Pseudobisexuality: D or D?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
So, some people were yammering on about some bands called "Tool" and "Muse," and a much more interesting point developed: the mention of those who pretend to be "bi" to pass themselves off as interesting people. Is this fucking lame, or what?

matthew m., Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Why, yes, Matthew, having been out with at least one of these sort of people, I can assure you that it is indeed preposterous! Despite the inherent implications that those bent among us are somehow cooler than the straighter types.

matthew m., Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Playing with gender roles can have a deeper meaning. Although I am not a fan of Bowie's music, I do realize his gender fucking (stupid pun intended) played a far greater role than in Muse's and Placebo's case. In Bowie's case it was tied to politics and social setting.

cuba libre (nathalie), Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

You don't think some men can simply look good in make up?

Honda, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Whoa! Whoa! Thread resteering initiated: I am not talking about musicians in this case! I am talking about my dumbass ex and those in his company! Here is the thread if you wish to talk about Muse or Tool or Placebo!

matthew m., Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Very few pop star quotes have got as much mockery as Brett Anderson's "I'm a bisexual who's never had a homosexual experience" - but is this actually an untenable position? And if so why?

(It was in Brett's case because as a nascent pop star he clearly had had every opportunity to have a homosexual experience - the only barrier to his having one was his not actually wanting one. But imagine the person saying this had only had a sexual experience with one person, who happened to be of a different sex - would it still be a ridiculous statement?)

(I'm a heterosexual who has had a homosexual experience! Why is that a less stupid statement (if it is))

Tom, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I understand. But what I said also applies to non-musicians of course.

cuba libre (nathalie), Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Sorry Matthew I talked about pop stars anyway!

Tom, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Despite the inherent implications that those bent among us are somehow cooler

I am so very, very cool.

Sean, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

sexual authenticity = the new rockism

since 'queer' is still evolving, it's not always sufficient (e.g. A : "So what are you?" B : "Queer" A : "Yesyes but are you gay or bi or straight etc?") - if yr "interested" in genderfuck/liquid- identity/non-prescribed etc, 'bi' is better than 'straight' or 'gay' as self-descriptor, but then you go & apply straitjackets. of course, people doing this thwart the truly 'ardkore bi-types because it reinforces traditional gay suspicion towards them (ie "fence- sitting", "dithering", "wanting to retain heterosexual social powerups", "backpackers", "co-option" + LOTS MORE).

(I think I may have failed to answer your question somewhere along the line.)
(& Tom maybe he "hadn't found the right person" or something along those lines, although that doesn't de-problematise his comment)

Ess Kay, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

You don't think some men can simply look good in make up?

Even Brian Molko? Oops, sorry, pop star.

Sean, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

(& Tom maybe he "hadn't found the right person" or something along those lines

Yeah fair enough - I wish I still had the interview, the context was IIRC very much look-how-liberated-I-am rather than wow I wish I could have that elusive homo experience but the right person hasn't come along. It played well with the kids, anyway.

Tom, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i've also heard this concept referred to as the "college bisexual".

dud

geeta, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Along the lines of the accusations this thread seems to have been started with . . .

White Males assuming non-straight gender identity because it's easier to do than biological sex or race (insert quotation mark-s where appropriate) in terms of Other-ising yourself or distancing yourself from privilege in terms of artistic/moral/fashion/etc authenticity/superiority/hipness/etc; or the assumption of aforementioned reason thereof - classic or dud? Has the widely heralded death of class got anything to do with this?

Ess Kay, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

it's not the males i know who do that, it's part of the early-teen- girl-Wiccan-bisexual-goth phase that a very high percentage of the people i know went through. and some of them are still in it so maybe it's not a phase but i swear if you knew her you couldn't take her seriously you'd just want to smack her for being a two-faced bitch and...oh wait. we're talking people in GENERAL here, and my making a generalization out of a specific case is not working.

Maria, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Ah, thanks for the context - glam authenticity (also : Placebo)?
But imagine the person saying this had only had a sexual experience with one person, who happened to be of a different sex - would it still be a ridiculous statement? + "hadn't found the right person"
would seem to work, though - smaller social circles or the likes, general non-popstar broadcast-self or something.

