#and i get that there's a misconception of bisexuality (the idea that attraction is limited to men and women)

[a-faggot-with-opinions]

AroAce guy here. Reading the "Aromantic Manifesto" reminds me of the "Asexual Manifesto" and not in a good way. Specifically the crux of the Manifesto:

"We see asexuality as an efficient "alternative life-style" for revolutionary women but we do not claim that “asexuality is revolution.”  We call ourselves “self-identified women” but we do not demand that all feminists adopt this title.  Our statement is simply this: as a result of examining the nature of our sexuality and reclaiming it from the sexist misconceptions surrounding it, we are able to form and maintain relationships in a way which both reflects our values and is effective in our liberation struggle.  For us, asexuality is a commitment to defy and ultimately to destroy the baseless concepts, surrounding both sex and relationships, which support and perpetuate the patriarchy."

( For people who wonder why certain things are phrased like this, it was written by Lisa Orlando, who was a Radical Feminist "disillusioned with political lesbianism" and basically wanted an alternative. She said in correspondence about the Manifesto that, to her, Asexuality is “a choice, and an experience, not an identity.” She currently still labels herself as an Asexual as well as Bisexual but still holds that view which.... is strange to me but reminds me of the "Aromanticism as counterculture" in the "Aromantic Manifesto"

I'd recommend looking up "The Asexual Agenda"'s Wordpress article on the Manifesto for more complete historical context and a screenreader friendly transcript if anyone is interested in reading through it for themselves)

People need to stop trying to marry Political Lesbianism and Radical Feminism with Aspectrum advocacy and identity, it's not salvageable and my identity as an Aromantic man is not "counterculture". It was a hard fought realization and I STILL have no idea if I'm Greyaro or if that's just the pressure society puts on me to Not be a "loveless evil male". The "Aromantic Manifesto" doesn't speak for me just like how the "Asexual Manifesto" doesn't either. The RadFem and PolitiLes communities have already caused Aspecs so, so much damage and I think it's in our genuine interest to make sure we don't whitewash that or forget it.

I think Aromantics who feel little, limited, or circumstantial attraction or are romance-positive/neutral/ambivalent are awesome and just as radical to society as those that don't and are negative/adverse/apothi. I also think Aros who are cool with Partnering or getting married are incredible. Romo Aros, Gay Aros, Alloaros, all of us are so important!

I also think Allo love can be healthy and I don't think we should be telling queer Allos that it's inherently negative (especially since that was literally an Aphobic stereotype? that "the Aces and Aros think gay people love and sex are disgusting, we should bully them for being homophobic!". Saying that I actually think the Manifesto reads like an infighting sockpuppet wth) Gay romance is revolutionary. Aromanticism is revolutionary. Neither is widely accepted so why fight?

Yeah. Aromanticism and asexuality aren't a choice and it promotes harmful misconceptions to say that they are. That manifesto was shit.

[blue-sketches]

reading the responses to the post about biphobia is exactly the thing i was talking about in my tags. i didn't want to derail the post, but the fact that some bisexuals think that bi and pan ppl can't coexist is crazy omg.

like it's not biphobic to prefer one label over the other.

it's not biphobic to define the labels differently and recongize that difference as the resoning for your decision of label.

it is NOT biphobic to validate and coexist with pan people.

and all of these are true, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE BI YOURSELF/THE PERSON YOU'RE CALLING BIPHOBIC IS BI.

anyway, the existence and support of pan people is not biphobic.

bi pan solidarity and all that <3

[hellomynameisbisexual]

Bi people have a lot of jokes about being unicorns - "rare" creatures that some people, gay and straight, swear don't actually exist. We don't have the hottest-button issues in the LGBTQ+ community...but there are still a lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings when it comes to what it means to be bisexual.

So what's the best thing to do when you don't know or understand something? Ask someone who does!

To wrap up Pride Month 2022, we asked bisexual people on Reddit what they wished more people knew about the B in LGBTQ+ - Here are the eight responses that appeared over and over.

First of all: Yes, we do exist.

"We exist. Even when you tell someone you're bi, they tend to just see you as gay or straight (depending on their preconceived notions, the gender of your partner, etc.)

"Bisexuals exist and we are actually bisexual. Really."

(u/FITM_K)

From the drop, bisexual people have a difficult time even making people remember that the B is in LGBT for a reason - bi erasure, which is what happens when people look at who a person is dating or attracted to in one instance and assumes their sexuality to be either gay or straight.

"I feel people still need to know bisexuality exists and it's not a choice. Yes from the outside bisexuals appear to be "choosing " between being gay or straight. But that's not how it works.

"Sometimes I wish it did work like that."

(u/jake_k20)

And it's not a phase. We're not "confused."

"My (45f) pet peeve is hearing "Bi for now, gay for later". Just NO. Bisexuals are always Bi. I understand some homosexuals say they're Bi on their journey to being gay, but I wish it would stop. Because now I have to constantly "prove" I'm bi, and not gay or straight, to people who just "know" I'm in the discovery phase of my sexuality.

"Hell no I'm not - I've known I'm bi for 30 years, I'm not changing."

(u/aritchie1977)

That narrative - that there are no bisexuals, just confused people who don't yet know whether they're gay or straight, also gets tossed around a lot, and it's frustrating how people will willfully misinterpret an experience that so many people have in common, simply because they don't understand it.

"Bisexual people are not less allowed than straight and gays to make mistakes or change their mind. Leaving you for a man (if you're a f) or the opposite does NOT mean your ex was "gay/straight all along". (There's exceptions, but that's not the rule.)"

(u/Foloreille)

"I'm sure it's been said here multiple times but I'll say it again anyway: Bisexuality is not a phase. We aren't "really closeted." We aren't experimenting. We are human and we are valid just like every other person in the world."

(u/MisterDaddySir6785)

"We're all looking for the right someone, we're just lucky that we get to look past gender. People don't understand...they think I'm one or the other and will eventually "figure it out." Well I eventually will figure it out but it's not that I'm gay or straight, it's that I've found the right person."

(u/torcher20)

Bisexuality is a spectrum; it's not always 50/50.

"Bisexual doesn't mean only attracted to two genders - look up the Robyn Ochs definition for a better idea of how many of us define it."

(u/FITM-K)

We won't make you look it up - here it is:

"For me, the bi in bisexual refers to the potential for attraction to people with genders similar to and different from my own."

-Robin Ochs

That quotation is an excellent starting point - and it's also an important distinction to make, because there are many people who have the mistaken belief that people who are bi won't date trans or nonbinary people because of the whole "two genders" thing..

But notice, that definition doesn't say "male and female;" it doesn't even say "two genders;" it says "genders similar to and different from my own." That distinction in no way excludes trans or nonbinary people. It also doesn't limit how many genders you can be attracted to - and that's different for everyone.

These comments can offer even more clarification on what being bisexual can mean on an individual level:

"Bisexuality isn't "between" gay and straight. It's a whole orientation of its own."

(u/generation_quiet)

"Bisexuality is NOT 50/50 and is NOT necessarily constant."

(u/folorielle)

"It's an incredibly wide spectrum of attraction that can ebb and flow throughout your life, while for others the amount they are attracted to either sex stays the same. Even someone with an attraction split of 99/1 is still bisexual. "

(u/huevodeganzo)

If you'd like to learn more about this concept, there's something called the Kinsey Scale that many people learn about first as a jumping off point for their understanding. The community has since largely concluded that the Kinsey scale is an oversimplified concept, however, because it implies that your level of attraction to different genders stays constant - which is not true to the experience of most bisexual people.

Now people are more likely to reccommend a different one:

"The thing I would want people to understand is the Bi-cycle. It's the thing I wish I had known about when I was younger. Because I didn't know about it, I would dismiss a lot of my homoromantic emotions, attempting to explain them away or ignore them completely because "it's just a phase."

"An understanding of the Bi-cycle could be especially useful for someone who repeatedly finds themself questioning their sexuality. It would also be useful knowledge for those trying to provide support for someone who was either questioning their sexuality or who just came out as Bi."

