The Stereotype thread...

[TaylorMade]

Post your favorite stereotype as seen around, whether on this board or in general...and we'll all have a sit-down and talk about it...Why is it NOT okay for people like Dan Savage to smear us, but okay for us to do the same to others? It's a question that has nagged me for a while, and I think, as a group, we need to examine the stereotypes we use and why we use them.

Bisexuals, according to Dan Savage (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=31935)

An oldie, but a goodie (http://main.bisexual.com/forum/showpost.php?p=72966&postcount=3)

*Taylor*

[biwords]

Actually, Taylor, I think Dan Savage, here as so often, has it about right...at least as far as male bisexuals go. But whether he's right or wrong, I don't see him as 'smearing' us, and wonder why you do - ?

[TaylorMade]

Actually, Taylor, I think Dan Savage, here as so often, has it about right...at least as far as male bisexuals go. But whether he's right or wrong, I don't see him as 'smearing' us, and wonder why you do - ?

Cowards and cheats? Seriously? Do you think that is embedded in male bisexuality or in humanity itself?

That's where the question lies. . .I think people have the traits they have, not withstanding orientation, geography,religious affiliation, etc. People do not need an excuse to be a certain way, to give them one is like saying they're not capable of taking responsibility for their own behavior, and that the outside makes us who we are inside. . .and that's something I just can't stand for.

*Taylor*

[shameless agitator]

Well I'm with biwords on this one. You may want to read that column again Taylor. He specifically discounts the liars, cheats, and cowards stereotype and the only generalization he makes is that we mostly lean more to the straight side. I don't know how true that is, but I can't see it as derogatory

[biwords]

Thanks shameless! Yes, Savage says that he USED to buy into the bisexuals-are-cowards-and-cheats stereotype, but does so no longer.

[entropy2]

I'm not sure that the idea that most bisexuals are mostly hetero is necessarily true though, and that the reason is not that they are interested in the societal perks. I've found for myself that I have a lot more relationships with women, and they last longer, because they're easier for me.

[DiamondDog]

I agree with Taylor about how what Savage said is a bad thing and how it's biphobia but it's said in a tongue in cheek way. He mentions the worst stereotypes and then says how he doesn't fall into thinking about that anymore about bisexuals but then he makes just plain WRONG assumptions about bisexuality.

I don't think you can or should compare bisexuality to heterosexuality like that, or you can't assume that ALL or most bisexuals are mostly hetero (whatever that even means?), since it's just as bad as assuming that all or most bisexuals are just closeted homosexuals.

Myself and many of my other bisexual friends don't happen to lean towards the opposite gender and it's not a rare thing.

I have bisexual male friends who are partnered together who wind up telling heterosexuals that they're bi since they think that heteros understand it a lot better than gay people do.

They tell gay men that they're gay, since my friends feel that lots of gay men don't really understand or get bisexuality and feel threatened by it and wouldn't understand how two men can be together in a relationship, yet not be gay or have homosexual describe their desires/sexuality at all.

There's also the old stereotype that if you're a bi male and you're with a man that if there's a woman available for sex or a relationship that you WILL leave the man for her even if it's just for sex.

Taken from here: http://www.gay.ru/english/bi/bisex3.htm

*Assuming that bisexuals, if given the choice, would prefer to be within an "opposite" gender/sex coupling to reap the social benefits of a "heterosexual" pairing.

*Assuming bisexuals would be willing to "pass" as anything other than bisexual.

*Thinking bisexuals only have committed relationships with "opposite" sex/gender partners.

As far as the second post goes that is also a bad stereotype.

There are closeted/repressed people EVERYWHERE. Even in the SF bay area, NYC, and other major american cities and in other cities around the world. Need proof? Read personal ads that guys who are closeted and call themselves "straight" write on Craigslist, gay newspapers, and other places to put ads.

Not everyone who is from the southen part of the US is closeted, racist, uneducated, or any of the other stereotypes people say about the south.

I've lived in very rural areas where people were A LOT more out as being gay, bi, trans, lesbian, than people are in/around bigger cities. In the rural areas where I've lived it wasn't dangerous or that big of a deal at all to be out as it can be in/near major cities.

