G'day Bev and the Group
At 09:33 AM 26/08/03 +0800, Bev Fabb wrote:
Bisexual means attracted to people of both genders.
Hmmm. Yes, OK.
My only problem with it is a side issue I think. I don't think that someone who feels themselves to be strongly heterosexual, but feels some attraction to the same sex too, is necessarily bisexual. I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Otherwise there's a risk that we'll end up calling everyone bisexual, and the word will lose its meaning. But other than that, which I'm still working out, agreed.
You do not have to have active sexual relationships with more than one person to be bisexual.
Agreed.
But, I wouldn't have put it in quite those terms. There is a danger there of confusing practice with inclination, which is where this string started.
You do not have to have active sexual relationships with *anybody* to be bisexual is how I'd put it. That's a much stronger statement.
A bisexual person can have an exclusive relationship with one person, of either gender.
Agreed. No problems at all with that.
I know many of them who do.
Accepted.
I think it is denegrating of bisexual people to say that by nature they must have sexual relationships with more than one person to be bisexual.
I agree completely. I would consider it equally offensive to be told that I am not heterosexual because of my current celibacy.
But it's *not* what I said.
For anyone to suggest that I am a *practising* heterosexual while celibate would be just plain ridiculous.
So if a bisexual person is celibate like me, they remain bisexual, just as I remain heterosexual. But I don't think we'd call them *practising* bisexual if they were celibate, any more than we'd call me *practising* heterosexual.
The difference is, if I were to have *any* (presumably heterosexual) partners, then that would make me practising heterosexual. With bisexuality it's a bit more complicated. Let's explore why.
If I were to have homosexual partners and only homosexual partners (one or many) despite my inclination, that wouldn't make me practising homosexual. That is a bizarre scenario, so let's consider a more realistic one. Some homosexual people have been bullied into heterosexual marriages, and have even had families, which is evidence of some sort of sex life. This doesn't make them practising homosexual, or practising heterosexual. They are people of homosexual inclination who are (generally unhappily) practising heterosexuality. Their practice and inclination are mismatched. To be practising homosexual, you need to have *both* inclination and practice.
Similarly, to be practising heterosexual, or to be practising bisexual, requires *both* inclination and practice. If they don't match, that's more complicated.
So a person who is bisexual but has only heterosexual partners (one or many) doesn't become heterosexual by this, but nor do they become practising bisexual. What they are practising is heterosexuality, not bisexuality. And similarly, they would not become homosexual if, for reasons other than inclination, they had only homosexual partners.
To *practise* bisexuality requires more than one partner. That's all I said. I certainly didn't mean to say or imply that a person who is monogamous can't be bisexual, or that a person who is bisexual isn't capable of monogamy. They can be and they are.
Is that any clearer? If not, some of this has also been explored in the messages that Clare and I have exchanged, which have crossed this one.
Yours in Christ
andrew a
email: andrewa @ alder . ws
http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa
Phone 9441 4476
Mobile 04 2525 4476
****
