May 13, 2010

"But the sort of bisexual erasure that takes place when we say 'X can't be lesbian, she's dated men' (or 'X can't be gay, he's dated women') strikes me as pretty unsound..."

"... and not fair to a group that makes up a pretty big chunk of the non-straight population."

Says Eugene Volokh.

And there are also all those non-bisexual gay individuals who dated members of the opposite sex before they became convinced of their homosexuality or even after. People who are not sexually interested in each other may go out together to keep each other company as friends, to deflect rumors that they are homosexual, or for any number of other reasons.


Treacle said...

Bisexuality is a purely female phenomenon. Women can stay in a perpetual state of bisexuality because they do not have to have an erection.

"Straight" men, on the other hand, who tiptoe into the world of bisexuality will ultimately end up gay (i.e., they will accept that they are, and always were, gay).

There may be some very rare exceptions at the most narrow ends of the bell curve. But as a general rule, a man cannot be bisexual (because his equipment will not work unaided once he crosses the line) while a woman can (because her equipment does not have to work in the same way).

paul a'barge said...

Who cares?

It's not like one has to labor over time to find a reason to despise the idea of Kagan in the SCOTUS.

Start with her vile bullying of the US Military. Next, take the fact that she is a cipher about whom we have no way of knowing how she will vote on the SCOTUS, i.e. she's dangerous.

All this Lesbian stuff is a clever ploy to keep people's attention off her real issues. Think Saul Alinsky.

travers said...

Thanks for that biology lesson Treacle. It's enlightening.

Idiotic, but enlightening nonetheless as a window into ignorance about sexuality.

WV impil (i limp)

travers said...

If you have to be convinced of your own sexuality, isn't that a clue that you could be bisexual?

Treacle said...

you're welcome travers.

GMay said...

I've known several men and women (my sister is one) who consider themselves "gay" that don't seem to have a problem having sex with those of the opposite sex/gender/emotional orientation or whatever term we're supposed to use nowadays is. The only gay folks I've known that I've considered truly gay are the ones that are repulsed by the thought of sex with the opposite...whatever.

I've also known far more hetero women open to the idea of sex with other women than hetero men with the same attitude. Come to think of it, I can't think of a single hetero guy that I've known who has ever expressed that attitude. The number of hetero women open to the idea of being with another women still surprises me to this day.

Lem said...

Confirmation hearings are already known to be a farcical dance where everybody knows the steps.

Add to Keagan's the sexual orientation angle and I predict one of the lamest most boring hearings ever.

Lance said...

...or for any number of other reasons.

Such as:
1. They only thought they were gay,
2. They were gay for a while, but now they've switched,
3. "Straight" vs. "gay" isn't at all manichean, but rather ambiguous, and therefore dependent on circumstances.

Original Mike said...


shoutingthomas said...

As I said, the continuing expansion of the childless society means that the electorate itself become childish.

And so, these childish, irrelevant issues assume a fantasy aura of importance.

Junior high school gossip fascinates an electorate in which so many people are still living in their extended adolescence.

lemondog said...

My neighbor who was married over 30years having 2 kids and now divorced, is now in a long-term relationship with his partner. I suppose the pressure in the '70's was to marry.

Leonard Bernstein married to avoid career-stifling censure.

The Crack Emcee said...

All you're reminding me of is how confused some people are, and the lies and deceptions they perpetrate on others to hide it. It's depressing, really. Even more so when I consider how so many, by continually deflecting discussion from the reality of their behavior, goes along with it or is, now, even encouraging it as healthy.

"Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies," indeed.

The Crack Emcee said...

"Leonard Bernstein married to avoid career-stifling censure."

Yea, like Liberace.


rhhardin said...

Mad magazine's "The Planet with 26 sexes," a growing crowd visiting bars trying to pick up the necessary complement of partners and not able to find a willing mu, - that article didn't contemplate the complexities of the planet's gay community.

c3 said...

I've always had difficulty with those studies that purport to delineate who's heterosexual, homosexual and something in between. The act of having sex can be divorced from the attraction to a particular sex. And that says nothing about the oddities of sexual excitement. Are the many men who have had male/male sex in prison bisexual?

I find the politics of sexuality interesting. Just the notion of "politicizing" sex is intriguing.

And the "normalization" of sexual attraction is now a very interesting subject given medical and bioscience advances. So if we can identify the biochemical basis of gambling addition and pharmacologically treat it, would we not be able to do the same with sexual excitement/attraction issues. But to do so would require that we call something "pathological" or "treatable"

c3 said...

Was listening to this song as I read the responses to this post:

Digesting every word the experts say.
Erogenous zones I love you.
Without you, what would a poor boy do?

