Can we talk about bisexuality?

@SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice Except I did not say what you claim I said. I said if you had a same sex fling at university, and since then have only had opposite sex relationships, and are now in a long term monogamous opposite sex relationship or marriage, I do not think you belong in the LGBT community.
I also have zero understanding why you are married to a man if it is women you are really sexually attracted to.

@SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice re: "we don't do that for any other sexuality"

You're right - and I think we should. My personal, very unfashionable view is that the modern framework of L, G, B, T etc, principally defined by internally-felt attraction, and moderated by a chosen identity, is not the most useful way to classify people. (I think it probably goes without saying that I think the combined LGBTQ+ is a grouping which is more of a political statement than a sexuality.)

As I said, I don't make any claim to be a member of the LGBT community so my opinion may freely disregarded.

Ok, but I’m a bit perturbed by this whole unless you are a virgin/celibate you must have had recent sex with someone of the same sex to “count” as bisexual and be part of the LGBT community.

I married at 20 to a man. We are still married. So yes, being monogamous, my last same sex relationship was over 30yrs ago, at Uni. It wasn’t a “fling” though- I was deeply in love with two of my girlfriends, the other women & men were casual sexual relationships or one night stands.

But I’m still bisexual. I have felt sexually attracted to many women and men over these married years, & been sorely tempted to have affairs. Had to pull back from friendships with women and men that were on the verge of becoming an affair - physical and/or emotional (falling in love). This sexual attraction and feelings of almost falling in love with both sexes didn’t stop because I had married a man, I dare say it would have happened if I had married a woman instead although that was illegal when I got married so I would have had to wait years to marry a woman.

The half of me that is really attracted to women is still very much alive in me. I didn’t turn straight by choosing monogamy. Nor should I be ejected from the LGBT communist because I have married the ‘wrong’ sex…🤔 there is no ‘wrong’ sex when you are bisexual anyway.

When I masturbate, I fantasise about women more often than men/my husband, probably because being monogamous with a man means that’s the only way I can sexually act on my desires for women without cheating. I often access sexually graphic memories of my ex girlfriends that even though it was over 30yrs ago can still feel like it was yesterday.

That’s why I say you can’t judge someone’s inner bisexuality by looking at things like relationship status, with which sex and how recent are the notches on the bedpost…

Virgin or celibate is fine.
George Michael got it right when he said it is not just about who you have sex with it, it is who you fall in love with.

Married to a man you mean. Not just married.
Shouldn’t even need to have had sex to be part of the LGBT community.

I don’t think there should be such gate keeping. Like what threshold do you think should apply? A minimum of 5 same sex “flings” with none being more than 2/5/10 years ago to prove your bisexuality?

What if someone is a virgin or celibate due to religious or medical reasons? Can’t belong to the community either?

Of course lots of bisexual people are monogamous. But if your only same sex experience is a fling at university, and you are now married in a monogamous relationship, then no I do not think you belong in the LGBT community.

@OneAmberFinch
I dunno, I think all your assumptions based on what you think the majority of married bi womens’ inner sexuality is like are doomed from the outset.

Monogamy doesn’t mean a bisexual person is really a spicy heterosexual or spicy homosexual and they’ve decided the prefer a man over a woman- many of us are serial monogamists.

Following your assumptions, the really or standard bisexual people should all be in polyamorous relationships, all the time…

You aren’t trying to spin off a group of bisexual women based on anything to do with their sexuality, but based on their decision to be monogamous or polyamorous.

We don’t do that for any other sexuality. Why? Because only bisexuals are seen as incapable of monogamy and it’s this biphobia that is colouring your assumptions and pushing you to divide bisexuals into two groups- the ‘spicy straight/gay’ who are married to 1 other person so not “really” bisexual and bisexuals who aren’t in a long term monogamous relationship who fit into the biphobic stereotype you have internalised.

I mean, if you don't see yourself in that group, then I guess you're not. But I still contend that it's a very big group and makes up the majority of married bi women, i.e. a significant enough % that it's not an unreasonable assumption to make about someone.

I think there's this idea that in order for a relationship to "count", it needs to have the possibility of leading to a marriage/LTR, introducing the parents etc. Which leads a lot of bi women to almost force themselves to think that their lesbian-until-graduation fling / bestfriendship that they know in their heart of hearts isn't going to be the one they walk down the aisle with, is a possibility.

