about bisexuality much before, as I identify as straight myself. However, I've started dating a bi-guy and I dunno, I just assumed he needs both male and female partners to be happy. Your post has given me a lot to think about. Thank you!
Click to expand...

As a bi female, I can say that I don't NEED both to be happy, but I am much happier when I do have both male and female partners. I could never be happy in the long run having to choose one or the other (although I really do only need one male partner at a time, oddly, I really prefer having multiple female relationships, of varying dynamics).
 
It seems to me that: if "I'm attracted to both men and women" means "You need one partner of each sex!" ... then "I'm attracted to both blondes and brunettes" means "You need one partner of each color!"

Heh, if I was partnered with every person I was attracted to, I'd be as bad as Solomon. :)
 
The flip side to the thinking that bi people "need one of each" is the belief that if you're bisexual, you just can't be monogamous. I once said to someone (a mono guy) who argued that view, "Just because a person is attracted to both sexes doesn't mean they can't be monogamous. It just means that they can be monogamous with either male or female. Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with whether they can commit to one person or not." He didn't get it, unfortunately, and kept saying that he will never date a bi woman because she would never be happy with just him (and he wasn't into the whole chick-on-chick fantasy, either).
 
I am reminded of a section of my own "Intro" thread on this forum:

JaneQSmythe said:
Bisexuality Views:
I've known I was bi since my (then future) husband pointed out that being attracted to (and sleeping with) men and women was, by definition, “bisexuality” (who knew you needed a word for that? My answer to “Are you straight or gay?” was always just “no”).

In some ways accepting the label of “bisexuality” has been way more annoying than I would think it should be due to the assumptions and misconceptions that seem to follow. I've been told that I am not “really” bisexual because I:
a.) am married (seriously?)
b.) have never been in a “serious” “primary” (or, even worse, “real”) relationship with a woman
c.) am not actively “seeking” such a relationship (evidently if I am bi then I MUST have one of each … or the cosmic balance of the universe is askew)
d.) am confused and experimenting to find out what I really want (this from both gays and straights) (I must be REALLY confused since I've been experimenting for the last 20 years)
e.) etc. etc. (planning on reading the BiFemale threads here to see how other women deal with this crap)

So when I say I'm bisexual I mean that I can be sexually attracted to both men and women – period. (I've slept with an approximately equal number of men and women if that matters – I don't think it does.) I am sexually attracted (or not) to an individual person – not their gender. I form relationships (or don't) with people – not their genitalia.
Click to expand...
 
I haven't had any problems with people assuming because I'm bi that I can't be monogamous, I guess because the only time I've tried to be monogamous (with my husband) I managed for well over a decade. However, I constantly deal with having my bisexuality disregarded completely. Because I don't wear short spikey hair or tattoos or any other obvious symbols of female homosexuality, because I wear skirts and makeup, it's automatically assumed that I'm heterosexual and I'm treated accordingly. Even when I tell people I'm bi, they don't seem to hear me. My love for women is rarely taken seriously, even when I've had girlfriends. In queer literature, they call this "bisexual erasure."

It's a bit different for men. While people assume bi women are mostly straight, making forays into lesbianism, bi men are assumed to be gay, making forays into heterosexuality. This comes from both straight and gay people.

Bisexual, Pansexual, Polysexual...is it all semantics?
Click to expand...

I'm the first to admit my attraction is different for each gender. Things that would be attractive to me in a female wouldn't attract me to a male, and I'm typically turned off by androgyny, I've never been attracted to anyone transgender, though I've known many, so I have a hard time saying "I'm attracted to the person, not what's between their legs." I'm attracted to femininity in women, masculinity in men. That's why I don't call myself "pansexual," but "bisexual."

Would I be happy being with just one gender for the rest of my life? I don't know. I have a hard time imagining being totally fulfilled if I were just with men or just with women, but I suppose for the right person/people, sure. I've done monogamy long-term before. I suppose it could happen again.
 
Candiedlove said:
I'm pretty sure the poly community itself is aware that bisexuality doesn't automatically mean non-monogamy, let alone polyamory. I think this mostly comes from ill informed mono folk who see that many poly folk are bi and make assumptions.

To be fair, it's easier for bi folk to be poly, a minority of people appear to be comfortable with multiple ROMANTIC relationships (though I'd argue that the majority of people are not sexually monogamous, even if it means a simple attraction to multiple people at once). So, opening your pool to both sexes means you're more likely to find another poly partner to connect with. So, if a large percentage of poly folk ARE bi, it's easy for people to misread that as "All bi people are poly." Not necessarily true, but I can see how it happens.

Also, on the "making it easier" side, bisexuality/homosexuality (and I do think there are more bisexual than homosexual folk, that would make biological sense, since bisexual people could still reproduce) allows triads (or other group relationships) to exist, thus representing a good chunk of poly folk. You cannot have a triad with all straight people. Unlike straight folk, bi people can be in vees (and various related networks), triads, or solopoly (okay, a straight person could be in a triad, but the other two would have to be bi).

Flexibility makes it easier to be poly.
Click to expand...

I've had a good bit of experience with poly folks thinking that me being bi means I "need" partners of both sexes to be happy, actually, and that there's no way I could be mono, or happy with multiple partners of just one sex. That may be different in different geographic areas, though, and admit that's just my experience.

