@37 I think you're misreading my comment. I'm not treating cheating as a passive experience which will be triggered, I'm treating risk that way. If somebody is a cheating bastard, they're going to cheat regardless of if they're attracted to one sex or more than one and if somebody isn't a cheating bastard and in a monogamous relationship, they won't cheat, no matter how many sexes they're attracted to.

What that doesn't mean is that there is not an increased risk. Note that risk and action are not the same thing. When the size of the pool of potential suitors goes up, the risk goes up. It's that simple. You can argue that your potential pool of suitors only goes up from 95 to 101 and say that it's not really noticeable if you like. And you're very likely right, but it doesn't mean that the risk doesn't go up, it just means that it's a small increase of risk, which I never implied that it wasn't. That's exactly the point that Dan and Neil (or Neal, however he spells it) were trying to make there. When the size of the pool of potential suitors goes up, there is an increased risk of your partner cheating within a given time frame. It doesn't make them not capable of being in a monogamous relationship and it doesn't suddenly increase their chances of being a cheating bastard. But, it's a risk that you need to be aware of and take into consideration.

@24 I keep coming back and reading this post over and over. There's something about it that bothers me, and I think I've figured it out. The anger with which you express your disapproval of Niel mentioning his website reminds me a great deal of Republicans warning people about the "homosexual agenda". You say it in a way that only leads me to believe that you're being a little panphobic, if we want to start using that word, which I think is unnecessary.

By and large, a pansexual is a bisexual who doesn't subscribe to the gender binary. Now before I get thrown in the fire, let me specify that there are indeed plenty of people who are attracted to men and to women only, but not to any of the myriad other variants of sex, gender, and sexual expression. However, there are a LOT of people who describe themselves under the label bisexual who are cool with all of these variants. And I bring this up not to defend that there was somebody on the show who was promoting something that wasn't strictly what they were brought on about, but to point out that any type of distaste towards people who are 99.999999% like bisexuals (cut me some slack on the number there, I'm trying to prove a point) is really rather unwarranted.

@34 I'm not going to bother arguing with most of your statement because I completely agree. However, the first part of your argument is off the mark.

In the show Dan and Neil are not implying that bisexual people are not capable or less capable of having a completely happy monogamous relationship. All that is being said is this: bisexuals, by definition are attracted to both men and women. This increases the potential dating pool from approximately 50% of the population of the planet to approximately 100%. Of course, that doesn't factor in the sexuality of the other person. As another poster pointed out, as a bisexual man, there are many many more women that I could date than there are men. So, statistically, I'm more likely to end up with a woman just because that's how statistics work. The statistics work the same way for the point that they're making.

Say, for sake of demonstration, that there's a 1% chance that you would cheat on your partner with any particular individual. You walk down the street and encounter 200 people, 100 each men and women. If you're heterosexual, statistically you would cheat on your partner with 1 of those people you met. If you're bisexual, that goes up to 2 people because instead of only having the capability of being attracted to 100 of those people, it all of the sudden goes up to 200, even though the chance of you wanting to cheat with any given individual stays the same. It doesn't make us more likely to cheat. It doesn't make us less capable of a monogamous relationship. it just means that the statistics play out in such a way that the risk of cheating increases simply because the size of the potential pool has increased. It's nothing against us, it's just math.

I don't think that anybody else has mnyioned this yet, so I will. The idea that as a bisexual, I am somehow "not stepping up to the plate" because I don't feel the need to get up on a soapbox while at work and scream my sexuality to all and that I am somehow closeted for this is absurd. Sexuality is but one part of who we are, not our entire existence. Anybody who tells you otherwise is fucking LYING to you.

I am out to my friends, my family, and I freely associate with my employer's GLBTQIA...alphabet soup organization. I call out coworkers when they act or talk inappropriately towards the GLBT community and have no problem expressing my sexuality casually. You don't walk up to every person you meet and say "Hi. I'm Dan. I'm gay.". Should I have to walk up to everybody that I meet and say "Hi, I'm Bryan and I'm bi"? Isn't it enough to be a great representative of the GLBT community by showing that who I want to fuck doesn't make me any different from anybody else? Isn't enough to show up at the parade, wave my flag, and cheer? Do I really need to show up in metallic hot pants and covered in body glitter too?

It takes all sorts to build a community. It takes all sorts to power a movement. It takes all sorts to fight the war. Not everybody can be on the front lines fighting the big battles if we ever expect anything to change. Some of us need to work in logistics and medical and to be the every day people who show that while being GLBT is a PART of who I am, it is not ALL of who I am.

Isn't being an everyday queer enough?