I think that's a modern way of framing it which does disservice to these other types of relationships which can be very important in their own right. I know this is very unfashionable to say in the LGBTQ community, but I make no claims to be part of it so I feel free to comment! (FYI, I broadly fit into the category I described myself - I realised from my posts that it might seem I was a lesbian woman, which is a fine thing to be but not what I am.)

I wouldn't disagree that such a group of women exists, but I don't think your list applies to all of us - and this is where I'd disagree with the 'spicy straight' label as a general term for bi-women currently in a marriage/LTR with a man.

If you are, or wanted to be, monogamous and have ended up finding monogamy with a man, it doesn't mean that you sought a man, specifically, or had any desire to give birth to children etc. The reality is that most of us don't have a huge pool of candidates for a LTR from which we can take our pick - it isn't a case of choosing a notional man over a notional woman - it's a case of finding a non-notional person with whom you are compatible in all the ways needed for a LTR and who is accepting of your bi-sexuality, including history with their opposite sex.

Well. I’m a woman currently married to a man but don’t otherwise match your bullet points so that label falls down.

Why can’t the exclusion from group be based on behaviour in the group. Be an idiot and talk over people when it really isn’t your place, then you should leave whatever your status.

Disclaimer: I would definitely not expect to bring my husband with me! He really would be superfluous as would any discussion of him.

I’m still Bi though. Not straight.

Corollary, don't seriously consider the idea of entering into a forever-relationship with a woman

"Don't seriously consider the idea of entering into a forever-relationship with a woman human" is basically me. I feel trapped inside my own skin when other people are in my house, yet I still want sex every now and then. I can see how a lesbian would mistake me for someone who fitted your other bullet points.

I wonder how many of the new "queer" "relationship orientation" labels, like "aromantic", have come from autistic people looking to find shorthand ways to describe how we feel about sex, marriage, sharing a home, kids, and all the rest of it?

I'm being a bit flippant, but I think this is a labelling term. I think almost everyone would agree that there is a group of women who:

• Have either never had a sexual experience with a woman, or have only had experiences short of a long-term relationship (kissed a girl in a bar, intense "best friend" situation, short fling at uni, threesome with another woman etc)
• If they did have these experiences, enjoyed them and found them positive, and potentially open to having them again if circumstances allowed
• Continue to find women attractive in a theoretical way
• Are currently in, or if currently single, are usually in a monogamous heterosexual relationship
• See themselves with a man long-term, living a heterosexual married life raising their own biological children with the father
• Corollary, don't seriously consider the idea of entering into a forever-relationship with a woman

I think this is a distinct group of women who have shared experiences with each other, and "deserve" a label and would find it interesting to support each other. I think whether we call them "spicy straights" or "married bi woman", it's hard to dispute that this group exists and is large.

Sorry, I presume you mean 'judging by observation' but I still don't see how this can tell you that a lot of bi-women are "spicy straight" as you put it. The only way you can know a woman is 'spicy straight' is if she tells you, and even if it is the case that some bi-women of your acquaintance have described themselves as such, this isn't a basis for your sweeping statement.

Like, going outside ever?

But a lot of bi women in relationships ARE spicy straight. Or not spiced at all but the spice jar is on the table and could theoretically be sprinkled over the plate ;) It's not like it's an assumption that came out of thin air.

You say it isn't an assumption, so what evidence are you basing that statement on?

But a lot of bi women in relationships ARE spicy straight. Or not spiced at all but the spice jar is on the table and could theoretically be sprinkled over the plate ;) It's not like it's an assumption that came out of thin air.

A little more gatekeeping means you can make more accurate assumptions.

Fwiw, I think at an LGBTQ+ event the range of experiences is so wide that it seems reasonable to me to include even bi-curious people. Likewise a trans-inclusive lesbian group. But I don't see any issue with a lesbian-only group, or an individual lesbian woman looking for lesbian friends, to filter for people who've actually had lesbian experiences.

But one of the issues (we’ve seen on here to an extent) is that some people assume bi women in hetero appearing relationships are spicy straight. We’re not. I’ve been in a long term relationship with a woman and if I was ever to find myself single again I’d be more likely to date women out of choice.

