Controversial title? Oh yes. Controversial post? Not really, but I'll let you decide that.
I was walking out of a building today and held the door open for the man who was exiting behind me. I turned slightly to look at him as he said "thank you." He was, quite possibly, one of the most beautiful humans I've ever seen. As my darling husband knows, I am quick to point out to him beautiful people, be they male or female. As I see it, admiring people is like admiring a piece of art, and admiring the beauty of people strikes me as one of greatest compliment to the divine artist who created them. Yes, perhaps it's a bit odd that I (a straight female) point out hot women to my husband (a straight male), but it is precisely the fact that this strikes me (and possibly you) as odd that makes me think that bisexual people are really more mature than the rest of us.
The second we begin to say "I like men because..." or "I like women because..." we find that we are committing the error of gender essentialism. In laymen's terms, gender essentialism is what we do when we say that men or women "are" a certain thing or are predisposed to act in certain ways. (i.e. "Women are caring and sensitive." "Men are powerful and do not cry easily.") Basically, making blanket statements about either gender and (often) then inferring certain activities that are "appropriate" for each gender. (i.e. "Women should be mothers." "Men should be leaders.") In a very, very simplistic comparison, gender essentialism does on a gender level what racism does on a racial level.
So how does all of this relate to the beautiful person I saw today or to why bisexuality is the most mature orientation? To put it as controversially as possible, the rest of us only care about what is or is not hanging between your legs.
What you have going on down there ultimately determines how we interact with you, whether we are conscious of that or not. From the bisexual view, you are a person. You are beautiful or you are ugly. You are mean or you are nice. In other words, you are evaluated first as a person, not as the possessor of a penis or a pudendum, and really, can't we all agree that it's just a bit more mature to look at a person and not what's in their pants?
This is not, of course, to say that what's in the pants doesn't matter at some point. It does. In a covenanted, monogamous relationship, that does (and really should) come up (heh...I just realized that could be a pun). I don't want to come off as a prude who ignores the issue of sex. This may come as a shocker, but believe it or not, my husband and I have sex. We make whoopie. We do the horizontal tango. We get busy. We do it. We bump uglies. And you better believe we enjoy it. In the context of this relationship that I share with this person with whom I've made a covenant of monogamy, I certainly do care about what's in my partner's pants. I care about it, and I like it. But when it comes down to it, of all the many many relationships that I've had (romantic, platonic and everything in between), it's only in this one single relationship that what's in my partner's pants has really had to matter.
So, if in the majority of our relationships the issue of genitalia isn't an issue, why are we not all bisexual? Why do we not just love people? In fact, while this is a theological issue beyond the scope of this post, I think I could make a good case for the fact that Jesus was bisexual in the sense that he was a lover of people as they were, not as people qua penis-possessor or pudendum-possessor. The moral of that post might be that if we are striving to be Christlike, we should strive to be bisexual.
Before I conclude, I want to anticipate what I'm sure will be comments to this post from people who have misunderstood what I am trying to say. While I don't even want to try to define what a "sexual orientation" is, I am NOT trying to suggest that we should be of a certain one. I am NOT trying to say that people who do identify as having a bisexual orientation are inherently more mature than the rest of us or that they have thought in these terms. I AM trying to say that the concept of loving people as they are (which I am, perhaps incorrectly, identifying with a broad category I am calling "bisexuality") is a good thing to do. I AM saying that making assumptions about who people are, what they should, what they should or should not look like is a pretty stupid thing to do.
So, with all that said, my friends, go and be bisexual!
So what do you think? Is the bisexual viewpoint the most mature when it comes to dating?
Comments (161)
Very Interesting.
Thought Provoking.
Just answering the last question straight out:
No.
If a guy is bisexual he disqualifies himself from blood donation unless has no problem lying on the form.
When evaluated in the way you wrote this, no, bisexuality is not any more or less mature. Evaluating people as people before evaluating them as male or female is, but one's orientation doesn't make them more or less mature. Their choices are what decide that.
No
Interesting..
I think not.
"In fact, while this is a theological issue beyond the scope of this
post, I think I could make a good case for the fact that Jesus was
bisexual in the sense that he was a lover of people as they were, not
as people qua penis-possessor or pudendum-possessor. The moral of that
post might be that if we are striving to be Christlike, we should
strive to be bisexual."
Wanting to have sex with someone does not mean you love them more, unless we think pedophiles love children more than the rest of us.
I think you've also made some major mistakes in understanding Jesus. Loving people and wanting to have sex with them are very different issues.
No, there is a difference between bisexuality and pansexuality. We (bisexuals) accept both genders; pansexuals accept all genders. This would include transvestites, such as males born in female bodies, or females born in male bodies. masculine female, masculine male, feminine male, feminine female. Though I should admit that bisexuality's definition is very flexible and differs from person to person.
Also, Jesus of Nazareth was one who loved -- not in a romantic sense -- he had compassion and empathy for all peoples. He was celibate as well. He was a godlike figure, therefore he could not have submitted to 'sins of the flesh.' He was never married.
Lastly, I believe all people have the ability to be a pansexual, but due to our environmental upbringing, we are usually encourage to have heterosexual relationships. Thus, the ability to 'turn' gay or whatnot is not accurate. It's more, "I realised that I liked ____ gender."
Fantastic post! And YES ABSOLUTELY since I am bisexual. lol :)
But seriously, I consider myself being more in touch with my sexuality (yin and yang) since I didn't really start out bisexual, or it may have been suppressed by my extremely obnoxious fundamental upbringing.
