NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/soc/bi/17997

Text File | 1993-01-12 | 13.0 KB | 264 lines

Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!uknet!newcastle.ac.uk!ordley!njwh
From: [e-mail] (Jon Harley)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Bisexual idenity and community (was Re: A hug request and ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 13 Jan 93 01:06:47 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU
Lines: 252
Nntp-Posting-Host: ordley

[This is a reply to (ahem) all the posts on this thread *blush*....
which is why it's so long, sorry.]

[e-mail] (James G Dilmore) writes:
>I have been challenging the idea of a label and a bisexual identity
>because I want to figure out how the bisexual identity is formed, if there is
>one, and what effect it has on a bi community.

>It has been stated on a variety of current threads that everyone has
>a different definition of bisexuality.  With such a multiplicity of
>personal idenities can a general "bisexual idenity" be constructed.
>Why should it be constructed, one may ask.  I think that it has a lot
>to do with community building.

I think there are several aspects to the problem you are presenting here,
so I think it's worth examining exactly what we mean by "identity";
after all, if we don't all mean the same thing by it we're going to get
confused (ok, even more confused:-). So bear with me if the following bit
seems terribly obvious.

To me, there are two levels of identity - personal and collective [yeah,
I like that word, you may have noticed]. My personal bisexual identity
is about what it means to me to be bisexual. Yes, there is great diversity
in the personal identities of the members of this community. The "general"
identity of which you speak is our collective identity as a group of
people - those features of the group which we have in common and "identify
with". I think *because* we are such a diverse group, that is why there
is bound to be very little we all have in common and can identify with.

Incidentally, I don't think we can "construct" something which pertains
to the whole group, only seek to shed some light on it. Which is bound to
help us come together as a community.

I also think definitions of bisexuality are a different thing from
personal identity. Are there really so many definitions of bisexuality?
If so it must be because of unneccessary qualifications and additions;
surely we can all agree on something simple like "physical attraction to
both sexes".

>At one level a bisexual community and personal idenity is created
>as soon as one differentiates oneself from the het label and the
>gay/lesbian label.  I believe that this distinction is not enough to
>actually form a community(such as soc.bi) on.  (or is it? comments?)

A personal bisexual identity, certainly; a community, with its own
group identity, no I'd agree.

>I think that there must be some more commonality among the group for it
>to actually coagulate.  Perhaps this has come from external forces such as
>the stereotype of bis as hypersexual and/or confused which has been imposed
>from both the het and the lesgay communities.  This could be a crystallization
>agent for a community.  This is then transformed into a more positive image.
>(I.E. goddamit I am bi and I am proud to be.  My attractions are real and
>I am proud of my ability to deal with them.)

Why can't the latter, a positive thing within itself, be a coagulting thing
in itself?

I think the answer is probably both [jeers of "fence-sitter!"]. There are
outside forces pushing in, forcing us closer together, and inside forces
pulling us closer together too; shared pride for one, and for another the
simple attraction of people who think/feel the same way; I know a number
of bis who find themselves mostly emotionally attracted to other bis, for
(probably) obvious reasons.

I'm sure there must be a good metaphor for these concurrent pushing and
pulling forces in atomic physics, or chemistry, but I'm only an ignorant
software engineer, so what do I know.

>I think that a community is formed by several individuals who congeal
>together based on some common interests or afflictions, be it either
>rites based, experienced based, or world view based.  My real question is
>with such a multiplicity of ideas and attitudes in the bisexual community
>(even on the fundamental idea of what bisexuality is) then what is there to
>congeal around?  Is it a general feeling of rejection from both the het and
>lesgay communities or a feeling of "just not fitting in"?

Again, while there is a multiplicity of ideas and attitudes towards our
identities, surely there's broad agreement on what bisexuality *is*. As
for the open question, I believe (as you evidently want to) that it's not
all so negative as that.

>>|[e-mail] (david parsons) writes:
>>someone of the wrong sex.>  This is moderately nice about the
>>bisexual community, such as it is; despite the different
>>definitions of bisexuality, and dispite the widely varying
>>interests of the people involved (*), you generally won't get flack
>>about the genitalia of the people you're attracted to.
>Is it that too?  A general acceptance of varying viewpoints.
>trad, hippie, retro, fencesitters and *even* trainspotters (ick:)
>I have found this acceptance in most bisexuals.  Or do I just know
>the right ones?

I have too, and I think it *is* an important part of the group identity;
and hence, a positive factor in forming our community.

>>|At one level a bisexual community and personal idenity is created
>>|as soon as one differentiates oneself from the het label and the
>>|gay/lesbian label.  I believe that this distinction is not enough to
>>|actually form a community(such as soc.bi) on.
>>   Why shouldn't it be?  It's one thing the lot of us have in
>>common; some sort of attraction to both males and females <of all
>>of the descriptions posted, this does seem to be some sort of
>>common thread ;-)>
>OK let me rephrase.  I don't see it as the only factor in the formation
>of this community.  I see more commradery to attribute it to just that.
>Maybe I am making things up inside my head (never again - Anyone know the
>group?).

[Don't think so - stop distracting me!] I agree with the Orc, it is the
single most important thing we have in common. But for most of us it's
not the only thing. (Of which, more in the next bit.) Even so, I find it
entirely credible that this sort of thing could be at the centre of a
community. [Puts on amateur psychologist's hat] Humans are social
creatures, and we have an urge to belong to communities, forming them
if and when neccessary. People always band together in sub-groups, even
when not rejected by the main group, which is why people form societies,
clubs, gangs, and all sorts of other communities - witness what Orc
said about the "trainspotting community" (which you so ruthlessly
deleted:-) It doesn't take much of a reason for people to get the urge
to form a community.