Some do seek to exclude people like me.

Disclaimer: I wouldn’t, at a lesbian/LGBT (I personally wouldn’t attend a trans exclusionary group - my decision not the place to discuss) go on and on about my husband. Nor if it wasn’t a family focused event would I go on and on about my children. That’s just rude.

So as I said upthread, by all means exclude rude, annoying people. Totally on board for that. But not all bi defining people kissed a girl once and moved on. The suggestion is offensive. We’re bi whoever we’re with just as a single lesbian is still a lesbian.

(i.e. those last two are other examples of useful behaviour-based groupings that include people of all sexual "orientation" identities but define their boundaries based on observable behaviours)

I think there'll probably always be room for "attraction-based" identity groups!

But in your example above, a lesbian probably wants a friend who actually has experience of being in a lesbian relationship who can give her practical advice. Obviously she could also ask her straight married friends for general relationship support or just to have a chat - that's great - but I don't see that there's meaningfully better advice she could get from a "bi" married friend who once had a bit of a crush on a female friend but in practice has had entirely heterosexual relationships.

If the bi married friend has previous experience in a lesbian relationship, then I'd count her in my "behaviour-based" grouping. I just overall feel that behaviour-based groupings instead of attraction-based groupings are more useful, but the latter framing is so entrenched in people's minds that people forget it's a pretty recent innovation.

It's analogous to the grouping "MSM" for HIV targeted messaging, or for e.g. including "political lesbians" in a campaign for marriage equality.

I get that...but it's not inevitable. I spend time on r/WLW sometimes & the bi women there post only about women. If they want men, there's a bi subreddit for that. Most of them are serious about dating women, not mourning lost opportunities, though I have sympathy for those who are, or simply identifying as bi to be trendy, like many unicorn hunters.

I think you're missing thr point. There are very few lesbian spaces. Many lesbians want lesbian friends but don't want to be out on the town, in a bar etc. So a knitting group is a lovely idea. You cousin obvs didn't need more lesbian friends, which is fine. but otoh many lesbians would like to know more & a hobby group is a nice way to get to know people who jave sexualiry in common w you, but one that lets you bond over something that isn't sexuality related, bc obvs being gay isn't enough to make people friends w each other.. The hobby club is also serving an extra function in this case.

@Burntt, I've heard these issues before & have a lot of sympathy. Lesbians can have awful experiences w people who make them feel they're not good enough as not male. But that's no excuse for being horrible to you.
On the approaching issue, I know how awful dating apps are. You say women never approach- the issue w being used to men is that you have the approached mindset, but I can see that it's harder to approach women if there's no lesbian spaces?

For some that would be the gap. But for others, they may want someone who shares the understanding & experience of same-sex relationships, which by default has a different dynamic to an opposite sex one, how different ofc depends on the individuals. Sttaight female friends often discuss relationships, or that can be a bonding thing for some. So it makes sense that lesbians may want to have a friend who has that in common w her.

I feel like in the fight against idpol, it's worth remembering that identity based groups can stil be important to people, & that shouldn't be pooh-poohed by default.

MarieDeGournay, I agree w a lot what you've said.
I think the things w issue groups is that they're going to be v different often. Yes there is a big difference between lesbians & bi women, or sometimes not as much, depending on whether the bi woman is w a woman or man.
Similarly, gay men's issues are often quite different from lesbians, & to generalise, I would say that lesbians have been more willing to help than vice versa, though otoh lesbians never faced something as awful as the AIDS crisis.
I think that organising as a huge block, or smaller subgroups, can't have a hard & fast answer. For things like marriage & adoption rights, LGB made sense, bc those affected all, or in the case of B, at least some.
But for issues now, while lesbian, bi , & gay people are all facing the incursion of TRAs to varying degrees, I think that separate spaces are really important for issues. They are going to be v different, & obvs people are unique, but generally members of the individual groups will have more in common w their own group in terms of issues faced. I personally think that bi women would do better apart from bi men. Judging from what I've seen on reddit, the bi men tend to dominate the space & can be quite sexist - not all, ofc.

Next you’ll be wondering who the Dykes on Bikes are…