Yes there is the Matthew Shepherd fear about living in a rural area or a small town; but people shouldn't live in fear and let it run their lives and prevent them from being who they are or who they want to be. It's largely a myth that small town rural life is hell for GLBT people.

I've been bashed A LOT more in/around major cities than when I lived in rural areas. I've lived in rural areas in the middle of nowhere, where I've kissed men in public and held their hands in public and nobody gave a fuck but you simply wouldn't do that in/around a major city.

I've also met a lot more out people in small rural towns and been able to build excellent social networks there while it's VERY hard to do this in/around a city and people seem to be more closeted in/around cities for the most part.

I have gay/bi male friends who put out the rainbow flag or other symbols at their houses and they live in rural areas that are isolated and they don't care who knows that they're gay/bi/not hetero. Meanwhile around where I live now that's something that simply isn't done by anyone at all even if they're not hetero or they are two gay/bi men living together or a single gay/bi man living alone.

Also I know that living in a rural area in a small town gave me a better chance to come out than if I'd lived in/near a big city. Rural gay/bi men rock my world! :) A lot of times they seem to have better values and aren't the "Wham bam fuck ya later have a nice life bye bye! Cum and go on the first/only date" type of guys that you find in more urban areas.

I know people who have lived in/near cities and they're really closeted to the point where they don't even realize that they're not hetero but everyone else can easily tell. Also it's pretty bad around the area where I'm at now since if a man is closeted he'll just go online to hook up, or to an adult bookstore/bath house/gym/sauna for quick anonymous sex with strangers instead of going to the local gay bar to meet people in the community and make friends, or seeking out clubs/organizations at a GLBT community center and getting involved and meeting new people.

I've read Craigslist and personal ads for major cities and even in San Francisco people are closeted and can have backwards thinking and people do get bashed too.

[TaylorMade]

DD, we may not always agree, but thanks for feeling me on this.

*Taylor*

[darkeyes]

Feelin ya Taylor?? Anya let im?? DD ya mucky sod!!:tong:

[bookworm]

As an avid reader of Savage Love, some thoughts--

Dan's "problem" with bisexuality is not about personal choice but a matter of social politics.

For the greater part of the 20th century, homosexuality was kept in the closet. How many movie stars were openly gay? Politicians? Musicians? If you were important, a celebrity, a mover/shaker, the press kept it quiet. If not...good luck.

Starting with the Stonewall Rebellion of 1969, gays have organized, marched, and demanded change and acceptance within society. Think about it. Almost 40 years have gone by, and we're still arguing about gay marriage, gay adoption, gay rights in the workplace, hate laws, etc...40 years. That's one big-ass mountain to climb...(please don't flame me for excluding your particular ethnicity, race, or religion. Yeah, I Know).

Since the barndoor has been opened, personal sexual choice has filtered into the mainstream, bisexuality among the choices. However--

Have you ever seen a bisexual march for acceptance? (If I am wrong on this point, please correct me). How many married people would openly admit to it? How many singles building a career? Married bisexuals (as an example) have the luxury of going "both ways" within a State/Church sanctioned union. Gays do not.

Dan has a point (read his earlier articles and books). Gays have done the heavy lifting, and bisexuals, riding on the coattails of 40 years (since Stonewall...before that one can only begin to imagine) of ridicule, abuse, and violence, whine about not being accepted.

Yes, times and levels of acceptance have changed, but do give gays props for blazing the trail, and to Dan for holding up a mirror to us.

[TaylorMade]

So it gives him to right to act from upon high and abuse us with the same language that would have him march on the streets if it were said to him?

FUCK. THAT.

It's two faced, hypocritical and narrow, assuming that all bisexuals are the same and lived the same way all throughout history.

He wouldn't accept that characterization for himself and gay men, why should we accept it for us?

*Taylor*

[biwords]

I thought bookworm's posting was brilliant and, frankly, definitive.

Taylor and DD: For me the point isn't whether Savage is right or not; we can have differing opinions on that. My point was that his opinion fell far short of what I'd call "abuse". If you term differing opinions "abuse", you debase discourse. I would never, for example, say that DD's stated opinions on bathhouses constitute "abuse" of people who go there.