Ess Kay, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Grr you guys know what I meant. The first two posts scared me into thinking my question was going to turn into talk about Bowie's man-dresses or something, and I meant on a more directly interpersonal level.

Also, I don't mean to imply that I'm a sexual authenticist--because I'm a authenticist in general, if anything. Like guys and girls? This is fine. Pretending to be something you're not because you see it as "cool," especially when I am a member of the subculture you are mock-emulating? It becomes simultaneously flattering and threatening, not to mention upsetting, due to my personal feelings about autheniticity in self-representation.

matthew m., Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

If it means you get to shag some cute straight boy who's playing at being bi, then CLASSIC yay!!

Sean, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Sean, but this is what I am bemoaning above! :( The morning after is not so yay. :\

matthew m., Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

matthew, should I be upset that white girls are going to prom in Kimono-inspired dresses because it is mock-emulating my culture? Why does it have to be pretending, why can't it be a stylistic choice adhering to one's aesthetic sensibilities?

Honda, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

It boils down to the definition of "privilege" I think. "Privilege" tends to get expressed in economic and social terms but for me my main 'privilege' as a straight white guy is the opportunity to cruise/consume subcultures without any kind of committment. And the 'equality' I'd aspire to would be one where everybody in a society could do this: a world without "mornings after", so to speak.

Tom, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah women do it to. witness the fake lesbianism on australian big brother the other night. basically some girl was in the spa pashing on with her boyfriend, about three other girls came up and pashed on with her as well, you could just see all over the boyfs face he was gettin a stiffy, so he should of, it was all for him. i mean they wouldn't have all pashed on if the boyf hadn't been involved. that woulda been a bit too lezzo. it made me want to puke. fake lesbianism has been sold to dumm girls who think they can be a little exotic with it, but by doing it purely for male titillation they can escape the bad shit that goes with really being lesbian. but i don't need to say this, i think everyone knows my perspective on it.

di, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

To claim someone's sexuality is an aesthetic choice is really fucking slanderous and makes me very angry. I did not choose my sexuality, thank you very much, and it is very rude and presumptuous of you to consider it on the same level as clothing. This is what I meant when I said "threatening" above.

matthew m., Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The equivalent, given your stated scenario, Honda: not kimonos, but drawn-on lengthened, narrow eyes and yellowish foundation makeup.

matthew m., Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

So how about that Brian Molko?

Sean, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Ok, I crossed a line I did not intend to. matthew I didn't mean to undermind your sexuality or propose that people should for the sake of an image. What I did assume is that the people you are accusing involve some sort of visual element (bi-ness showing off as coolness, etc.). I'm not intertwining sexuality and gender here... I'm saying some men may be aesthetically interested in certain things designated as "feminine". Is somebody with such intentions pretending to be bi so they can be cool? Is this necessarily true?

I used an example of clothing because a lot of the people I *thought* you had in mind are really operating on exactly that level of superficiality. They aren't trying to pass themselves off as bi or gay any more than those girls are passing themselves off as genuine Asians.

I'm sorry about what my original post seemed to have implied.

Honda, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"didn't mean to underMINE..."

Honda, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Right, I understand that I wasn't being very clear about this (I should have saved a lot of grief above by saying "clothing" instead of "musicians" in my redirection post), and I'm sorry about that. I am referring to something on a more interpersonal level, rather than an aesthetic one.

And your apology is most definitely accepted. Thank you. :)

matthew m., Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I know a girl who claims to be a lesbian but has only fucked - and continues to fuck - guys. What the hell is that?

Ally, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

what a weirdo. i know someone like that too.

hamish, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

A poser. I have been accused (gently, though) of being a 'gay-acting male,' but I've never tried to lead anyone on and would feel terribly bad if I did. My interest is in brainy, cool and sexy females. :-)

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

so matt you're saying you slept with a guy and the next day he tells you he's not really gay/bi?

There was an article in Salon or something forever ago the kind of thing Honda is talking about... guys making fashion/appearance/social choices designed to emulate and infiltrate a hip gay subculture. I forget what the goal of all that was, but the article did quote some gay bartender familiar with the phenomenon saying that most of the guys who fake it like that have experimented with homosexual experiences, so there's the tie-in with the interpersonal situations I perceive matthew to be talking about.