(u/Accomplished_Fly_894)

To put it in simple terms, the "bi-cycle" referrs to the fluidity of sexual attraction when you're bisexual; many bi people report that they have different levels of attraction to males, females, and nonbinary people at different times, and not always in tandem with one another.

It's a concept that confuses many kids who are questioning, because it can mean that on some days, you feel solely attracted to the opposite sex, but then on others, you feel attracted to only the same sex but still a TINY bit attracted to the opposite (and on others, you experience attraction to almost all of them, even genders you had never considered before.)

If you would like to read a more in-depth article on what it's like to experience the bi-cycle, you can find one here.

No, we're NOT more likely to cheat on you.

"Attraction has nothing to do with commitment. A straight main is still sexually attracted to women even if he's in a committed relationship with a woman already. The fact that women still attract him does not equal a likelihood for infidelity.

"In the same way, being attracted to more than one gender doesn't equal a likelihood for infidelity.

"Cheating is an individual thing. Some people suck, and it has nothing to do with sexual attraction."

(u/Austin_Chaos)

Bisexuality does not equal promiscuity, and frankly, none of us are really sure where that stereotype came from. A bi person is no more likely to cheat than a straight or gay person.

"Something I've seen partners worry about with me is the insecurity that one gender will never satisfy me enough and that I'll end up cheating on my partner with whatever gender they aren't."

(u/michaelmurrayman)

I guess that's where the stereotype came from, but it's nonsense.

Also, similarly:

"A threesome isn't the first thing that comes to my mind."

(u/TheolympiansYT)

Look, some of bi people might be interested in a threesome, but it's very, very annoying when people make that assumption right out of the gate. Please don't bring it up on the first date. We're begging. It's so awkward.

Just because we CAN be attracted to anyone doesn't mean we're attracted to EVERYONE

"We're not all promiscuous and polyamorous.

but some of us are, and it's just not a "bi thing", it's another type of preference."

(u/freshlyintellectual)

Polyamory refers to the practice of having more than one partner at a time. It can take many forms, from an open relationship to "thruples" to groups of friends that are occasionally romantic and have occasional casual sex with one another. It's not considered cheating if everyone in the relationship consents, and there are many happy, healthy polyamorous relationships out there.

However, not all bisexual people want them - being polyamorous is still considered relatively less common than wanting to be monogamous, and unless a person indicates such, you shouldn't assume that a person is poly just because they're bi.

"Just because I told you I'm bi does not mean I want to bang you. Bi folk have self control.

"Also: Being bi does not mean twice as many dating partners. In fact, it often means less than straight or gay folks."

(u/MisterDaddySir6785)

Yeah, speaking of which...

We get hate from both sides of the aisle: Gay and straight.

"There's not twice the options, there's less than half coz of biphobia."

(u/TheolympiansYT)

Yeah, speaking of that, this is another big issue.

Bisexual people may have the "privelage" of occasionally experiencing less homophobia because they're often in heterosexual relationships, but they also have the disadvantage of experiencing biphobia from within the gay community - many gay people who don't swear that we're "just going through a phase" will swear that we're somehow "hurting the gay cause" by ever choosing to date someone of the opposite gender.

Others will refuse to date us because they think we'll cheat - or even just because they don't like the idea of being with someone who's been with a gender that isn't theirs.

"Put simply - I'm not a threat to you.

"I've had previously interested lesbians immediately act insecure and ask a battery of gatekeeping questions once they hear that I'm bi rather than another lesbian ('what if you lose interest and cheat with a guy?' 'have you ever dated a girl before??' 'Okay, but how recently?')

"I've also heard the 'oh haha cool but don't get a crush on me!' stuff from straight women I've never had an inkling of interest in.

We're normal people. I am the same person I was before you found out what my sexuality is."

(u/sacramentality)

Oh yeah, forgot to mention the other part, where straight people of our own gender will be uncomfortable being our friends because they assume we're attracted to them. That's also not fun.

"None acceptance!! Straight community thinks I'm too gay, gay community thinks I'm too straight. I'm a man with no country. It's very lonely and hurtful."

(u/polyguyt)

YES, bi guys exist too.

For some reason (probably sexism), when people DO assume that we're "going through a phase" bi girls usually hear something to the effect of "you just haven't met the right man yet," while bi guys are far more likely to hear something more along the lines of, "just a stop on the way to gaytown."

(Notice how everyone assumes you'll eventually end up wanting to be with a man?)

But bi guys are also far more likely to simply give into the pressure and "pick a side," hiding their true sexuality due to the stigma. It's the same brand of toxic masculinity that decided that women could wear pants back in the 50s, but men are STILL gonna get weird looks for wearing a skirt.

"As a bi guy from the baby boomer generation, I want everyone to know that there really are bi guys from the Dark Ages still walking among you! While I'm thrilled to meet (online) so many great bi+ humans from the later gens, it's very difficult to connect with those in my age group. A lot of us didn't/couldn't/gave up on the fight to be bi in either straight or gay ASSUMED relationships. What we do/did should not be called "passing" but rather "surviving."

(u/fs_in_az)

"64M here, been out as bi since 1980...I was with the same straight woman for 28 years til cancer took her. I was lucky in that she was cool with the fact of my being bi, right from the get-go - she never fell into that nonsense of worrying that I might cheat on her with men - but it was incredible how quickly old friends (who'd known I was bi for years) just forgot the fact of my sexuality after she and I had been together a while. I got fed up of having to remind them that being with her hadn't 'cured' me! :D "

(u/spangleclaws)

It's also the same brand of toxic masculinity that decided lesbians were okay, but only in porn for dudes (which...ew.)

"How hard it can be witnessing women's bisexuality celebrated and encouraged as a result of it being fetishized whereas the experience can be quite the opposite for men.

"I've had women (potential partners) distance themselves from me after I opened up and disclosed that I've had experiences with men. Some women I've managed to have an open discourse with and they have been honest that the thought of being with a guy who has messed about with another guy evoked feelings of disgust. Most of the time they wasn't really even sure why and felt guilty upon reflection as some of those women were bisexual themselves."

"Then alongside that over the years through the platonic relationships I've had with females I've heard phrases far too often that are homophobic in nature, pertaining to the fact that they couldn't imagine being dominated by a man who's [had sex with a man] and saying they're into more "manly men." There seems to be a perpetuation of men's sexuality being rigid, either gay or straight and if he's "bi" then also be careful because he's probably just a closet gay."

(u/michaelmurrayman)

We wish we had more clear representation

A lot of our issues with stigma against bi men does, ironically, have to do with that whole porn thing - because straight men in board rooms think it's hot, they're more likely to say yes to a female character being bisexual than a male character, and thus, you don't SEE a lot of male characters who are bi, and therefore when you actually meet one, you might be more surprised.

This is also true for the bisexual community as a whole in relation to the rest of the LGBTQ+ community - because we're heard less often (thanks to the dual-sided stigma) and have a sexuality that can be more difficult to explain (see whole article above), people in media often simply won't bother trying - which only perpetuates the cycle of stigma and misunderstanding.

"When I was a kid I developed crushes on both genders and didn't realize something was "wrong" with me until society pointed it out."

(u/ash_cat1920)

One of the ways society points that out is by NOT pointing out bisexuality when it occurs - because it's true that you can't SEE someone being bisexual in most relationships. If a kid is unaware that being bisexual is a thing, they might have an incredibly long and unnecessary existential crisis wondering if they're gay or straight every other week (you know, because of the whole bi-cycle thing) until they find out.

I'm speaking from experience there. I KNEW I was bi by the time I was thirteen, but I did not UNDERSTAND that I was bi until I was nineteen, because I had no idea what it looked like. If bisexual people had been allowed to be honest about their expereinces in media when I was younger, I would have eventually seen myself in one of those characters and figured it out much quicker.

And on top of that, other people would understand it much quicker too - and there might be less call for articles like these.

"Not having enough representation hurts...People don't understand that when I'm with a man I'm not gay or that when I'm with a woman I'm not straight.

"Whether we talk about it or not, being part of the LGBTQIA+ community affects every single part of our lives. Our society is just so aggressively straight and cis that to be anything else automatically makes you an outsider/other."