On a related but slightly different point: of course there are bisexuals who don't leave their same-sex partners for opposite-sex partners. But it happens often enough so that those who have witnessed it should, again, be allowed to say so without being termed 'abusive'. You may be sick of me invoking my cousin Ken as an authority of sorts, but since he's the gay man I know best it's inevitable. Here was his response, emailed from Paris:

"If you remember, I said that I run as fast as I can away from most self-named bisexuals – specifically because when push comes to shove they will most likely remain with a member of the opposite sex, leaving you (the gay man or woman) out in the cold. Dan is saying the same thing here. In this “anti- bi”? Or is it simply being lucid and self-preserving? Take your pick.
All I know is that if I find myself investing emotionally with someone, I want a level playing field… most bi’s don’t seem capapble of giving it to me. They want to have their cake and eat it too...And dollars to donuts, they one left alone in the end will be the gay man or the same-sex lover".

Ken may be right or he may be wrong, but here, at the age of 60, he's describing his own decades of experience. I can't term that "abuse".

[TaylorMade]

But what gets me is that gay people leave their partners for another as well, though. . . just because you may not date bisexuals does not give you automatic immunity from being dumped.

That's where Dan Savage starts to get empty in my eyes. . .leaving ones partner is not exclusively a "Bi" trait, but his language is trying to scapegoat bisexuals with this.

It's like saying don't hang out in black neighborhoods, you'll get your wallet/car stolen. There are other types of neighborhoods where it can happen, so why single out one set?

*Taylor*

[biwords]

It's like saying don't hang out in black neighborhoods, you'll get your wallet/car stolen. There are other types of neighborhoods where it can happen, so why single out one set?
*Taylor*

Statistical likelihood, perhaps?

In 1980 -- not a good time in New York's history -- I visited the city, arriving at night and walking alone through Harlem, entirely unmolested and very calm -- because I didn't know it was Harlem. When I reached my hosts they asked how I'd come and turned ashen when I told them I'd walked up 112th or whatever street it was. Were they racist? I don't think so. They were just making a judgment according to their own experience and those of their friends and acquaintances.

[DiamondDog]

I thought bookworm's posting was brilliant and, frankly, definitive.

Taylor and DD: For me the point isn't whether Savage is right or not; we can have differing opinions on that. My point was that his opinion fell far short of what I'd call "abuse". If you term differing opinions "abuse", you debase discourse. I would never, for example, say that DD's stated opinions on bathhouses constitute "abuse" of people who go there.

On a related but slightly different point: of course there are bisexuals who don't leave their same-sex partners for opposite-sex partners. But it happens often enough so that those who have witnessed it should, again, be allowed to say so without being termed 'abusive'. You may be sick of me invoking my cousin Ken as an authority of sorts, but since he's the gay man I know best it's inevitable. Here was his response, emailed from Paris:

"If you remember, I said that I run as fast as I can away from most self-named bisexuals – specifically because when push comes to shove they will most likely remain with a member of the opposite sex, leaving you (the gay man or woman) out in the cold. Dan is saying the same thing here. In this “anti- bi”? Or is it simply being lucid and self-preserving? Take your pick.
All I know is that if I find myself investing emotionally with someone, I want a level playing field… most bi’s don’t seem capapble of giving it to me. They want to have their cake and eat it too...And dollars to donuts, they one left alone in the end will be the gay man or the same-sex lover".

Ken may be right or he may be wrong, but here, at the age of 60, he's describing his own decades of experience. I can't term that "abuse".

Get out there and meet other gay men besides your cousin Ken.

He and Dan Savage aren't the authority on male bisexuality or if same gender relationships stay together or fall apart because one or more man involved in them is bisexual.

Ken seems rather close minded for a 60 year old gay man. Also many gay men who are older and in his generation feel threatened by bisexuality or they simply don't understand it, and are afraid of it. Some will go so far as saying how bisexuality is rare or how it exists in women but not in men, or how it doesn't exist in anyone at all. Many gay men his age also feel threatened by the word/label of queer which isn't a slur at all nowadays.

Does he feel that since you're married to a woman and in an open relationship that your marriage/relationship with your wife is doomed or simply going to fail because you're bisexual and she's not, and you have an open relationship where you can have sex with other people besides her?

I find it odd and sad that some gay men feel this way about bisexual men having relationships with gay men (or they have this opinion about bisexuals having relationships with anyone in general regardless of their orientation/gender), and yet when you mention how heterosexuals feel that most gay men simply can't be in a closed/exclusive relationship together, or how some gay men do cheat on their partners and dump them for another guy suddenly there is no counter argument for that and things suddenly get quiet.