Sounds like a duddish behavior... an ex-girlfriend of mine told me after our relationship was over that she might be a lesbian, but I think she was doing the same kind of trying-to-achieve-uniqueness thing. But i'm of the opinion that striving to be different/unique as an end in itself is pretty ridiculous. especially when you discuss your uniqueness in conversation.

I also had a practicing lesbian tell me i was the most incredible person she'd ever met and that when wet met and danced the week before at a wedding that she didn't want that moment to end. She didn't know what to do since she was (and still is, i assume) living with her girlfriend. I'm not not THAT good a dancer. So, like, wtf?

If you're gay and you sleep with someone, and they tell you the next day that they're not really gay, how different is that from any disappointing morning after? Like "sorry, i'm not really gay" vs. "sorry, i don't really like fat chicks" or something? Just disappointing? Sexual Identity vs. Body Image Identity... is matthew feeling let down and taking it too seriously or is there more to the story?

Stuart, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

all these people should go to a gay niteclub and find out how boring the gay lifestyle really is. and then they should pretend they're astronauts.

hamish, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

It's a plan. Will I get a shiny uniform?

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

WE ARE ALL MADE OF SEQUINS

bc, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

sure. i've changed my mind abt the gay niteclub thing. they should all come around to my place and listen to me talk about computer programming for three hours. and then they will realise the bisexuals are boring and geeky and mundane. or even better they may start pretending to be computer programmers.

hamish, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I'll test that out in September. And then Di can slap me upside the head for foolish comments made to all and sundry or something. ;-)

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

so matt you're saying you slept with a guy and the next day he tells you he's not really gay/bi?

Not exactly; I meant "morning after" metaphorically, in this case. As it turned out, I went out with someone for a relatively short period of time, during which I gradually discovered that he just liked having me around to show off and talk about having a boyfriend. Urgh.

matthew m., Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Also, no, this was not the initial occasion that I first started to think about pseudobisexuality (I can't even remember when that was; probably in high school), so it's not really a matter of "bitter Matthew posts a bitchy thread a year later, and I pretty much suspected that there was something like this up from the start, but I was really attracted to him, and that was a big cloud in the face.

matthew m., Tuesday, 14 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Hamish - I suggest that along with the gay niteclub visit and housecall, these people actually have sex. They can't have, can they?

charles, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

but who would want to fuck a fake bi? not me.

hamish, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

liking poe and crap jungle is a much bigger crime.

ethan, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Okay, okay, I'll do it, it's all the same, only the positions have changed. 'Do it,' get it?

charles, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The faces are so cold! But the bodies are so warm!

charles, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

So you have sex with someone and next day you find out they're 'not who they said they were'!!!! Gee, what a tragedy. Welcome to the world. If somebody wants to impersonate an impersonator or can't even tell the difference themselves anymore, who cares? I don't understand why people get so tied in knots over this 'identity' bullshit, though I suppose as an SWM I don't really need to

dave q, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm kind of confused about this. I thought psuedobisexual usually translated as het person who has no sexual attraction to the same sex but pretends they have for cool points. What Matthew seems to be bitching about is rather different. If a bloke shags another bloke and then says the next morning he's straight, I'd suggest his pants were probably pretty close to ignition but that he hardly fits the definition of pseudobi above.

RickyT, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

perhaps RickyT - my def. of pseudobi is pretty much the same as yours (and we've both met a couple havent we!?) but the way i read this is that matthew had the misfortune to pick up a pseudobi/"bicurious" bloke, who after the hem hem homosexual expericence decided that this curiosity had been satisfied. i mean, i'd be pretty pissed off if someone had used me like that and got into my bed under false pretences! and since matthew obviously feels extremely strongly about his status as a bi, he's understandably pissed off with those he considers mere "tourists".

katie, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Dave - not all bisexuals are into SWM actually, that is a myth of the internet

charles, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm not sure what the "false pretences" would be though Katie? RickyT's definition is fairly clear-cut and sensible - somebody who says they're attracted to a gender that they're actually not. Whereas condemning people for being "bi-curious" or a "college bisexual" or going through "phases" just strikes me as drawing far too rigid lines around people's sexual development. From what Matthew's said about his particular experience it sounds to be like it was the difference in intensity and committment that was the central problem, with the sexuality thing adding insult to injury - treating a boy/girlfriend as a trophy is shitty whatever gender the trophy-parader is and whoever s/he usually sleeps with.

