Peter Tatchell says bisexuality will be the new normal for many

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

^In the future, as homophobia declines, most people will no longer define their sexuality so rigidly and exclusively. The boundaries between gay & straight are already blurring. Bisexuality will be the new normal for many.'

Really, Peter? I see this has attracted outrage from a number of gay men and lesbians already, and quite right too.

Denis Kavanagh on Twitter is on fiery form. twitter.com/Jebadoo2/status/1482103455460339713?s=20

As a straight woman, I look on at his weird shenanigans with incredulity. Does he have no judgement, no insight, no common sense? He was the best known gay rights campaigner in the country a few decades ago. What happened?

@prudencepuffin

No, being bi is its own thing, we’re not an overflow category for people wanting to ‘blur boundaries’ or experiment.

This. Peter Tatchell is not a useful authority on sexual behaviour.

Yes, that is also a good point. Being bisexual has nothing to do with blurring boundaries, at all. It just means being attracted to both males and females. Nothing 'blurry' there, at all.

And certainly no adjusting of boundaries - in fact, wtf does he mean by describing orientation as a 'boundary'? Something is off there - is it the presumption of 'yes' rather than 'no', again? I can't quite put my finger on it.

It is that, I think. Rather than 'I am attracted to X or Y sex' it is predicated on 'I am excluding X or Y sex' as a boundary of 'who I will not sleep with'.

I've noticed this before, not sure if I've explained it well, but it is a switch of world view from 'who are you attracted to' (basic presumption of not sleeping with most people, singling out those to whom you are attracted) to 'who you will not sleep with' (basic presumption of sleeping with everyone, singling out those to whom you are not attracted).

This might not make sense yet. I am still trying to reason it out! But yes, that is 'blurring boundaries'. We have discussed this before when talking about consent - a presumption of 'yes' can perhaps be a very undesirable thing.

It was discussed in context of a programme - I think in US universities - about consent. 'no means no' was discussed as - does this imply a default 'yes' that one has to negate? Actively decline sex to avoid rape? OR should we start with a presumption of 'no' and people should seek active consent.

On this thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4196176-Consent-for-women

@ArabellaScott

It was discussed in context of a programme - I think in US universities - about consent. 'no means no' was discussed as - does this imply a default 'yes' that one has to negate? Actively decline sex to avoid rape? OR should we start with a presumption of 'no' and people should seek active consent.

No, of course it doesn't imply a default 'yes'. Why would you imagine bisexuality is a threat to consent?

Peter Tatchell is a dubious character for all the reasons mentioned.
Hopping on the thread to say that it would be great if bisexuality was more socially acceptable. It's not particularly easy to be "out" as bi, as someone said upfront lesbian groups are not welcoming of bi women, they seem to regard us as tourists (NALALT...) Straight men immediately think you'll be into threesomes

Jesus wept, Blueberry.

Hopping on the thread to say that it would be great if bisexuality was more socially acceptable. It's not particularly easy to be "out" as bi, as someone said upfront lesbian groups are not welcoming of bi women, they seem to regard us as tourists (NALALT...) Straight men immediately think you'll be into threesomes

I wonder In.part if this is all a way to create problems in order to become relevant and even paid to " fix" them. We seemed to have gone from a point where any of it was completely unacceptable to a time where gay marriage became legal ( although obviously homphobia/biphobia does still exist) and it was bit more mainstream/acceptable. To time where everyone Is having to double down on /protect their sexual orientation and boundaries because of identity being peddled as nore important than sex. Turning what is probably a normal state of being for many people ( for instance only having sex with people you have an emotional connection with being a sub category of asexuality ) into an official kind of sexuality status with its own name/flag. And now encouraging a complete overshare amd over investment in sexuality to the point nany are sick of hearing/seeing it not because they are bigoted but because in many of the circumstances its completely irrelevant or unnecessary to have it even be a focus, that it's created uts own set of problems.leading to worse misconceptions or opinions than before. Isn't Peter tatchell involved with Educate amd Celebrate? So in order to stay relevant and keep themselves in a job these problems do need to be created so they can flog the solution.

@ArabellaScott

Jesus wept, Blueberry.

So you can't - or won't - explain why you think an increase in bisexuality would lead to an erosion of consent?