Side note: The Christians are going to stone you over this post. Haha!
I honestly believe all women are bisexual whether they know it or not. And if that is true, vise versa would be true as well. Although men are too wimpy and afraid of opinion to admit it. I don't give a fuck! Anyhow, the reason I believe this is because I have seen countless so called "straight" women go to lesbian/gay bars and by the end of the night some woman has them TOTALLY turned on ready, willing and able to easily have sex with another woman and seduced. It is SO HOT to see and experienced lesbian in action seducing a straight woman. :)
Anyhow, AWESOME post! Who are you woman? You are pretty SMART!!!
First of all, I don't really believe there is something called bisexual. You can be attracted to all kinds of people, just like you said. I can point out a hot woman, as well as a hot man. That doesn't make me bi. If you can find me some kind of scientific psychological proof that there is such a thing as 'bisexual' I might consider believing it, but for now I believe you are either straight, or gay/les. For some reason, I just do not buy this epic trend of becoming 'bi'. You are either attracted to one gender, or the other, that's how God meant it to be.
The bits about Jesus are just stupid and show your lack of understanding about Jesus' love.
And just cos I might find a woman attractive, doesn't make it sexual. Meaning I'm not bisexual purely because I can appreciate a woman's beauty.
I do believe that we are on a spectrum from 100% heterosexuality to 100% homosexuality, but it doesn't make bisexuality more mature. Though I think we are all bisexual to a degree, chemistry often attracts males more to females than to males (and vice versa). Chemistry isn't shallowness; it's that extra spark between compatible partners and partners who spend the rest of their lives together.
I totally agree with you that Jesus was definitely a bisexual!
@jupiter312@xanga - Exactly.
The title is greatly misleading, as is almost every reference to it's main theme in the post. Respecting and admiring an individual regardless of gender doesn't change one's sexual preferences. The term "bisexual" implies that sexual preference holds meaning on a non-intimate level, which negates the whole point of your post. Respect and admiration are feelings that go beyond sexual orientation, as you mentioned.
The last paragraph of your post is everything that's wrong. By incorrectly using a term, you have misled people in to reading an article that really doesn't need to have anything to do with sexual preference.
@Theophilus166@xanga - pretty much the next point I wanted to make.
This article, to me, can be summed up with this paragraph:
To put it as controversially as possible, the rest of us only care about what is or is not hanging between your legs.
What you have going on down there ultimately determines how we interact
with you, whether we are conscious of that or not. From the bisexual
view, you are a person. You are beautiful or you are ugly. You are mean
or you are nice. In other words, you are evaluated first as a person,
not as the possessor of a penis or a pudendum, and really, can't we all
agree that it's just a bit more mature to look at a person and not
what's in their pants?
The point in bold is what this article, to me, is based on, and, with slight editing to remove lines like the one bolded, would make a great "intro to advertising" paper. The wording of this whole post is designed to strike controversy and if that's what it takes to make a point, so be it. The same concept, had it been presented without the title or the word "bisexual" would not have even come close to making it on to Datingish.
Bisexual is perhaps the wrong term for what you describe since it doesn't include anything sexual at all.
While I tend to love and accept everyone I also see the inherent beauty in the fact that males and females are different. Sometimes people strive for so much equality that we forget that we are all different from each other.
I think bisexuality is a bit more natural than limiting oneself to one gender or the other, but I don't think it's more mature or immature than any other orientation.
Hmmm.. Bisexual probably isn't the word I'd use to describe your topic.. but this was an interesting read.
I think that if what's in the pants doesn't matter for a relationship, there is thus nothing SEXUAL about it, and so it's not so much biSEXUALITY as it is romantic relations with both sexes- if that makes sense?
Romance and sex don't necessarily have to go together. Romance could just mean there's love, and sex requires lust. Having both is ideal but still.
So if you make the case that Jesus was bisexual (which I disagree with, btw), do you just mean that he loved all people equally as people, and not based on gender? Because I don't think he had any sexual relations with anyone, nor even romantic ones probably.
best writing i've seen on xanga in months! and a very good post.
i find myself checking out both genders. like you said, it's just appreciation of the human form. if they are beautiful, they are beautiful, regardless of gender.i don't believe just everyone can do it though. if you are truly bisexual then you are lucky to be able to see the person as who they are first, since what's down there, this or that, are both good iyo. rambleramble.
@ChevalierSeingal - About all women being bisexual- It's not the case that all women are bisexual in the fact that we have romantic feelings towards men and women. However, it is completely the case that many (if not all) women are capable of sexual attraction to both men and women. Women are programmed to appreciate the human form, whether it be male or female. Just as a man can look at a female's body and realize the beauty of it, so can a woman. It is on a person level whether a woman has romantic feelings for other women, but we are all capable of appreciating women's bodies in a fairly sexual way.
No, I wouldn't say that at all.
@Sugar_Sassy@xanga - That's true. The reason we recognize beauty is because of symmetry, after all... the more symmetrical a person is, generally, the more attractive he or she is considered. Regardless of preference.
We were having a gender discussion like this in my feminist theory class today!!
I think in a Utopian society, everyone would be bisexual.
It would take away all labels and there wouldn't be any boundaries about who you could and couldn't fall in love with.
It couldn't ever happen though because some people just aren't sexually attracted to both genders. I speak personally...I identify as a straight female. Good post.