Tom, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

(Blimey it seems that the Oz Big Brother is just copying the UK big brother CF the mingy Elizabeth/Amma/Helen lez up thing for PAUL! URGH! to perve all over! Urgh! Ur back to actually quite good thread programming now please)

Sarah, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Tom is so on the money he's Scrooge McDuck. I really hope Momus reads his last post.

RickyT, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

'Don't exploit'???? That implies 'don't interact with other ppl'!

dave q, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

only in your cynical world, dave q... and yes hahaha i hope Momus reads tom's last post as well!

katie, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Yah boo sux to this hypersexualised environment more cold showers urgent and key.

Sarah, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Years ago, my then-wife mentioned that I was bi to her fellow students at college. One wanted to know how she put up with the promiscuity, and she had to explain that there was none. Another earnest young man said that I shouldn't say that: he used to say he was bi, because he believed that everyone was fundamentally bi, then a chance arose and he realised he wasn't. Therefore I shouldn't say that I was bi. He thought this said something about me rather than him.

One of my oldest friends, who's gay, eventually gave away that he didn't take my claims to be bi seriously. I'd been with the aforementioned wife for twenty years, and the opportunity arose. He actually said "How do you know you're bi if you've never had sex with a man?" I asked how he'd known he was gay before he had sex with a man, or if that happened accidentally - "What's this thing in my mouth? Hey, this is nice..." I don't think he did believe it until recently, when I was able to tell him that I'd confirmed my bi-ness in a varied series of real tests...

Martin Skidmore, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

An acquaintance of mine, actually, once described herself as a female Brett Anderson: a bisexual woman who'd never had a homosexual experience. Flirted with women a lot but only actually slept with her boyfriend of many years. Exactly the kind of nominal pseudo-bi y'all are whaling on here.

Then she met the woman of her dreams, left her boyfriend, and moved to Texas with aforesaid woman. Which just goes to show.

Douglas, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

What happened to the boyfriend?

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Who cares?

N., Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

He was too busy taking pictures.

Dan Perry, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

no Douglas, we're whaling (?? americang term meaning slagging off?) on the "pseudo-bis" who swan around announcing that they fancy both sexes and not only have never done anything about it (but this is cool, everyone has to start somewhere, right?) but have NO INTENTION of ever doing so, and are straight through and through but feel that this is too boring and non-edgy an image to present to people. the people who do it for cool points and are basically fibbing to all and sundry. people who actually ARE bisexual - whether experienced or not - i don't see anyone "whaling" on. (this term is odd, it makes me think of harpoons, not nice!)

katie, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

and i guess that these people annoy me for the same reason as they annoy michael above - i'm straight and the pseudobis are saying this makes me not interesting enough EVEN THOUGH they too are straight? i mean i know i could never be as cool and hip as Sean, but all the same... ;)

katie, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Labeling people as "psuedo-bi" bothers me. Here's why:

This label was and still is applied to me libelouslly and in complete mean spirit by someone many of you know (hence the anon posting.) Her basis for accusing me of "trendy lesbianism" is not only completely wrong but quite frankly none of her business.

No one has the right to judge whether or not someone "passes the muster" in terms of sexuality. So someone isn't really bi until they have a same sex experience? How many experiences? What counts as sex? Do you see how complicated and ridiculous this can get?

In my case I had been with a man for 10 years but considered myself bisexual because I had always been attracted to both. While I was married to this man I met and fell in love with a woman. We split up (I'm not the type to carry on affairs). While I didn't end up with this woman I did date (and have sex) with women and men for the next few years. I am now in a committed relationship with a man. Does this make me "psuedo-bi"?

The person who slanders me does so, I believe, because for a while I called myself Lesbian and lived as such. After ending my marriage I thought perhaps I would date women exclusively. This turned out not to be the case, I was truly bi. Does this mean I was exploiting anyone? does this make me a phony?

For me personally, love and sex knows no gender. I'm in a relationship with the person I am with now because I love him. Gender has nothing to do with it.

People who would accuse me of being "trendy" don't have a fucking clue.