Blueberry. I speak in defense of bisexuality, for the love of god. You're misunderstanding entirely the point I'm making, which has hee haw to do with bisexuality - or any sexual orientation - and is to do with consent. Did you miss the bit where I said 'Being bisexual has nothing to do with blurring boundaries, at all. It just means being attracted to both males and females. Nothing 'blurry' there, at all.'?

Or are you just being wilfully obtuse as usual?

NO, I DONT THINK AN INCREASE IN BISEXUALITY WOULD LEAD TO AN EROSION OF CONSENT.

Okay?

So you can't - or won't - explain why you think an increase in bisexuality would lead to an erosion of consent?

Probably because she quite obviously doesn't think any such thing.

Thanks, Errol. Never can be sure if it's me who's going a bit mad. Gosh it doesn't half remind me of being in an abusive, gaslighty relationship. But I always like to try and remember Hanlon's Razor.

@ArabellaScott

Thanks, Errol. Never can be sure if it's me who's going a bit mad. Gosh it doesn't half remind me of being in an abusive, gaslighty relationship. But I always like to try and remember Hanlon's Razor.

Hate to break it to you Arabella, but we're not in a relationship. I'd say personally it's a bit gaslightly to compare someone disagreeing with you on the internet to spousal abuse, but there you go.

What is it you're getting from this, Blueberry? At this point you're just here trying to be as hurtful and unpleasant as possible. Why?

I’m not that my ‘rigid and exclusive’ stance on my sexuality will ever change just because this man thinks it should.

I won’t be swayed when society becomes more accepting either.

The only thing that will be blurry as I march from my prime towards my dotage will be my eyesight.

Tatchell seems like one of those men who are

1. obsessed with sex and
2. view their obsession as a kind of moral superiority,

Presumably, like Stonewall, he considers his position to be one of “acceptance without exception” and holds himself up as an example of how everyone could be, if only they could open their minds enough.

However in reality, he is unaccepting and scornful of those who do not share his proclivities and he considers us morally inferior. He is holding up his vision of how things could theoretically be, based on his own narrow experience.

I think at this point I'm going to take a rather bizarre exception to the use of full stops which obviously imply that you're all a bunch of kitten hating reprobates. Since that appears to be the new fashion.

It is very odd how desperate some appear to derail threads and to simply invent things to derail and complain about if the actual thread does not provide it. The question it raises for me is: why is this conversation so dangerous that it has to be so urgently derailed?

@ThePrionOne

Tatchell seems like one of those men who are

1. obsessed with sex and
2. view their obsession as a kind of moral superiority,

Presumably, like Stonewall, he considers his position to be one of “acceptance without exception” and holds himself up as an example of how everyone could be, if only they could open their minds enough.

However in reality, he is unaccepting and scornful of those who do not share his proclivities and he considers us morally inferior. He is holding up his vision of how things could theoretically be, based on his own narrow experience.

This. All very good points.

And this to me always links back to a man so in denial of the harm done to him that he has to create another narrative, a reframing of it in which it was a good thing and everyone should do it. When it so very very obviously wasn't good for him at all and the evidence is in this behaviour.

Why are soo many men obsessed with sex? So many of these threads about men - activists, sex therapists, men in power, men writing about psychology and opining about what ifs, end up with some saddo with a sex obsession.

Not to mention the framing of this which is essentially:

Some people put boundaries on their sexual consent and interests.

Others find this behaviour intolerable.

Why? Because it presents them with boundaries they do not like.

So this is about forcing some to change their sexual consent and inclinations to not be about them, but to centre on meeting the needs of others.

Shall we all stop here and go and do the Freedom Programme? Because someone who responds like this to 'no' and to 'but my choices are' with 'but your body is all about me' is not good relationship material. How they choose to label their sexuality is irrelevant. Head for the hills from anyone who treats you like this.

And this to me always links back to a man so in denial of the harm done to him that he has to create another narrative, a reframing of it in which it was a good thing and everyone should do it. When it so very very obviously wasn't good for him at all and the evidence is in this behaviour.

Agree. I wanted to add something similar, but couldn’t think how to frame it. You have done so nicely

Perhaps some people are born to have such sexualities, but listening to some of them definitely gives the impression they’re justifying something in their own heads and are therefore offensive and defensive.