(u/torcher20)

[roundthatcorner]

“I said what I said, and it was wrong, or it was taken wrong, and now it's all this...”

BASICALLY.

So the furor, such as it is, that has resulted from a fairly innocuous post of mine seems to have taken on a bit of a life of its own, so I feel somewhat responsible and need to address certain things. A lot of what's been said seems frankly disconnected from anything I actually wrote, so I'm going to cover some but not all of the misconceptions – particular themes have been chosen because honestly some of the ideas I've been credited with are quite hurtful, to me personally and I think to a few other people.  I'm not 'at'-ing people because I'm not sure it would be at all fruitful or worthwhile to do so, and I'm not going to rebut things line-by-line because that seems more counterproductive than anything. My goal here is to hopefully dampen 'the controversy' (again, such as it is!) rather than inflame it.

On the one hand, I stand by the bulk of what I said – there's been some serious misinterpretations going around, some of which are genuinely baffling – but I can also see that my tone and my contextualization could have been improved. I do 'read' a little bratty or something in that post, which is something I should try to improve upon in the future. As for this post, I'm trying to essentially be the opposite of how I sounded there – be, like, very straightfoward and emotionally open and hopefully not stick my foot in it, or whatever. I'm basically a pathologically shy and conflict averse person, and totally just hoped that this would blow over, so all of this is way beyond my comfort zone. I hope people will see that this post is very much heartfelt, and imbue their reading of it with some generosity towards me and my intentions.

Anyways, the bulk of it, in which I pick out those misinterpretations that I would find it particularly upsetting to let stand as somehow representative of how I think:

a) Re John and being a fan: I love John. I can seriously count on one hand the number of people I love and admire more than John, and the subset under consideration for that isn't, like, 'famous people I like' or 'musicians', it's 'everybody who has ever existed.' I quite simply adore John and if I didn't I wouldn't expend the effort I do into trying to understand him. The implication that I can't possibly be a Beatles 'fan' (said in quotes, no less! Super disheartening), let alone a longtime fan is quite bizarre and insulting. I mean, I think there's a base presumption of 'grace' we should try to extend to other fans: none of us think any of them were or are irredeemable; we are all here because we love them; we all want to see them clearly and fairly. I am (clearly!) not some troll shouting 'John sux!' or whatever. It's not a mark of love for me or anyone to refuse to see John as he was – and by this I don't mean that not seeing John exactly as I do is a failure of anyone else, or deliberate, or that my interpretation is accurate, or whatever, just that FOR ME to limit my interpretation in order to 'keep' John sufficiently lovable or whatever would be silly. John was/is plenty lovable! I don't need to 'protect' myself from whatever dark places may have existed in his mind because I am entirely capable (as I think we all are) of loving him through that (not in spite of that, but THROUGH it, with empathy for him). I don't have to love or accept everything about John to love him – I don't have to love Yoko, or heroin, or Allen Klein, or stupid anti-Semitic cracks, or whatever (which is not to compare those things straightforwardly – obviously – but to make the point that it's okay to dislike things John liked!). We don't owe it to him as fans to make excuses for him; what we owe him is the same as what we owe any human being, which is just to try to understand where he's coming from. That's all that I was trying to do in my post – just delineate the thought processes he may have been having. I don't think I need to surround every discussion about John with 5 dozen caveats about his mental health issues or drug use simply because I have assumed that we all know these things and accept them as the (only) basis for further conversation (and actually I did reference both of those as clear sources of his behavior – I don't know that I can much more explicitly reference his suffering mental health than to say he was experiencing a break with reality). Furthermore, the idea that John's behavior during the final years of the Beatles was at least in part based on virulent paranoia directed at Paul as well as a desire to punish him is not something I came up with – it's a somewhat standard interpretation at this point. Even Paul (who also manages to love John while acknowledging his faults!) has admitted that John became very paranoid, jealous, neurotic, etc. Michael Gerber from Hey Dullblog once commented something like, to paraphrase, the hardest thing to accept as Beatles fans is that John broke up the Beatles and he did it willfully and deliberately...I don't know that that's THE hardest, but it's certainly up there. It's incredibly emotionally draining to consider the dynamics at work during the break-up, but I also think it's worthwhile to do so as honestly as we can, because we love them all so much and because they have so much to teach us, even when it's through this painful, agonizing shit.  

b) Re things assumed about me or what-have-you: It strikes me as really quite unfair to assume that because I've never discussed certain things on this blog (or in that specific post), that I don't understand or have never experienced them and am coming at them from a position of somewhat cruel disengagement or w/e. The title of the blog isn't 'Bisexuality, Mental Illness, Drug Addiction & Me', so I really didn't consider it under the purview and have generally refrained from inserting too much of 'myself' (or at least myself non-filtered through Beatles). I don't talk about feminism, or cats, or Mad Men or make-up or agile software development or robotic vacuums because despite my interest in all of them, that's not the intention of my tumblr. Nevertheless, some grotesque oversharing in hopes of re-assembling/salvaging some of what's been misconstrued:

- I am bisexual...too...like many people are. This gets back to the whole 'text doesn't always telegraph meaning particularly well', but the paragraph for which I was criticized for sounding like a Nat Geo narrator or w/e...as I was writing it I was actually getting quite emotional thinking of...John, like, maybe discovering his sexuality at 16, because that was the exact age where I was literally writing in my diary in cryptic little coded comments about being attracted to girls, and then blacking the comments out and tearing them out of the journal and ripping them up because I was SO fucking ashamed and scared and alone with all of it. Basically, I am not at all looking at this from the perspective of an outsider, let alone a heteronormative outsider.

- To be accused or w/e of not understanding or being unsympathetic to mental illness is more than a little ironically funny to me, because literally the reason I started this blog, writing fics, etc is because after over a decade on anti-depressants, I went off them about six months ago (lest this too be misconstrued, I am not advocating this (or un-advocating it), it simply is). My brain has therefore been 'allowed' to loop incessantly/unconstrainedly on the Beatles for the first time since I was fifteen – so mental illness is quite literally why I'm here! Funny stuff. I don't want or need or feel obliged to go into much more detail about this, so let it suffice to say that I have deep understanding and sympathy for mentally ill people, for John in particular, and I fully appreciate the impact of mental illness on a person's behavior, and any flippancy is, ah, semi-literally gallows humor.

- If I sound hardened or unsympathetic with regard to drug addictions...it's partially because I am on some level. I invite anyone who takes issue with this to go re-live their childhood with the trauma of multi-generational drug and alcohol abuse that I lived with, because I will guess that anyone who is less than saintly, as we all are, will end up just as jaded about it as I am, just from the inescapable daily grind of taking care of addicts. Sorry to sound fairly bitchy about this point, but...idk, man, it's always really really difficult to have people be like, “have you considered their feelings? Have you devoted enough of your life to ritually gutting yourself on the pyre of this or that person's addiction?” Like, yes? Sorry, all the mornings where I had to make sure my dad hadn't choked to death on his vomit before I got on the school bus have kind of drained my sympathy. Nonetheless, some of my favorite people are junkies...

c) Re Linda and Paul: I would never disrespect their relationship, and this is far and away the most upsetting thing to have people skew, because I admire what they were able to create and sustain SO much – it means so much to me in terms of what is possible even from the blackest fucking depths. Linda could have been another Francie, or Heather Mills, or Yoko, and GOSH, how much fucking poorer the world would have been, how much darker. Linda and his kids gave Paul something to live for, a whole second life after the center fell out of his first. They were actually able to make a happy life that was snatched from total chaos and despair – that's so incredible and awe-worthy to me. When I said that Paul chose Linda over dying, I was not putting down their relationship, or devaluing it or her (I think she is maybe the most admirable person in all of Beatle-dom), or anything even remotely like that. For me, there is no deeper compliment to give someone than to say that they chose to keep going when they could've died. I mean, compliment is not even the word for it, I honestly don't think I have the capacity to express this..but, like, this is soul-deep for me, the deepest, sincerest possible feeling. I derive enormous comfort and strength on literally a daily basis from the choice Paul made in the winter of 1970. Believe me when I say I would never denigrate Paul's experience or Linda's role in it or the love and commitment they showed each other.