Anon., Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"whaling" also see "wailing" or "waling" or something. It literally means the act of beating the crap out of someone - "I looked over and he was just whaling on some dudes head"

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

It comes from the popular late night show feat. James Whale, WHALE ON! Probably.

Sarah, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

labels are yawnerific - people just fuck other people, then they fuck others.

Queen G's netherlands, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Fucking hell, a massive thread developing from a point I made? That's just wrong...

In my experience (because there are a lot of these types around), pseudobisexuality tends to occur in white, male, middle class boys with mild alternative tastes in music (Placeo, Ash, Idlewild, Strokes, etc). In the same way that its suggested that white middle class males develop persecution complexes when faced with the fact that they have to operate on a level playing field with everyone else, the pseud-bi acts like a bisexual because it gives him the chance to feel part of a minority, similar to his music taste.

Of course, if a gay man actually came on to him, he'd shit himself, but, hey....

Judd Nelson, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Thank you, Tom, for pretty much saying everything I would be saying if I wasn't way too busy with exam papers to post anything at all here--as opposed to merely something figurative and confusing (cf all of my contributions yesterday) as I procrastinated on said papers.

Also, "Anonymous," you have clearly not read the entire thread, in which the majority of the people who agree with me also agree that the lack of homosexual experience is not the invalidating factor--it's the false pretense aspect of things.

Time to go back to writing about adolescents.

matthew m., Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

So people who use faked sexuality as a tool to hurt people = Dud. People who're experimenting or not sure and mean no harm = not dud. People who fake it for cool points = pathetic.

In my personal experience, I've only known girls to pull the pseudo- gay act and it's always been used as a weapon to attack or harrass ex- boyfriends, I think.

No whales were harmed during the making of this thread.

Stuart, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

In my personal experience, I've only known girls to pull the pseudo- gay act and it's always been used as a weapon to attack or harrass ex- boyfriends, I think.

thats different to me. i've only known girls who do it to titillate the current boyfriend.

di, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i've only known girls who do it...in no relation to whether they have boyfriends or ex-boyfriends.

Maria, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah though i know of boys who do it too... several homo friends who regularly get taunted by boys who fake it.

di, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I am under the impression that girls like kissing and touching simply for the sensual pleasure of it. Little girls seem to like hugging, plaiting each other's hair, etc. Historically, it seems that it was quite acceptable for girls - and aristocratic boys - to 'practise romance' on each other before launching into the real, and more dangerous, world of heterosexual romance. This practise romance wouldn't necessarily be strongly sexual in tone, but still intense and passionate. Many people have this type of ill-defined relationship with their best friend. Colette describes it well in her 'Claudine' books. I get the impression that some of what you describe as 'mock-gayness' is part of this continuum of physical closeness.

Charles, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

If someone else doesn't understand what this thread is about, especially when Stuart outlined it using equals signs above, I'm gonna spit. Where did I go wrong?

matthew m., Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

but sex = evil cuddling!

charles, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

In the Claudine books, they have what you call 'sex'

charles, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I meant that perhaps you could go so far as to perform what are now known as sexual acts, without having a relationship that was 'sexual in tone'

charles, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

But not in your case, Matthew M. (re the boy who pretended.)

charles, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I am under the impression that girls like kissing and touching simply for the sensual pleasure of it. Little girls seem to like hugging, plaiting each other's hair, etc.

this is essentialist bollocks.

di, Wednesday, 15 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Perhaps it is all environmental. I'm sure a little girl raised in a Skinner box wouldn't love hugging (sorry if you don't know the stupid mythical experiment I'm referring to.)

charles, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

sorry, i should have put that in a less inflammatory manner... but yeah, you can't remove the "little girls" you speak of from their cultural context.

di, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

what about psuedo heteros?

Queen G's netherlands, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I prevent emotional upheaval by believing that anyone who speaks to me in an inflammatory tone was raised in a Skinner box.

charles, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't think you went wrong matthew. Threads always get derailed along the way.

Ms. S., Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes, yes, this is fine, but the number of people who have posted to this thread without reading (or, at least, digesting) the subject material is preposterous. Or, perhaps, preposterously GRATE!! I don't care, I'm finished with my exams.

matthew m., Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

girls who are pseudo to turn ME on = classic!

