A bilemma

I’m so happy to be back “home” right now. Quotations necessary because I don’t have a home right now.

I’ve expanded my tindering to men and women, if only to explore all sides of me and maybe see what others see in me. Hence why I’m back tonight after my first date with a cis straight guy from Tinder, and hence why I dragged myself to the nearest queer bar to nurse a beer, hug myself to myself, reassure myself that I’m safe, and talk with an incredibly charming, much older butch.

The guy I met up with was easy going. I wasn’t not attracted to him. But by the end of the evening, when we were at a punk show and he was standing behind me rubbing my shoulders, I felt suddenly claustrophobic. I gave him a hug and told him to enjoy the rest of the show just before I bolted. On the train, I wanted to cry. I was shaking. I made it all the way to the queer bar and sat down with relief, nursing my $3 beer and letting the evening sink in. He hadn’t even kissed me; all he did was barely more than friends would do to one another.

I texted two friends about it, one of whom is monosexual and didn’t understand at all the need to explore other genders; and the other who tends toward the monosexual but gets it. I think a big part of biphobia in the queer world is just not understanding the ways in which experiencing different genders are inherently different experiences.

I don’t get it. Alright, some more context: I have been (very explicitly) texting another cis straight guy from Tinder. It gets me so hot and bothered that I sometimes have trouble concentrating on work. He asks me about my preferences, turns my individuality into something fun/cute/sexy, and makes me feel really validated. I, on the other hand, imagine myself relinquishing control, giving it up to someone else bigger and more masculine, and playing to my own strengths in a cishet context for the first time in my life (rather than trying to be someone else within that context). I wish I weren’t into it, but I am. I wish it were about dating someone, but it’s not: he’s got no redeeming qualities. We’re supposed to meet up in a few days, quite honestly just to have sex. I’m not sure yet if I’ll go through with it. It makes me feel really dirty and guilty, especially as someone who identifies as a queer woman, to talk about hooking up with someone so overtly heteronormative; but at the same time undeniably excited. In immersing myself in queerness, cisheteronormativity has become taboo. In discovering sex that respects others’ bodies, being used on my terms feels like a way to reclaim my own body from other peoples’ terms.

Why is it that one guy rubbing my shoulders is more invasive than another guy sexting me? What will happen should guy number 2 and I actually meet? (I predict I will be into it, and then run outside to cry soon after.)

Where does that leave my sexuality, that I can date women but I can’t date men but that I want to sleep with men but also the thought of a man’s hands on me makes me want to curl up in a tight ball, retreat into a shell, and never emerge?

Do I really think that hooking up with, or even just getting a shoulder rub from, a man would be simpler than hooking up with other genders?

Another study about pesky female sexuality!

Drop everything! A discussion on a study done by researcher Elizabeth McCintock has raised some discussion. Discussion has been raised, y’all. It’s time to rant! Because we, bisexual female-person-people, have been studied yet again. We are a fascinating phenomenon and people just can’t get enough of our amazing soap-opera-ready sex life!

I heard about this study from Another Angry Woman, on whose blog there has been some back and forth in the comments (my b!) The study is covered in this article on the Independent, which took the study to ugly places.

As a bisexual (because of history, not current behavior), I feel like I take this stuff very personally. Maybe a bit too personally. These studies hit me exactly in the places I’m most insecure: that my androgyny/masculinity makes me ugly and therefore undesirable to men and that’s the only reason I date queer people and not men. But then again I am not dating women by choice, but rather because of a pattern of attraction that ran counter to my societally-programmed thinking about men. If a guy makes you nervous it must mean you like him, not that you aren’t attracted and are skeeved out by the attention; if you’re turned on sexually that means that you must really want to seek out relationships with men; etc.

Okay enough about me. What is wrong with this study? Here’s my series of reactions:

  • Initially I got mad because I thought that the study really was saying that more attractive/educated women are less likely to identify as bi.
  • Then I realized all it said was that early dating success made women more likely to identify as heterosexual, so I was a little less mad.
  • Then I realized the coverage was skewing things, and that the author really was trying to say that women’s sexuality was fluid relative to men’s sexuality, affected by external/social circumstances, and I wasn’t mad but something skeeved me out about this. Not mad, but skeeved.
  • Then I realized exactly what skeeved me out about the study, and here I am, mad again.