d) Re interpretation versus facts:  There's some criticism based on me presenting my ideas as facts. I don't think I did this – I couched the thing repeatedly with 'conjecture' (in all caps!), 'my interpretation', 'I think', 'maybe' and 'may', 'a range of possibilities', 'possibly', 'presumably', 'might', etc. I was not presenting what I said as verifiable fact but as my evolving understanding of what may have happened. Besides...all of us are here because we think there was or could have been a romantic/sexual component to John & Paul's relationship. This is not something that is at all verifiable (and it even very often requires that we assume people are lying!). Practically everything we say is conjecture based on our very unorthodox interpretation of sometimes conflicting/contradictory/bewildering information, and I am no more (or less) guilty of presenting my ideas as fact than, I think, anyone here.

e) Re Yoko: I get the sense that this was the main initial point of disagreement in all of this, and the rest of it was kind of...throwing stuff and seeing what stuck (unfortunately some of it seems to have). This is actually the only intractable issue – it's not one based on misunderstanding or a failure on my part to be clear enough. I dislike Yoko exactly as much (or more!) as I conveyed in the original post, and I have good reason for it. Pretty much every day of my life I learn something about her or about the world, relationships, responsibility, children, how a person should treat others, etc, that makes her behavior that much more noxious, inexcusable, and reproachable. Once upon a time I was thirteen and believed wholeheartedly in the Ballad of John & Yoko narrative – but as an adult, I simply can't countenance it. If we were not talking about 'John and Yoko' but rather about 'Joe and Sally Schmoe', or my brother and his girlfriend, or the next case on the docket in the local family court, there would be no question that this was a profoundly unhealthy and damaging relationship. Like...are most love affairs as enormously, relentlessly destructive as theirs was? Is there anyone from John's pre-1968 life that was allowed to really remain a part of his life post-Yoko? What kind of healthy romantic relationship cuts a person off from everything else? Is 'all that I know is just what you tell me' anything other than a deeply disturbing sentiment? Some of this can be laid at John's feet but on the other hand his 25 year old secretary (as well as every other significant person in his life except for his parents and probably Mimi) was able to coax him into being a BETTER person, whereas he only seemed to become an unhealthier and more damaged person the longer he spent with Yoko (and the feminism thing...like, the most feminist thing he could have done would be sending Cynthia an additional $10,000 a month – 'look at the one you're with' or were with, after all). I can't say that Yoko didn't love John but I will say that she didn't love him well – based on the standards for human relationships and interaction that we are willing to apply to normal people. To quote John Dunbar (who is definitely a longtime John fan!), “If I had set out to destroy John Lennon, I could not have done any better than to introduce him to Yoko Ono.”

If anyone wants to talk any more about this, please message or ask me (I will likely not respond to asks in the interest of not encouraging divisiveness or whatever, but I do appreciate what I’ve been sent). I can't control what anyone posts, obviously, and there are maybe still sensitive and insightful things to be said about some of it, so go ahead if you feel the need. For my part I probably won't engage any further publicly, especially since it's been unhelpfully dug into the ground (over...and over...and over) and there's a certain amount of like...willful misconstruing that's going on that’s just not worth getting into.

And just because it came on shuffle, and because sometimes Paul is exactly what one needs him to be, I'll end by saying:

“Is it better to love than to give in to hate?

Yeah, we'd better take good care of each other,

 Avoid slipping back, off the straight and narrow”

:)

[jkl-fff]

But am I wrong to think that gender is not a feeling though? But a representation of your genitalia? It's why I've been so confused because I was raised and taught that if you have a penis your a boy and a vagina your a girl. It really doesn't matter how you act, weather your more masculine here or feminine there because that's just your traits as a person. You want to wear a dress but have a dick? Then your a boy wearing a dress. It don't matter if you act feminine cause your still a boy. 🤔😔

Well, the short answer is:

Yes, I think the belief that gender is all about genitalia is fundamentally wrong.

Yes, it’s a common misconception in most societies(especially since people incorrectlyuse the terms “sex” and “gender” interchangeably–mostly because the term “sex" is treated more-or-less likea dirty word),but the fact that it is common doesn’t make it any less wrong.

Now, let me take a moment to reassure youthat you’re not the only one who wasraised with that belief.Most people are raised with it (certainly, I know I was),which is why it’s such a common misconception in most societies;it’s taught to children, and few people challenge it as they grow up.But, like a lot of things we’re taught as children,the truth is not that simple—it’s not that black-and-white.Why do you think people go to college after high school?Because what you’re taught as a kid isn’t the whole truth …and sometimes, it’s just plain wrong.

Firstly, let’s talk about the meaningsof three very important terms:sex, gender, and sexuality.Sex = Biology; you are born with this, it’s encoded inyour DNA.Most people think it’s a binary, that there are only two (Female andMale),but there is actually a spectrum of Intersex that runs between them.Gender = Performance; you are not born withthis,and can fluidly change it because it is basically how you choose toactand how you choose to present yourself to yourself and the world.Gender is on several spectrums that include Feminine and Masculine(with other factors like race and class, etc. affecting it),and this is what determines if a person is a “woman” or a “man”(and NOT what their biological sex happens to be).Sexuality = Attraction and Desires; you are not born with this one, either (at lest, not entirely … it’s complicated); basically, it’s about who you want to have sex with and how you want tohave it with them.You have hetero- and homosexuality, bi- and pansexuality, and asexuality. This is also where preferred sexual roles, plus kinks and fetishes fall. People often make assumptions about other people’s gender based on sexuality(there’s a stereotype that gay men are feminine, for example),but those assumptions are, quite frankly, ignorant … and often dumbass.

Something crucial to keep in mind, also,is that these three terms are actually separate and distinct;they might influence each other, but they do NOT determine each other.This is why you could have, say, a feminine heterosexual male or a masculine bisexual female,or literally any combination of the above.Now,society does try to impose genders on people because of their sex—does try to equate them, make people believe they’re the same thing(does try to say being male is what makes someone a man or a boyand being female is what makes someone a woman or a girl)—but this is NOT how gender actually works,and is as much a form of oppression as is racism.

In fact, this is the heart of what sexism is–saying a person’s sex determines their gender(and thus the basis of how they can act and what their worth to society is).

Key proof of this is that different societies (whether in different countries or during different centuries)have had radically different concepts of what it is to be a “man” (or “boy”) and to be a “woman” (or “girl”).Sometimes very contradicting ones, too.High-heeled shoes used to be considered “manly” (masculine)—in fact, the very first ones in history were worn by “men”;same with wearing makeup and lots of jewelry.And yet, nowadays, we consider that “womanly” (feminine),even though actors playing hard-boiled action heroes and rightwing politicians (Trump himself) do it all the time.Besides that, you could think of other behaviors or character traits(being strong or a talented fighter, being nurturing with children,being domineering, being subservient, being logical or emotional,being concerned with fashion and appearances, etc.),and people are just as likely to have themno matter what their sex is.Thereis no genetic or biological connection betweenwhat really makes someone a “man” and being male.Thisis why we say that gender is a social construct;it has no basis in nature (biology), but is entirely made up by people and societies (sociology).You literally have countless females who are more “manly” (or more “boyish”—more masculine) than most males,and countless males who are more “womanly” (or more “girly”—more feminine) than most females.To say nothing of the equally countless Intersex peopleor Transsexual people who do not now or have never fitinto the limited binary of “has a vagina or a penis”.

So in the end, whether a person has a penisor a vagina(what their sex is) doesn’t matter to their gender.Should you need another example, then consider this:If being a “man” is all about having a dick,then the only real man would be theguy with the biggest dickregardless of how he acts, dresses, talks, etc.and literally everyone else in the worldis less of a man than he is.That means that biology would be more important to a person’s identity than even their personality.And doesn’t that sound just absolutely absurd? It does to me.