Found a girl I wanted to date,
Thought I'd better get it straight.
Went to buy a book before it's too late.
Don't leave nothing to fate.
I studied every line, every page in the book,

Touch and go with 1-6.
Bit of trouble in zone No. 7.
Gotta remember all of my tricks.
There's heaven ahead in No. 11!
Getting crucial responses, dilation of the pupils.
"Honey get hip! It's time to unzip, to unzip, zip, zip-a-zip-a-zip.

Maguro said...

It was hanging out with Elliot Spitzer that convinced her to switch teams, wasn't it?

Can't say I blame her.

Galvanized said...

I just long for the day when the discussion of sexual preference has played out and is no longer worthy of discussion -- when a person can show up with whomever they like, to whatever event, and in whatever context, and when people who salaciously question them will be rightfully frowned upon and regarded as petty. Wouldn't that be a civilized and respectful world? It's the only kind I want my kids to know.

t-man said...

A friend of mine once said that he couldn't handle being bisexual because it was hard enough walking down the street and wanting to have sex with 1/2 of the people he looked at.

Kurt said...

One of the few areas where I think that post-modernism hasn't been complete and total bunk is in its consideration of sexuality. By rejecting the ideas of "straight" and "gay" as constructs which are essentializing, it casts sexuality as much more fluid and uncertain realm.

Although Camille Paglia rejects post-modernism, her Sexual Personae partially made a case for the importance of bisexuality to the production of great art; conversely, Marjorie Garber is wholly steeped in postmodernism, but her Bisexuality is a fascinating overview of sexual ambiguity in an impressively wide variety of cultural documents.

traditionalguy said...

This may be blatant discrimination against the younger generation by hiding from them today's most popular sexual category. The Try-sexual is the approach of todays hip teens...they will try sex with anything. I wonder how Elin Wood is doing these days?

TMink said...

Bisexual people make their gay partners a tad uneasy. Most of them identify as gay for their partner, even when they are bi. Most of the lesbian couples I know are paired in this manner.


c3 said...


it casts sexuality as much more fluid ..

well.... yeah

Its always been about the fluids. Just ask General Ripper.

Moose said...

...the death of embarassment. Let it all hang out. If you're shocked, you're a bigot.


edutcher said...

Which way she swings might be a bigger issue if her political direction (and that of the Zero) weren't so obvious and dangerous to the country. The issue of her as a role model then might engender (no pun) more controversy.

And, no, I don't buy the idea that everybody who says they don't care really believe that. The whole 'hate speech' thing has made a lot of people hesitant to speak their minds.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I used to have a bisexual erasure. It was pink on one end, which was attracted to pencil marks, and white on the other end that was into pen marks.

William said...

I think bisexuality is more common among women because they smell nicer and feel softer. None of us ever fully outgrows our need to suck on a tit. That said, I wish to express my respect and admiration for those women who work out these needs in a heterosexual way.....Does anyone care whether or not Eleanor Roosevelt was bisexual? Does it alter the judgement of history one iota? I'm interested in all the morphs and nuances of Angelina Jolie's sexuality because that's her job--to project sex appeal. Kagan and Sotomayor not so much.

former law student said...

Start with her vile bullying of the US Military.

"Our school's policy prohibits employers who discriminate against gays from scheduling interviews through the Placement Office. Nor can they use our little meeting rooms."

Oh, the brutality!

The Crack Emcee said...

"I just long for the day when the discussion of sexual preference has played out and is no longer worthy of discussion,..."

Stand in line: I can't even get Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds to stop discussing race - and they're supposed to be two of the smart ones.

At least they make it look that way by referencing each other so much. Ann gets a link almost every day - whether she says something smart or not. My uneducated ass can say something smart enough that a guy who's regularly in The Wall Street Journal will even give me props, but Reynolds gives me nothing - because I'm angry - but he'll root on the "angry" Tea Party with abandon, because he's part of that. (He's not a part of the anti-NewAge movement, though, reporting nothing on the developments against chiropractic, homeopathy, cults, or anything else related - which I think is the true key to conservatives really taking back the country. It's bullshit - and thanks for allowing us, unlike the Tea Party movement, to fight alone, assholes. We've actually got innocent lives at stake - not just a desire for favorable publicity for our political views - but you say nothing.

Glenn Reynolds is taking on the Democrats. We're taking on the Democrats, the medical profession, science, entertainment, and the worlds of religion and spirituality - now you tell me which "movement" deserves the most exposure.

Neither Glenn or Ann makes much sense sometimes, except in a yuppie back-slapping kind of way. As I've said before, they're replacing the mainstream media with something just as insidiously stupid, and all the emphasis on American Idol (Ann) and gadgets (Glenn) proves it.

It's like the movie Crash for college grads.