There are several things wrong with this study, even though it’s trying to break down stereotypes and claim that women’s sexuality is fluid. Here are the things that do annoy me:

  1. There is nothing new or revolutionary about claiming that women’s sexuality is fluid. Lisa Diamond’s book “Sexual fluidity: understanding women’s love and desire” (which happens to be online as a publicly available PDF here), is quite extensive in tackling the complexity of female sexuality, as well as to quantify exactly how female sexuality does or does not change over time. Her study was done over 10 years, and did not jump to any inapprope’ conclusions. The book made me feel more comfortable with my own quarter-life sexuality switch, and helped me on my self-discovery journey. 
  2. There is nothing new or revolutionary in talking about how beautiful women have different experiences than… well, the rest of us are not given a name, but “plain” or “ugly” or “normal” or… you know? it doesn’t matter, but people seem to be very uncomfortable talking about non-beautiful women. Conventional? Average? Typical? Those are not gross words. But people only seem to talk about the “more attractive” end of the spectrum, while avoiding explicitly naming the other end of the spectrum. BUT I DIGRESS. Yes, of course women who conform to patriarchal standards of attractiveness tend to attract more male attention than women who don’t. Beauty privilege exists, even within queer identities. This. Is. Not. Revolutionary. 
  3. In addition to it being nothing revolutionary, studying beauty and sexuality can be harmful. There’s so much research out there about all the benefits that women of a certain type have, and the discussion never moves beyond that. We get it. Beautiful women can get some things. Remember Jon Hamm’s character on 30 Rock, as Liz Lemon’s ex who was so handsome everyone overlooked how stupid he was? Handsome enough to become a doctor, but stupid enough to lose his arm waving out of a helicopter? It was pretty funny in comedy, but in social science: there’s nothing new to add to this discussion. I may be naive, but I believe humanity to be far more complex. Let’s as a society just move on. P.S. A better discussion of women and beauty that isn’t pseudoscience but is nevertheless written by two PhDs: Beauty Redefined.
  4. The study oversimplifies, which is my biggest gripe with quite a lot of social science research, or at least, the stuff that gets popular coverage. Not all bisexuality is the same. Not all heterosexuality is the same. Not all fluidity is the same. Not all narratives are the same. What about women who marry men and then divorce and seek out women? What about social pressure to marry men? What about the fact that if you’re a patriarchally-conforming woman you have way more male options than female options, statistically speaking, and so you might never even get the opportunity to discover other desires? There is such a spectrum of human experience, that to say that bisexuals tend to be those who never dated men they liked is an enormous oversimplification.
  5. And finally, why do we need to study bisexuality like it’s this fascinating phenomenon? Why must we continually prove it exists? Oh right, because women can’t be trusted to know what they want. So many articles it seems are tackling the whole bisexual phenomenon, bisexuality is misrepresented and misquoted, and women finally post their real frustrations about being bi on Whisper, and then those same news sources report on what women write on Whisper. Because it takes a lot to be heard in this world, especially if you’re a female person claiming that you’re not just attracted to male people and are thus bucking the whole patriarchy. And then of course Cara DeLevigne is told she’s going through a phase and the whole internet breaks again. We’re going in circles, guys, so why can’t we just accept this stuff, stop proving and re-proving that bisexuals exist, and move on?

Overall, I’m sure this researcher is well-intentioned and stuff, but I found this article neither enlightening nor revolutionary nor trope-defying; it simply opens the population of bisexual women to more scrutiny. Then again, this is just my opinion; maybe with better media coverage she could show something exciting that I fail to see from the few articles i’ve found that have covered it.

So like yeah I take this shit too personally. You bet I do; it’s personal. If you tell a female-of-center person that she’s bi because she couldn’t get a desirable man, she will roll her eyes obviously because guess what… you don’t know her life. But some part of her might believe it. Some part of her might hear all the bisexual tropes come out, wonder if there is truth to them, wonder why she didn’t just date that guy while her hair was long and she would get all pretty to go to lab, maybe she wasn’t attractive, maybe she was foolish and society would never take her seriously. You know, hypothetically, she might feel hurt by repeated studies trying to understand her, rather than just taking her at her word. 

Wow, that just got really real, didn’t it…

But yeah. You bet I take it personally.

FDA lifts ban on gay male blood donors

You probably heard the news, but the FDA is lifting its ban on gay/bisexual male blood donors! They finally admit that men who sleep with men are not inherently disgusting! This is wonderful news… kindof: They still will not accept blood from men who have been sexually active in the last year.

I don’t know about you, but to me a year sounds like a long time to be celibate. And what about men in monogamous relationships who have absolutely zero chance of contracting HIV? And what about men who are promiscuous but incredibly careful about being safe? And what about men who only have oral sex? And what about straight couples who have anal sex? And what about the fact that most tests can detect HIV 3 months after exposure? (A year seems like an arbitrary amount of time.) And… well. You get the point. This still seems like a somewhat arbitrary measure.

If instead of banning gay men who have had sex within a year, they asked something like “have you had unprotected anal sex with someone who carries HIV or is at risk of carrying HIV in the last 3 months?” and if they answer “yes” they can be recommended a testing clinic… wouldn’t that remove some of the arbitrariness of asking if you’ve had gay sex within the last year? And wouldn’t that solve the gender-specific nature of the question?

I don’t know; I don’t work in public health.

In any case I think this is a step in the right direction. And it will increase the nation’s blood supply by about 317,000 pints of blood. Vampires rejoice. Think about how much blood that is!

  • It’s about 1,260 barrels.
  • It’s about enough blood to completely fill the oval office.
  • It’s only about 6% of an olympic sized swimming pool. But to be fair, an olympic sized swimming pool full of blood would save a lot of lives.

Yay for blood!