Finally, let me close with a pragmatic point—a point about how we should actually act in the real world.Y’see, all of the above is conceptual; it’s about pure ideas.But in the real world, you have to actually interact with people.Well, most of the time in the real world, you got no way of knowingwhat’s between a person’s legs … and frankly, it shouldn’t matter to you or anyone else, because it’s nobody’s business but theirs.If they tell you they’re a girl, then treat them like a person who is also a girl(yes, even if you think they look like a boy).If they tell you they’re a boy, thentreat them like a person who is also a boy(yes, even if you think they look like a girl).If they tell you they’re non-binary or bigender or gender fluid or queer or whatever the freakin’ hell, then treatthem like a person who is also that gender(yes, even if you don’t get why and are confused by their gender,because their gender is not about youand you don’t have to get it to berespectful of their identity).

I mean, really, to do otherwise is just plain rude.It’s like saying you know more about who they are than they do …and also saying that you just don’t care about their feelings.Imagine asking someone to call you “Marty”,and instead they call you “Farty McFuckface” all the time,and insist that’s what your name really is.That’s pretty much what it is.

So everyone, as always, remember thatthe most important point is neither hard nor complicatedbecause it is quite simply:don’t be an asshole to people.

[posi-pan]

Reviewing Pan Rep in Books: Out on Good Behavior by Dahlia Adler

Pan character: Frankie Bellisario. Explicitly canon, on page rep.

Now, if you've ever done a basic Google search for books with pan characters or even just stumbled across a rec for/including pan books, then you've heard of this book. For a while, this was one of the only two or three books that I ever saw recommended for pan rep. YA authors on Twitter and Tumblr all told people searching for pan recs to read this book. It's a generally well received and praised book, both overall and for the pan rep.

I don't share that opinion.

The following is an abridged version of my Goodreads review, to focus on the pan rep. Full review can be found here. Warning for spoilers.

It felt incredibly amazing to read a book and see a character identify as pansexual and actually use the word, more than once. And for them to describe their pansexuality in a way that wasn't just a general definition insert. She described her pansexuality in a way that was personal to her, and I appreciated that because it made it feel more real, like it wasn't just some definitions copied and pasted from Sexuality 101.‬

"I don't discriminate by gender or lack thereof," I say, because sometimes, you just know "I'm pansexual" is going to be met with "What's that?" followed by "Isn't that just bi?" and finally "So, you're down for a threesome?"

"Everyone's off limits to me, Mase. Haven't you heard?" "Oh please, drama queen." Cait rolls her eyes. "My teammates and my roommate are not too much to ask, especially considering there aren't any gender barriers to your options." I stick out my tongue. "You know that doesn't mean I find literally everyone on the planet fuckable, right?"

"So...your father. Does he have a problem with you being...um..." "With me being pansexual?"

I try to think back to when I was just a little baby queer, but the truth is, I can't even remember a time before I knew I wasn't into just guys. Sure, I juggled "Am I gay?" for a while, not because I wasn't attracted to guys but because I didn't know there were a plethora of options between the ends of the Kinsey scale, let alone between "boy" and "girl." I definitely played around with different labels until I decided pansexual felt like the best fit. But thinking I was straight? Not part of my particular past.

"But...can I ask you about that? The label thing, I mean?" "Why I ID as pan and not bi, you mean?" She nods. "Pansexual felt like the best fit because I think it's the most fluid. Lots of people think it just means I'm attracted to more than two genders-which I am-but plenty of bisexual people are too. For me, the difference is more about how gender plays into the attraction to someone, whether consciousness of it is actually a factor or those lines kinda blur." I haven't talked about this stuff in a long time, and I have no idea if it sounds weird to her.

But despite that, I still have a problem with this pansexual representation. And yes, it's about the pansexual character being formerly polyamorous, promiscuous, pretty much willingly to sleep with anyone, and indecisive. Those are things people always stereotype pansexual people as. There isn't anything wrong with being those things, or being those things and also pansexual, but they are not the same as being pansexual nor do they go hand in hand with being pansexual. Having so little pansexual rep, it is extremely disappointing to see the pansexual rep that people have been recommending left and right turn out to be every single pansexual stereotype/misconception.

And it was even more disappointing, and quite frankly angering as all hell, to see the author of the book whining on Twitter that people are criticizing their pansexual character. The author went as far as to dismiss the criticism by saying those criticizing are straight, because, "queers get it". Hate to break it to you, but a lot of the reviews criticizing the pansexual rep came from queer people. Including my tired, pissed off, pansexual ass. So, A+ for lazy rep AND assuming/erasing readers' sexualities.

Frankie Bellisario is a lovely, refreshing character. She's honest and genuine and she's unapologetically herself. I don't hate her for being promiscuous or sex positive. I don't hate her one bit, actually. Aside from how very sexual she was, I relate to her quite a bit. (Seriously, girl made a sexual comment or thought about sex in every chapter. Her love interest could have scratched her nose and the next line would be Frankie thinking about how it makes her want to fuck her on the nearest flat surface. I'm all for Frankie being who she is and liking what she likes and not being ashamed of it, but after a while it's like, okay we get it, Frankie loves sex, do you really have to mention it in every single chapter?)

As much as the author likes to claim her character is being criticized and "hated" for simply sleeping around and being sex positive, that isn't what the criticism is about and to simplify it to that to discredit the criticism as anti-feminist or whatever, is a slap in the face. I get to have an opinion on how my sexuality is being represented. You don't get dismiss or discredit that because I'm not falling at your feet simply because you wrote a pansexual character.

Back to what I was saying, I don't hate Frankie, what I hate is that a writer chose to write a pansexual character, which there aren't very many of, as every single pansexual stereotype/misconception, and then had the nerve to try to dismiss and discredit any criticism of it.

Frankie even says "I'm not that kind of queer girl. I'm the slut; don't you know? I'm the kind who'll fuck anything that walks because I'm greedy, because I can't make up my mind" when she interprets her love interest saying "that you sleep with everyone is the problem" as her being slut-shamed. Now, I don't know if that was supposed to be purely Frankie being defensive and hurt or a sort of "Fuck you!" taking back the stereotypes moment or what, but whatever it was, it missed the mark. Having a multisexual character, one of a sexuality that is severely underrepresented, say that she is all of the stereotypes that real people of that sexuality have to deal with and fight back against was just a, "WHY did you write that??" moment for me.

(I mean, fuck, all this book was missing was a joke about cookware. But, who knows, I haven't read the other two books in the series, maybe that joke is one of them.)

When there's so little pansexual rep, you cannot fault people for expecting more than a character who is every stereotype wrapped in a bow.

And this is coming from a pansexual who is often very forgiving when it comes to pansexual rep, because despite my instinctual urge to always be critical and demand better rep, there is so fucking little pansexual rep that I feel I can't really afford to hate any of it. How sad is that?

Maybe if pansexual characters weren't so hard to find, I'd be more relaxed when it comes to criticizing them. Because maybe then, it wouldn't matter that this one pansexual character is a grab bag of stereotypes, because there would be a plethora of other kinds of pansexual characters to even the score.

But there aren't. And that is a fact that this author is well aware of, because whenever someone asks them for pansexual book recs, this book is always one of the same three books that they (and everyone else) recommend. (The other two books are Seven Ways We Lie by Riley Redgate and The Melody of You and Me by M. Hollis.) I guess when authors recommend books with queer rep, taking into account and giving a warning of the quality of rep isn't something that gets done for pansexuality.

This may seem harsh, but I get very passionate about pansexual issues. When I first finished the book, I was just a little disappointed by the pansexual rep, and I wasn't going to make a big deal about it. Like I said, I can be very forgiving when it comes to pansexual rep. But after reading other reviews from people who felt the same as me and then seeing the comments the author made about the reviews, I couldn't help getting worked up. I've read that the author is queer, and I'm not entirely sure, but if they are, then this just upsets me even more.

The brunt of hate, negativity, and dismissal that I deal with as a pansexual, comes from fellow queer people. As a queer person, you should know better, you should DO better. Especially if you're an author, giving young queer kids, or as you call them "baby queers", representation and validation. You shouldn't be getting defensive when a queer person says, "hey, this rep isn't perfect, here's where it went wrong or could have been better", and you sure as shit should not be dismissing their criticism. Rep can always be better, it can always be improved. But that will never happen if the people writing that rep do not listen to the wide variety of people they're representing.