Sterling Clover, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I am under the impression that girls like kissing and touching simply for the sensual pleasure of it. Little girls seem to like hugging, plaiting each other's hair, etc....Many people have this type of ill-defined relationship with their best friend.

I think this is true. Not for all girls but for most. And you're right probably some of the confusion comes from there.

Maria, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Cry!! Except that I am referring specifically to those who actively pretend to be bisexual. Not when other people go, "Oh, WEIRD, same-sex intimacy shown between two heterosexuals! THEY MUST BE POSERS" which is just silly.

matthew m., Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

which "little girls"? where? how old is "little"? why do you think this is?

look, i'm not pretending to not notice that in the western world (and even that is a generalisation that i am uncomfortable with) many girls are raised in an environment where they are given incentive to act in a feminine manner (not forgetting that there are PUNISHMENTS for girls who fail to do this), but you simply cannot state what "little girls" are like without this context. and i am especially uncomfortable with someone (which i am assuming from the name "charles") who is a male making these generalisations.

di, Thursday, 16 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I want a girl raised in a Skinner box for my birthday.

N., Friday, 17 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I want *two* for mine, pseudobis if possible.

Sterling Clover, Friday, 17 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

She pretends to be bi for me --> she loves me!

Sterling Clover, Friday, 17 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Uh, creepy.

Graham, Friday, 17 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"insert quotation mark-s where appropriate"

mark s, Saturday, 18 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Last night a friend of our new housemate was introducing herself to me (she was quite, intoxicated) and after the name/what coures are you on/where are you from/ect bit she just says "I have sex with girls". Does this fit in the whole pséudobi stereotype?

(also I've just noticed "pseudobi" ~= "CdeB")

Graham, Saturday, 18 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

what a silly way to introduce yourself. my old flatmates told me they'd lived with this girl who did that too on the day she moved in. she also claimed that she was a virgin, because apparently sex with girls doesn't count as real sex. hmmm?!?!

di, Sunday, 19 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"I have sex with girls"

I too often use this as fall-back when I can't think of any other way to introduce myself.

Someone was telling me yesterday that The Rock is annoying the WWF(E) community by going around boasting about (invented) gay experiences. Is that true?

N., Monday, 20 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

is that true?

dear n, does yr gaydar not fly off the meter when you see the rock?

di, Monday, 20 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i might change my answer to DUD due to very coopting poser person who seems to define emself by clothing etc & constantly referring to eir bisexuality, despite being, as far as I can tell/have known said individual, very straight. context ey were working in didn't really help my liking, either. GRUDGE GRUDGE MISANTHROPY etc. really fuxx0ring me off blah.

Ess Kay, Wednesday, 22 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The whole straight/bi/gay thing is a bit weird. I've been quite intolerant in the past with people who have only every had straight relationships but say they're gay when indeed what they mean is that they are bi - but then why am I so precious about it? Is it really necessary to have clear-cut categories? Why is it not okay to use the words gay or lesbian or whatever to mean "attracted to the same sex" without them also having to mean "not attracted to the opposite sex"? Perhaps, for some people, during the moments of attraction to one sex or person or whatever they feel no attraction to any other and so for some moments of their life they are straight and for others they are gay.

I'm not even sure why pseudo-bis and pseudo-gays pose such a threat to some people. I can't think in a sensible manner why they're a problem. From a more irrational point of view I hate bi girls - I think it's because I always suspect that they will eventually decide to settle down with a man and have babies (i.e. I feel that any relationship with a bi girl is doomed to not be forever).

I think that it would be harder to be bi than to be straight or gay. Both the straight a gay communities seem to want to make people to make a decision either way.

I don't think that never having had a homosexual experience and never intending to rules someone out for being gay. I know two women who had a relationship for seven years during which they lived together and raised the daughter of one of the women. They never had a physical, homosexual experience and never intend to. Some people just aren't into that sort of thing.

toraneko, Wednesday, 22 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Disappointed that there was no discussion of pseudopseudobis on this thread (that is, people who pretend that they're only pretending to be bi). Or would such a discussion fall outside Matthew's definition of "what this thread is about" and thus be invalid? In which case we can consider me a pseudoposter, i.e. someone who purports to be posting to this thread but isn't really.

Frank Kogan, Saturday, 25 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.