>>   That's a large part of it.  Bisexuality just happens, and the
>>immediate social reaction to it seems to be a large "eeeeek!"  When
>>you're backup against a cliff, it's nice to know you aren't
>>fighting alone.
>>   If a miracle happened and homophobia vanished from the world
>>overnight, there wouldn't be quite so much reason for the
>>community, except it would be nice to have places where one could
>>go and have some chance (aside from drooling over the straight or
>>queer Usual Suspects of bifriends :-) of not committing the social
>>misstep of becoming interested in someone who isn't appropriately
>>oriented.
>I think that if all the ignorance passed a second ago(another group)
>(anyone anyone?)  I would still want and participate in this forum and
>other bisexual groups.

Me too, and I do believe there is more to the bi community in general
than the need for some social homogeneity(?). I would still want bisexual
forums because I am still discovering my own bisexual identity, and I
think this is true of many, if not most of us - in other words, this is
another thing which we have in common, and a positive reason for grouping
together to share our experiences.

[e-mail] (Albert Lunde) writes:

[I *know* I'm not going to do this justice, it's past my bedtime and I
spent 14 hours today debugging (without any success), but I have a few
points to raise...]

>>I really think that this is a community but I just can't figure it out
>>when I try and get back to its basics. [...]
>
>I've been asked via e-mail to offer my views on this thread, so I may
>pontificate at some length. But first let me say: IMHO IMHO YMMV YMMV
>BYOB RSVP SMTP etc... ;)

Gosh, so was I, I didn't realise this was all Jim's plot to get the
soc.bi intellectual heavyweights (plus me) to contribute to his thread...
so with further IMHOs and the wonder of NNTP:

>I think bisexual identity is important to community building. At the same
>time, I see the long term goal of a sexual liberation movement as trying
>to make sexual identities built around sexual orientation obsolete except
>as purely discriptive terms. Bisexuals need to organize as a group,
>but ultimately the most revolutionary act will be to change the idea
>of "normal" to encompass us all; not to build higher walls around a
>queer or bi ghetto.

Yes, but though I broadly agree, "normal" becoming all-encompassing will
not obsolete the urge to form sub-groups, and because of this I doubt
sexual orientation will be no more than a matter of clinical description.
And while I agree that we should not seek to make a ghetto of the bi
*community*, indeed the opposite, that does not negate the value of the
*personal* bisexual identity.

>I've spoken before of the one box, two box, three box and no boxes models
>of sexuality. ("One box" being "everybody" is/should be heterosexual, etc.)
>
>I'm saying we are aiming for a world without boxes, not trying to set
>in stone the label or category "bisexual".

This does indeed call for a pretty revolutionary change in world-view;
it seems to be almost universally inherent in current ways of thinking
that everyone tries their hardest to "box" everything.

>*However*, our immediate tactical goals may well seem to differ from
>this long term goal, especially when we are trying to move people
>beyond the "two box" model ("everybody is either heterosexual or
>homosexual, and these are very different"). We will often need to
>establish the existence and legitimacy of bisexuality and bisexual
>identity.

Agreed. [In case I forget to mention it later I think this is a great
article by Albert, BTW.]

>Because there is no sharp dividing line in behavor between bisexuals
>and other groups, I focus on feeling and self-identification more
>than some "objective" measure for sorting people into boxes.  I want
>to generally respect people's self-understandings.  This is why my
>definitions may seem flexible or subjective.

Certainly, as far as *personal* identity goes; perhaps one can try and
be more objective when trying to look at the collective identity. As an
aside, I think the fact that there are no sharp dividing lines around us
is one of the things that often makes it particularly difficult for bis
to reach an understanding of their own sexual identity.

[Lots of interesting stuff cut - read the original article]

>One of our jobs as activists and educators is to replace simple minded
>ignorance or myths with diverse reality-based examples and a complex,
>multi-dimensional view of human sexuality.

Is complexity neccessarily a good thing... what's wrong with a simple
message of acceptance of all consensual behaviour within the wider
community?

>In building Bi community we are immediately addressing the needs for
>support, social connections and a meeting place where bisexuality
>accepted.

I agree that those needs exist; but I think Jim's original question was
more along the lines of, *why* do they exist - beyond immediate need for
support in a currently pretty hostile world?

>In doing Bi politics we are calling the larger society to accountability:
>the church, state, and other institutions of the het "mainstream" and the
>gay, lesbian and feminist "counterculturual" communities. We are both
>identifying a bisexual politics and making explicit the idea of a larger,
>inclusive "queer" movement.

Yeah! (But careful with the jargon.) Personally, I'm some way from really
understanding this bisexual politics. But I'm working on it.

>We are making a positive affirmation of the bisexual experience.

Yeah! Right on.

>Anyone who has read this far is offered a hug...

Woo, I'll have one of those! :-) Especially as I deleted a load of "fluff".
And *hugs* back to anyone who has read this article as well. I don't feel
we've got a whole answer yet, but we seem to be groping in more or less
the same direction.


/jon (I want to be a sexual revolutionary like Albert Lunde)
   ___________________ ____ ________________________________________
  / -- Jonathan Harley \  /_    And they covered up the sun        //    //  //
 / [e-mail] \/ /   until the birds had flown away...  // // //////
/_Phone:UK 091 222 8504__\/___________________________________///////////  //