The author's attitude and behavior in regard to the criticism have completely turned me off and I probably won't be reading any more of their work. Which is disappointing, because I did want to find out how Frankie's pansexuality is mentioned/addressed in the previous books from the series.

[mild-lunacy]

My fannish feelings (let me show you them)

Man, fandom really alienates me in 28846851 ways, as I often say. And it's funny 'cause I really admire it. I admire the transformative nature of fandom... from afar. But comparing Johnlock to transformative ships like Harry/Draco or Sherlock/anyone else (hah!) or saying we're 'free to engage however we wish' misses the point. Personally, I know I'm free, but then I always felt free. Canon always feels like home, not a prison, no matter what happens. I just don't want to 'break free', unlike Moriarty. Like, I understand that people write these things because others or they themselves are really upset and/or looking for something to cling to or believe in in a cold, hard universe or what have you. You gotta find your comfort where you can. But that's why I said fandom frequently alienates me-- conspiracies, fake-out episode theories and even fanfiction in general has never been even close to 'enough'. It just... doesn't help. It doesn't work at all, haha. I understand why people react the way they do, but sometimes I think I have an innately different idea of what fanfiction is for.

It's true that Series 4 didn't fulfill all my hopes and wishes, and obviously I was wrong about the direction of the Authorial Intent, and I still think that's a crying shame even though I understand the limitations of thinking about that in the context of textual interpretation. But like I said in that meta yesterday, issues of intent have to do with the social aspects of fandom, not fanfiction (obviously). But of course, turning to fanworks to fix or somehow escape canon (whether it's speculative meta or fanfic) is part of the fundamental nature of fandom. I just... don't do that. At all. And I've never particularly enjoyed fanworks that willfully refused to follow canon in any obvious way instead of integrating (because that tends to read as OOC to me). Just for example, I may not be crazy excited about something like Sherlock/Mycroft, which is clearly acanonical, but normally it genuinely doesn't bother me. But if I see a ship like that combined with Johnlock so that it replaces it, where Sherlock chooses Mycroft over John, then I get pissed. And it's not because I'm a shipper (or not just) but because it's so blatantly not only OOC but transformative in a way that's anti-canon. Like, you really cannot sell that after the scene in TFP where Sherlock seriously considered shooting Mycroft, and in fact, it's clear that this writer didn't want to consider it. They were disregarding canon reality and substituting their own, and that sort of thing drives me batty with fic. You can always tell when the fic is going out of its way to misread the characters and/or rebelling against canon, and it never once worked for me in all my years of reading oodles of fanfic. I was never even tempted by 'Epilogue What Epilogue' fics in HP (needless to say, breaking up Harry's marriage held even less appeal). So yeah, I definitely can't look forward to years of doing that post-S4, haha. Not that... I think I'd have to, 'cause the door to Johnlock is wide open after TFP (and unfortunately, so is the door to other ships.... And hell yeah, that's pretty unfortunate, seeing as the very existence of straight!Sherlock seems like an abomination to me, honestly).

My reasoning for why explicitly canon Johnlock was definitely important and necessary goes like this: 1) it's the natural conclusion to Sherlock's arc and the emotional resolution to unresolved developments in Series 3, beginning in TRF; 2) representation and avoiding queerbaiting. But there's definitely also 3) cutting off straight-washing of Sherlock and John in the fandom and vindicating/establishing our understanding of his characterization as canon. I don't apologize for that. I still firmly stand for that. Straight or bisexual Sherlock is not something I calmly accept in the context of his BBC incarnation, not least because it's ridiculous and OOC, and you have to do some serious mental gymnastics to justify it canonically. But I also honestly simply find it harmful in the context of fandom as well as being queerbaiting in canon.

Obviously, I mean, fandom has but a fraction of the social power and cultural resonance that the hugely popular media property of BBC Sherlock does. But heteronormativity is always problematic and it's not more present in the media than in fandom in the sense that it's present everywhere equally, by its very nature. Obviously, we fight against it more here, so there's clearly less of it here in one sense, but heteronormativity always remains something to push back against with the intent to eradicate. And in the context of the canon characterization of BBC Sherlock, even reading Sherlock as bisexual (as in, displaying actual or potential attraction to women) is quite blatantly, extremely heteronormative, and so it's pretty distasteful to me. I do think it's that obvious that he's gay, yes. And so... a future of endless fanworks at this point is definitely a very mixed blessing.

No. Nope. Uh-uh. I didn't think that, and I didn't ignore or avoid willfully. I side-stepped and tried to build on canon while trying to integrate every bit of characterization possible. And further, I only started new Harry/Draco fanfic before Harry got together with Ginny permanently. He was together with Ginny at first in some of my fics, but I made up the characterization so it would fit; when I saw that he genuinely wanted her, I just wanted him to be happy (and I guess when I did take him away from her, it wasn't a happy story). Even before, I never wrote him as gay or tried to ignore his interest in Ginny (I just kind of wrote speculative Ginny characterization sometimes that took her down alternative paths... but I didn't think it was OOC at the time). The fact that people ignored or avoided canon and embraced OOCness to write an admittedly transformative slash ship used to drive me insane with constant, neverending frustration back when I was in HP fandom. It's also something that bothers me about the way people write Kavinsky in The Raven Cycle, too. People mess with characterization and the entirety of apparent canonical intent to write the stuff canon left unexplored on purpose, which is understandable... but not necessary.

I used to write lots of meta back in the day about how, you know, you can build on canon and do anything-- certainly, you can write redemption arcs and stuff-- if you're careful about starting where the characters really are. It's not like I was ever obsessed with JKR's intent regarding Draco Malfoy, but then neither did I ignore it, see. She said stuff to the effect of him being a 'little cockroach', as Hermione might say, and she warned about young women denying or ignoring that, but I didn't deny or ignore it! I thought that was important. He was a little prick in my fics, and I tried to work with that. I did my absolute best not to romanticize him and I constantly wrote metas imploring others not to, more or less; I wanted to let him grow up and develop, not deny he needs the development. This was not because JKR told me not to, of course. At the same time, I genuinely believe that if you read the text closely enough, you'll come pretty close to the perspective of the author anyway, given it's a good author and given you're not the sort of reader that has an agenda. And as for myself... I don't have an agenda, man.

I guess that could be hard to believe, if you thought of me only as a TJLCer (not that I'm aware of anyone doing that). I mean, people have certainly had a tendency of accusing us of projecting onto the text, though the aphorism about stones and glass houses definitely applies. But anyway, obviously I've never seen canon Johnlock as wish-fulfillment, and I get pretty incensed when I think people misunderstood that, not that it wasn't a wish to be fulfilled. Not only did I wish, I still fully and firmly believe it should have happened explicitly, even if I'm starting to understand where the misconceptions we had about Mofftiss were. Anyway, it's not that I don't see myself in the story or identify with characters. I just... don't really project. That's the source of my alienation, I think. I don't see a show or read a book I like, that's remotely internally consistent, and think, 'I know these characters better and I and/or fandom could have done better', the way so many people in fandom have done after Series 4 of Sherlock or the last book in The Raven Cycle. I mean, I get disappointed, but it's really been weird seeing people's issues with The Raven King. It's more understandable with Series 4 'cause they did drop an apparent arc, in the sense that they didn't actually fulfill it except by implication. That's not really what happened in TRK; all the arcs were completed, but many people complained about the stuff that was left out or not focused on that they wished would have been. That's really weird and unnatural to me, possibly 'cause I just really believe in the importance of reigning in self-indulgence.

Basically, the whole problem with TFP was essentially self-indulgence! Calling for more of it, or even critiquing Series 4 for essentially not having more of the right kind (and even accusing TJLCers of only wanting that and nothing else!) is hard for me to relate to. Alas, as usual.

[wechaserainbows]

A Beginner’s Guide to Understanding the Existence of Lesbians

Lesbians like GIRLS. They do not like men. They do not get married to another girl for men’s pleasure. They do not secretly want to be with men but have low self-esteem so they feel like they have to “settle” for women--which as I’ve stated before is an extremely multilayered problematic statement.  