I do agree that the misconception that bi=poly is partly due to the number of "out" poly people who are bi. I would add that I don't think that the number of poly people who are bi is probably any different in ratio to the number who are hetero or gay in relation to the general population, but there is a perception difference. In other words, there are probably just as many bi, gay, pan, etc., people who are poly as there are mono. Many of the "out" poly people I've met and seen online are couples who are either unicorn hunting, or ones in which the wife is "allowed" to have sex/relationships with other women (who are usually bi, because many lesbians won't date bi women at all). Same thing with swinging, which is often (unfortunately) conflated with poly by either newbies or the general public. Since girl-on-girl sex is "hawt," I think many people are more likely to admit they're poly/swinging with or because of a bi-woman. In actual poly life, I meet many more hetero people than bi, but many aren't as "out," because having multiple hetero partners is less accepted, and often seen as cheating, whereas just fooling around with another chick is totes okay. :mad:

As far as being bi making it easier to be poly than being hetero, statistically, I suppose that is true. But, I think that's true of all flexibility. If one isn't open to dating people who smoke, who have kids, who are married, etc., that limits the dating pool, as well. So, while I think being bi makes it easier to be poly in one respect, I don't think it's much different than having other types of flexibility.
 
Last edited:
JessicaBurde said:
In some other forums, I've noticed this idea get tossed out a lot as an excuse for avoiding the other kind of penis envy. "It's not that my wife wants to date other MEN, I'm the only man she needs. It's just that she's bi so she needs a woman, that's all. And that's why being poly is not a threat to our marriage, because I'm the only penis in her life."

it's usually not phrased that way, but the meaning comes through.
Click to expand...

So much this, unfortunately. I've also been pushed, and seen many other bi women pushed, to "explore their bisexuality," whether they feel like it or not, because 1) it's "hot" to those around them, and/or 2) their partners can't understand that they're perfectly happy either monogamously, or with whatever sex partners they already have. It's just a foreign concept.
 
Bluebird said:
I never really thought about bisexuality much before, as I identify as straight myself. However, I've started dating a bi-guy and I dunno, I just assumed he needs both male and female partners to be happy. Your post has given me a lot to think about. Thank you!
Click to expand...

And he might, just like many poly people prefer to have more than one relationship, and those relationships will be different from one another. I am happy in many different relationship configurations, depending on the people and dynamics involved; but, I suspect the same would be true even if I were straight, if that makes sense.
 
kdt26417 said:
It seems to me that: if "I'm attracted to both men and women" means "You need one partner of each sex!" ... then "I'm attracted to both blondes and brunettes" means "You need one partner of each color!"

Heh, if I was partnered with every person I was attracted to, I'd be as bad as Solomon. :)
Click to expand...

Lol. Now we know your secret, Kevin!

But, yes, I suppose it's similar. Some bi people may feel the need for partners of both sexes, but it's not inherently attached to being bi. Those people may, if they were straight, also be happier with more than one hetero partner than being monogamous, for example. Or, as you say, with people of different physical attributes of another kind.
 
nycindie said:
The flip side to the thinking that bi people "need one of each" is the belief that if you're bisexual, you just can't be monogamous. I once said to someone (a mono guy) who argued that view, "Just because a person is attracted to both sexes doesn't mean they can't be monogamous. It just means that they can be monogamous with either male or female. Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with whether they can commit to one person or not." He didn't get it, unfortunately, and kept saying that he will never date a bi woman because she would never be happy with just him (and he wasn't into the whole chick-on-chick fantasy, either).
Click to expand...

I've so been there. It's ridiculous. It goes back to what Kevin said: if everyone HAD to have one of every kind of person they might be attracted to in life, there would be no such thing as monogamy. I've had the same argument with both men and women: why does it matter what kind of person, genitalia or otherwise, I am attracted to? If we're dating, and I'm going to leave you, does it *really* matter whether it's for a woman or a guy?

I usually take it as a sign that the person I'm talking to can't control their own impulses, has trust issues (that usually stem from said impulse-control issues), baggage they're not willing to deal with, and/or low self-esteem. Since all of them are total turn-offs for me as both friends and lovers, I move on pretty quickly; but, sometimes, it is incredibly frustrating that people are so narrow minded.
 
JaneQSmith (I couldn't figure out how to quote your quote from your introduction thread), I get much of the same, even though I have been in LTR mono relationships with both sexes and am not married. There are days that, like you, I feel like the label of "bi" is far more trouble than it's worth. Also, when I am in a relationship with one sex, people seem to feel I should have to wear something on my forehead that says "I'm with (MaleX/FemaleY), but am really bi!" Because, apparently, me being bi means I have to put a disclaimer on any relationship I have when I meet new people (as if my personal life is anyone else's business). It's WEIRD.

The gay community is, in some ways, almost more difficult than the straight community. That said, I do get the freaked-out-ness of lesbian women about dating me if I also have a male partner, because so many bi women somehow expect that any woman they're involved with will also be involved with their male partners (again, I find it weird that people assume this, but since I've certainly been a victim of the bait-and-switch expectations that often happen with this, I totally get it). It's frustrating, especially since I am much closer to a lesbian than hetero since I have a very definite preferences for romantic and sexual involvement with women, but I do get that aspect of it. Like you, though, I get tired of having my sexuality invalidated by both straights and gays as being "a phase," or "in it to turn men on," neither of which is true. I've been bi since I first felt any stirrings of sexuality in puberty, and several decades later, that hasn't changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top