It's been known to psychology for a long time that men are much more prone to all kinds of sexual disorders. I think that whatever kind of development goes into the formation of male sexuality etc it's just more easily messed up.

The other thing is, women tend to be the main limiting factor in sex. Where you get instances where the sexual availability of women is for some reason not a factor, large numbers of men rack up very high numbers of sexual partners. One of those instances are where men are mainly seeing prostitutes for sex, and another is where there aren't actually women involved. This is at a statistical/population level of course.

So the PTs of the world who embrace that are coming from a lifestyle where people are just having very high numbers of sexual partners, often from the mid teen years. It's what they like, but also I suspect being part of that ends up forming your emotional attachments in a different way than a man who has a different experience. And he and people like them believe that is what real sexual freedom would look like for everyone and it's what most other people would like too if only they weren't hemmed in by social expectations.

Some thoughts:

1. This isn't in itself a new idea - I've often heard people say that sexuality is a continuum, with lots of people in the middle, e.g. 70% straight, 30% gay or vice versa.

1. Have also heard it argued that the identities "gay" and "straight" are new and that eg the ancient Greeks didn't have the concept of homosexuality, they just thought it was perfectly normal for adult men to have sex with women and boys.

1. But what is Tatchell's motive? Is there any sign at all that Tatchell has ever been attracted to a woman? Is this something he has ever admitted to?

1. My suspicion is that Tatchell is directly attacking the idea of boundaries, specifically the boundaries lesbian women have against having sexual relationships with men or trans women.

1. He may also have in mind other boundaries, such as the taboo on adults having sex with younger people. (Choice of wording is deliberate to avoid deletion.)

@ditalini no gay and lesbian people do not need to open themselves up to being straight because when they were growing up, the ‘norm’ is to be straight. The societal expectation was to be straight. Pretty must every adult in the UK (and possibly world) today has grown up with adverts, tv programmes, films, songs, books and adult chat all around heterosexual relationships and heterosexual sex.
Gay and lesbian people have gone against that ‘norm’ that’s been ingrained.
Things are changing now of course but only very recently so any adults will still have grown up with heterosexuality as being the norm.
As the PP said, when 30/40+ somethings were growing up, being gay just wasn’t done mainstream. It wasn’t accepted in the same way as now, not even close.
I had some lesbian encounters as a teen and let me tell you, I told no one. Not even my closest friends and certainly not my family. I would have died on the spot if my family had found out.
I would have loved to have had a longer lesbian relationship but it just simply wasn’t talked about or accepted.
I met a man young. Married and had kids.
I know I’m bi. Perhaps even leaning more towards women than men but I wish so much that I was a teen in 2021 and could have explored that more as now I will never know.

Corgi, I do think the word 'boundaries' is important to look at.

It's not the same as 'a widening choice' or a 'broadening view' or some other similar phrase which one might have considered more appropriate when talking about people's sexuality or orientation changing.

When we're talking about sex and sexualities/sexual orientation, the word 'boundaries' can surely only relate to consent? No?

@RoyalCorgi

Some thoughts:

1. This isn't in itself a new idea - I've often heard people say that sexuality is a continuum, with lots of people in the middle, e.g. 70% straight, 30% gay or vice versa.

1. Have also heard it argued that the identities "gay" and "straight" are new and that eg the ancient Greeks didn't have the concept of homosexuality, they just thought it was perfectly normal for adult men to have sex with women and boys.

1. But what is Tatchell's motive? Is there any sign at all that Tatchell has ever been attracted to a woman? Is this something he has ever admitted to?

1. My suspicion is that Tatchell is directly attacking the idea of boundaries, specifically the boundaries lesbian women have against having sexual relationships with men or trans women.

1. He may also have in mind other boundaries, such as the taboo on adults having sex with younger people. (Choice of wording is deliberate to avoid deletion.)

It's not just the Greeks that thoughts this way. Sexual identities as we think of them are not a common thing historically across the world. Much more common is seeing the masculine role against a passive role which could be played by a variety of different kinds of people.

It's a live question from an anthropological POV whether people who live in societies like this actually experience their sexual desire in an entirely different way. And for that matter there are a few societies that don't have a concept of same sex activity at all, and the same question arises.

We have a tendency to assume our experiences of sexual identity or at least desire will be mirrored everywhere because they are prior to culture, but that's not at all clear.