Lesbian relationships do not try and mimic heterosexual relationships because they are “lacking” a penis. While some lesbians may use dildos from time to time in their sexual acts, let it be known that it’s not because they want to be a man or have a male presence in the bedroom, it is simply because the toy, like any other toy, is meant to provide pleasure to their partner in new creative ways. Also, heterosexual people use the SAME toys as lesbians in bed. Another nice note is that not all lesbians use toys, it is an individual preference that isn’t tied to any type of sexuality.

Lesbians don’t “scissor”. That is literally not a thing. It was made up by gross men in their 30′s and 40′s probably living in their mother’s basement still.There are things similar to the idea, yes, but it isn’t done the way men see it in porn and it certainly isn’t the only thing lesbians can do. Lesbians engage in many sexual positions and actions just as heterosexual couples can. We are NOT limited simply because there is no penis involved.

Lesbian porn is made for men and most of the time the porn stars are straight. Not a good place to learn how lesbians do it--which, why the hell do you want to know so badly?

Being lesbian is not a choice. What sane person would choose to be almost hated universally, discriminated against, physically and emotionally attacked, and unable to love the person they care so deeply about? Trust me when I say that I didn’t just wake up one morning and go “hmm, you know what sounds good, having my family send me to conversion therapy, be excluded from family and friends, hit at school and denied jobs and the ability to marry the love of my life when i grow up! Geewhiz, does that sound like a great life!” Honestly, the homosexuality is a choice “argument” is one of the stupidest things I’ve seen in my life. Besides, by that logic, straight people are actually gay too and are merely just choosing to be straight because honey, ‘choosing’ is a double sided concept. So Chad, you better hide that erection for your friend Peter. Because you’re just ignoring your feelings for men, right? Just like how lesbians are merely ignoring their attraction to men?

A lesbian may have dated a man in the past, but that does not mean that it turned her. Like stated above, no one chooses their sexuality. Keep in mind that we operate under a compulsive hetero-normative world so it is very hard for gay people to have never dated the opposite gender because we grow up believing that dating the opposite gender is the only thing we are allowed to do. Very few gay people have never dated or kissed the opposite sex because of the society we live in. It doesn’t disqualify their sexuality.

Lesbians do not, and I repeat, do not “just need to have the right dick”. If that were the case, then straight men simply haven’t found the right dick yet to make them realize they actually like guys. Read the above again if you do not understand why.

This one is for all my lovely bisexual girls, but, straight men, a bisexual girl is not on some tipping point to either being homosexual or heterosexual. They like both genders. So, yes, you can date them. But, if you’re going to be biphobic or worry about them cheating on you, then get the hell out. 

This only scratches the surface but I hope it really helps some people think about their misconceptions and attitudes toward gay women.

[caycharming]

Accepting Myself

It’s Pride! This is the first year of Pride where I've felt 100% comfortable with my own sexuality and I wanted to talk about my experience because some people might be struggling with what I did growing up. So, if you’re struggling, trying to figure out if bisexual is the right label for you, feel free to read my lengthy post underneath the cut. It’s more of ramble and sort of a journal entry because I’ve never talked about it properly before but hopefully, it might be of some use. 

(A small warning: This will only be about my personal experience growing up as a bisexual woman. Currently, I consider myself to be attracted to my own gender and other genders but I’ll be speaking about my experience growing up with the male and female genders because while there are many genders/identities/sexualities, I wasn’t aware of them growing up.)

It wasn't until I was in my late teens that I accepted that my attraction to some girls had to mean something. And just doing that was a huge success because I had been repressing it all.

I had always tried not to really think about any sort of attraction I had toward my own gender because I grew up in a conservative home (and was also homeschooled too so I didn't have many friends). I was raised to be 100% straight. When I was in my teens, I was learning it was okay to be gay and to accept everyone (which I only learned from the internet and tv shows) but I never thought to do the same for myself. I was so conditioned by my upbringing, that I excused my attraction to girls as some sort of sexual thing and just that. Because I limited it to just a sexual attraction, I sort of felt ashamed (but being bisexual and heteroromantic is perfectly okay). This is because, for a lot of my childhood, sex was something I thought was shameful and sinful (it would take me years to figure out it wasn’t).

I think this is also why I struggled so much to learn and accept my sexuality. It wasn't until I was around 19 or so that I started to accept that whatever I was, it clearly wasn't straight. And so I began trying to figure out what exactly I should call myself.

To some, labels aren't important and they don't feel a need to identify as anything which is perfectly acceptable. I wish I could have been comfortable without a label but I never have been. I wanted to know what I was, I wanted to be able to say, "Okay, this term and description is what I am. I feel like I know myself now." That's what it would take for me to be comfortable with myself.

Again, because I was so afraid to accept myself, I never did a huge amount of research. I remember the first thing I wanted to call myself was bisexual. I should have embraced that. I should have gone with my gut instinct because it was the right one. What stopped me from saying I was bisexual? Many things.

Growing up, I was taught not hate anyone which was nice but the problem was that my parents also chose not to teach me about other sexualities and sex in general (an example, my mother thought she needed to explain to me what a hymen was the other day, yup, I’m 22 and she just now cared to talk about that). I do not think I knew about gay people until I was in my early teens and I would have discovered them much later had I not gotten into a fandom.

When I was young (early teens), the first show I was ever properly obsessed with was a show called Smallville. I loved everything about it and because I loved it, I started searching things about it on the internet. Now, my internet access was limited because my family couldn’t really afford it so the first time my aunt had high-speed internet, I was using my cousin’s laptop to look up all sorts of things about Smallville and the cast. This, of course, led to me finding some fanfiction which wasn’t so family friendly. It was a smutty fanfiction between Clark and Lex. I knew that two boys being together had to be wrong (because I had never seen it before). I think that was the first time I ever found the word gay. Reading this fanfiction felt shameful (because of my upbringing) but I continued to read whenever I was around the internet. It took time but I developed my own opinion and decided there was nothing wrong with being gay. There simply couldn’t be, not when they were simply born this way. Because of this, I became invested with ships like Peter/Syler from Heroes and I secretly supported gay people (the only other sexuality I knew of).

The first time I think I was ever introduced to what bisexuality was Glee. A lot of my introduction to actually seeing canon sexualities is because of Glee. They never really dealt with bisexuality properly. While Brittney (the smol lovely bi girl) was a delightful character, some of the other characters around her, acted being bi was selfish/greedy and for a while, I think I must have thought that too and it caused me to never consider that label for myself until long after I left the fandom and was taught how toxic that was.

It wasn't until I watched Doctor Who that I saw positive representation in the form of the glorious Captain Jack Harkness. His sexuality was handled in the right way. He liked all sorts of people and that was okay. No one judged him for it at all, they embraced him and I could remember that making me insanely happy. I didn't really allow myself to think about why it made me happy but it did.

It was then that I got into the Sherlock fandom. That was my first proper introduction into what being bisexual was. Despite that it's not strictly speaking canon, most people considered John Watson to be bisexual. Because I did a lot of writing when I first joined the fandom, I had to learn exactly what that was. I became very comfortable with the term bisexual because of John Watson and the Sherlock fandom.

Now, somewhere along the way, I remember watching the YouTuber, Shane Dawson, he had a very personal coming out video about being bisexual. When he talked about sexuality being on a spectrum, it was the very first time I heard that and my life was changed. I finally realized it was okay if I wasn't 100% straight. It was the first time I accepted that about myself. I was still too scared to call myself bisexual but Shane's video helped me in a way I didn't know until this year.

It wasn't until I was about 21 that I started to research a bit more. I was under the false impression that being bisexual meant you had to be 100% a certain way. You had to like girls the same exact way you liked boys. Why I thought this, I'm not sure. I was in more accepting mindset but was still terrified of labeling myself incorrectly because I didn't want to other bisexual people to look at me and say that because I hadn't had romantic feelings for a girl, I wasn't really bisexual. I don't think that would have ever happened but I was still terrified.

That was why I started researching. Trying to figure out if I could just be sexually attracted to girls because I hadn't felt romantic attraction to them. Because of that, I discovered people could be bisexual and heteroromantic. I thought that I had found the right terms. Those terms sounded correct but looking back on it now, I was never really comfortable with calling myself two things. I know there are some that are comfortable with those labels, I'm happy for you. Embrace them! They just never fit me.