Someone's orientation has nothing to do if they're going to be unfaithful or cheat on a partner, or suddenly dump their partner quickly for someone else.

Bookworm-Dan Savage should read more about queer history.

Taken from here: http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/bisex_movements.html


For example, the vice president of the Society for Human Rights, the first known male homophile organization in the United States (established in Chicago in 1924), was bisexual and married. He had to keep his bisexuality a secret, however, as the group denied membership to bisexuals, believing that they would be less committed to the cause.

Bisexual women and men also joined the Mattachine Society, the Daughters of Bilitis, and other American homophile organizations founded in the 1950s and 1960s. The first gay college group, Columbia University's Student Homophile League, was established by Stephen Donaldson (born Robert Martin), an openly bisexual student, in 1966. With his support, other campuses soon created similar organizations, leading to the development of gay groups on college campuses throughout the country in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

But, as with the Society for Human Rights, bisexuals were not always accepted in the homophile movement during the 1950s and 1960s. It was feared that they would retreat to the closet (even though many lesbians and gay men in the movement were not entirely open themselves) and had less to lose than lesbians or gay men. Yet many of the people who sought the assistance of homophile organizations were bisexual.

Many bisexuals do march for equal rights for homosexual men and women, support the HRC, and the NCSF.

Also, if someone is married or a professional single starting a career who is to say that they aren't going to be open about being bisexual or something other than heterosexual?

People who are married post here about being open/out about their sexuality, and people have written about being open/out about themselves at work or in general if they're single and starting out a career.

Yes stonewall was an important event but if not for the socities that were quoted about above, it wouldn't have happened.

Also believe it or not, but anal fisting and BDSM became more popular and mainstream because of bisexuals.

In 1976 in the city of San Francisco Steve McEachern opened a fisting club and while this was a predominantly gay male space/event he allowed his lover Cynthia Slater to go and Pat (now Patrick) Califia was a regular there too.

[the mage]

Man o man .....
You all must get used to the fact that no one who does not walk in your shoes will ever attempt to understand you thoroughly except in purely academic terms.

Savage is a columnist, his job is to pander to his audience.

Don't get in a knot over his opinions.

What should be remembered is the position of HUGE privilege he and we live in here in N.A....
The fact that the gay population paved the way for openness is rooted in a political fight for survival. Had the gay men of the 80's not stood up and screamed loud and used their demographic wealth to get money flowing for research AIDS would have been allowed to kill millions more than it has.

It is a fact that wealth has purchased acceptance in N.A. and Europe. Everywhere else in the world being gay still gets you dead.

[Azrael]

"If you remember, I said that I run as fast as I can away from most self-named bisexuals – specifically because when push comes to shove they will most likely remain with a member of the opposite sex, leaving you (the gay man or woman) out in the cold. Dan is saying the same thing here. In this “anti- bi”? Or is it simply being lucid and self-preserving? Take your pick.
All I know is that if I find myself investing emotionally with someone, I want a level playing field… most bi’s don’t seem capapble of giving it to me. They want to have their cake and eat it too...And dollars to donuts, they one left alone in the end will be the gay man or the same-sex lover"
I(a bisexual man) was left alone in the end because my bisexual girlfriend cheated on me with my best friend (also a woman). Then my beautiful slightly older vietnamese architect guy ditched me to go back to his aggressive paranoid ex boyfriend. So, just get whatever you will from that. I am a bi guy, I may want both, but I've ALWAYS been faithful to one :(
Tell your cousin the world is not as simple as it seems.

[biwords]

Fair enough, but again, my point wasn' that Ken was necessarily right, but that people are entitled to report their experience and (to some extent) to generalize from it -- provided they do so with some appropriate degree of humility, in the sense of recognizing that their experience is only their experience, and not necessarily God's Revealed Truth.

[Azrael]

Fair enough, but again, my point wasn' that Ken was necessarily right, but that people are entitled to report their experience and (to some extent) to generalize from it -- provided they do so with some appropriate degree of humility, in the sense of recognizing that their experience is only their experience, and not necessarily God's Revealed Truth.
Fair enough back at ya.