I said I was bisexual/heteroromantic for a little while and I remember my close friend telling me that I didn't have to stress myself out with trying to fit into a certain label. I believe she knew I was bisexual and was trying to get me to accept it by trying to get me to not stress about it too much. Bless her. She is also a huge reason as to why I learned it was okay to be me. She always tried to get me to accept myself for who I am and I will always be thankful for that. <3

Still, despite her lovely advice, I stressed. I kept having the urge to call myself bi but my misconceptions on exactly what it meant to be bi held me back. I was no longer okay with being called heteroromantic and bisexual. I just hated thinking of myself as two different things. It was because of my friend that I accepted that just because I hadn't experienced romantic attraction toward any girls, it didn't mean I never would. Again, she knew me better than I knew myself and I should have listened to her.

Research started again and I learned the term Queer. I originally thought only gay people used it but I discovered LOTS of people use this term for many different reasons. One of them is if you are attracted to the same gender to some degree.

I think a huge reason as to why I embraced this label was because of the actor Ezra Miller, he identifies as queer (still does as far as I’m aware). I really love Ezra Miller and felt like I related to a lot of his beliefs when it came to love.  I still do. I was still calling myself queer a few months ago.  At the time, I felt like I had found the right description but whenever I said it out-loud, it never felt right.  I would tell my close friend this is what I was calling myself but it just didn’t feel right when I said it. She accepted it, of course, but looking back on it now, I feel a tiny bit embarrassed for wearing so many labels in such a short amount of time. But honestly, there is nothing to be embarrassed about, I was trying to learn who I was and it just took me a few labels to figure that out.

It was over the past two months that I finally learned to accept that I was bisexual. It happened without me really thinking about it too much. That was a huge part of it. I stopped stressing myself out about it and learned to accept whatever sort of feelings I had. Because I was looking at famous girls and accepting that I was attracted to them, I became very comfortable with the idea of possibly having romantic feelings for them. I hadn’t felt any romantic feelings but after I became comfortable with the idea of having them, it didn’t take me long to look at female characters (and certain female youtubers) and embrace the romantic feelings I did feel. Then, without realizing it, I started calling myself bisexual. It happened naturally and I realized that I finally felt comfortable with myself. This was the right choice for me. Nothing about saying that I was bisexual felt off at all. I had accepted myself. It took me until I was 22 but I finally did it.

Once I figured out exactly who I was, a weight had lifted off my shoulders. A huge amount of happiness has been with me through Pride because I finally feel like I belong in the community where I’ve always belonged. Now that I’ve accepted myself completely, I’ve even started to realize that one of the first crushes I ever had was a girl when I was very little. I didn’t realize what it was at the time but I had a crush on her just like I did boys as I grew up.

The lesson I learned throughout my entire journey is that you shouldn’t be afraid to call yourself whatever sexuality you think you might be. If I had embraced what I first wanted to call myself from the start, I think I would have learned to accept myself A LOT sooner. If you think bisexual is a good fit for you, go with it. Don’t be afraid to call yourself that because you don’t tick every box like I did. Being bisexual means different things to different people. To me, it means I've attracted my own gender and any other genders.

If you think you are bisexual and are afraid to say that because you’ve never felt romantic attraction or sexual attraction toward your own gender (or you’ve experienced very little) you don’t have to be. You can still wear that label if you feel like it suits you. Being bi is an experience, your experience doesn’t have to be exactly like everyone else’s experience. It's okay if you’ve never been with your own gender and its okay if you never are (I haven’t been with anyone at all and that’s okay too), it doesn’t erase your bisexuality. If you’re more attracted to a certain gender, that’s okay, it doesn’t mean you’re not bisexual. Don’t be afraid to be you.

Also, try not to stress too much about it figuring out exactly what you want to call yourself. I truly wish I hadn’t. I think it happens naturally. But don’t be afraid to try things out. If you call yourself one thing for a while and it turns out it doesn’t suit you, it’s okay to try out another term.

I’d also like to say, it’s okay if you don’t come out right away. Come out when you want to (and to who you want to) and when you think you’re ready. I’ve personally only felt comfortable coming out to my close friends (and the internet) and I doubt I’ll ever come out to my personal family (I just don’t feel a need to). But, do you. Come out when you want, to who you want and at your own pace.

This was a long rambling mess and if you somehow made it through this entire post, you’re wonderful. 

It’s Pride. Be yourself, be loud, be proud, love yourself and celebrate yourself.

[english-major-in-exile-blog]

Honestly Ben by Bill Konigsberg

Summary:

Ben Carver is back to normal. He's working steadily in his classes at the Natick School. He just got elected captain of the baseball team. He's even won a full scholarship to college, if he can keep up his grades. All that foolishness with Rafe Goldberg the past semester is in the past. Except... There's Hannah, the gorgeous girl from the neighboring school, who attracts him and distracts him. There's his mother, whose quiet unhappiness Ben is noticing for the first time. School is harder, the pressure higher, the scholarship almost slipping away. And there's Rafe, funny, kind, dating someone else . . . and maybe the real normal that Ben needs.

Okay, so I liked Openly Straight. It wasn’t a perfect book, but I really enjoyed the way it explored Rafe’s character and the way that being gay (or re-closeted) impacted his place in the world.

This is not that book.

Honestly Ben is about Ben, Rafe’s friend and crush from the first book, exploring his sexuality, really. Which is a great topic! It was really nice that this book actually says the word “bisexual.” And “asexual,” “genderqueer” and a number of identities, for that matter. It did a good job of pulling in different identities. I also liked that Ben felt like a fully fledged character.

But.

If this book is really going to be about Ben exploring his sexuality and considering which label works for him, then all of the bisexual stereotypes that are slung throughout the book are not at all helpful. Especially because the biphobia is never contradicted. Ever. Ben doesn’t do research beyond looking at a few buff guys and not being attracted to them. The GSA is actively unhelpful. We don’t get one character with a more nuanced view. Instead, we get, from various characters:

1. Bisexual people find every person attractive (p. 52). 2. Bisexuality is a “phase” or a “transitionary period” for one to becoming gay (p. 96). 3. Bi/pansexuality is determined by what genders you have experiences with (p. 143). 4. Bisexuality means you’re half gay and half heterosexual (p. 233, 246). 5. Bisexuals are “confused” or “can’t make up their mind” (p. 134-7). 6. Bisexuals cannot be monogamous (p. 144).

And where he lands — straight, but gay for Rafe — is a fine label, but it’s not a person choosing it for himself. That label is a decision made by the author (an openly gay man), and when the book doesn’t once mention bisexuality in a way that isn’t based on stereotypes, and much as Konigsberg wants to defend himself on the subject that doesn’t cover the fact that the flawed, limited view of bisexuality is his choice. The bisexual uncle character was an opportunity to broaden the view, but that is not what that character does, and Konigsberg’s use of that point to dismiss accusations that he failed to stick the landing on this feels a bit like saying “But I have a bi friend!”

Well, Bill, I have bisexual friends, too, and one of the things they have struggled with is the idea of proportion. Many identified as straight for years before accepting that occasionally being attracted to someone of the same sex could count as bisexual if that’s the label that felt right. A few identified as lesbians before claiming bisexuality as a valid label for their sexuality. There’s an idea that you have to be a never-right-or-left-of-center Kinsey 3 to be bisexual, and this book does nothing to contradict that misconception.

And, as someone who isn’t sure if bisexual is the right label for her, even at 27, someone writing for young people needs to do better. I’m still deprogramming from all these stereotypes that I absorbed in my youth, and here you are putting them at the forefront.

You can do better, Bill. And a young audience deserves better.

Final Verdict:

If this book weren’t so much about sexuality and identity, I wouldn’t judge it nearly so harshly. However, because the exploration of one’s sexuality is central to the text, the unquestioned bisexual stereotypes that are everywhere in the text make it a flawed, frustrating mess, especially after Openly Straight’s excellent exploration of sexuality and how it impacts your place in society. 2/5