First?

Why is it so difficult for people to accept themselves for the individual person they are?

I know we're preconditioned to compare ourselves to others in all aspects of our lives, but it is so destructive.

We all need to accept and appreciate who we are individually.

First!

Bisexual, biromantic, biamorous...aye aye yi!
Love who you love!

The first letter is actually progress. Back when the prevailing wisdom was being used to twist the arms of monosexual partners into agreeing to "I get a girlfriend and a boyfriend because being bi I need one of both", there were people at or much closer to the 50/50 yard line thinking they didn't qualify because they preferred being monogamous. Now those are the people who seem to have at least as much control as anyone of the prevailing wisdom.

Maybe gay people are more likely to be out than bi people, but the Pew Research survey cited is not a very good source to shed light on that question. The finding that more than 70 % of gays and lesbians are out to the key people in their lives seems highly unlikely. What the survey seems to measure is what percentage of gays and lesbians who are out enough to self-identify as such in a survey are also out enough to be out to the key people in their lives.

Nobody knows what percentage of people are primarily or secondarily same-sex-attracted. The relevant neuroscience tools are in their infancy, and there are lots of ethical and social obstacles to answering this question using the tools we have. Some of the science that has been done is suggestive, but still quite unreliable.

Using priming principles and me/other associations after very brief (=subconscious) exposure to hetero/homo- sexual-themed images, more than 20 % of self-identified "highly straight" (and more than typically homophobic) males subconsciously identified as primarily same-sex-attracted. In other words, the "implicit" sexual orientation was gay in one fifth of the very straight/homophobic males. (Richard Ryan etc., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, April 2012)

That sounds too high, so maybe the study was flawed (some priming studies are proving difficult to replicate), but it does show how little we actually know about the prevalence of psychological (as opposed to social) indicators of same-sex-attraction.

It seems likely, though, that only a small percentage of same-sex-attracted individuals will actually self-identify as gay or bi, while many others deny those feelings and experiences to themselves and/or to other people. The social trade-offs for coming out are different for gays and lesbians than for bi people, and it's not surprising that bi people are less likely to "come out" or to even find that meaningful. Straight people don't usually come out, either.

The best way to fight homophobia is to fight homophobia. If you still have some energy left over, try fighting poverty and inequality as well, which tend to produce environments in which homophobia can flourish.

@ 1: these words: 'We all need to accept and appreciate who we are individually' are essentially meaningless. With age comes acceptance. With youth, comes mostly questions.

LW #1, a 40 y/o. LW #2, a 58 y/o. LW #3, really a different topic.

I was postulating for us grownups. Lots and lots of adults deal with this issue daily.

And it's a shame they can't simply appreciate and value themselves.

@5 barfuss: I don't quite agree with your comment, "'We all need to accept and appreciate who we are individually" are essentially meaningless..'
While you're right about how we, as youth, are still trying to identify who we are, and because of the transition into adulthood naturally raises a lifetime of questions, sooner or later it all still boils down to whom we are as individuals. Bi, gay, straight, trans male or trans female----it doesn't matter. You've gotta love ourself first! I'm still working on it, almost half a century later.
But that's just me.

@9: Oops---!! While I'm het, myself, I didn't mean to exclude lesbians from my above identity list! Sorry! Make that: "Bi, gay, lesbian, straight, trans male or trans female---it doesn't matter."
It wasn't my intention to deliberately leave anyone out.

LW1-Why do you need a label to figure out who you are? You are a healthy male with an active sex life and have no reservations about who you are attracted to. It only in recent years that we were conditioned to get all our sexual, romantic, and emotional needs met from one person. During the middle ages up to Victorian times it was an accepted fact that you might get sexual needs met by one partner but you would have a "courtly" or public love affair that would never be sexual in nature. You would also have strong emotional bonds, usually with members of the same sex, that would be the person to help you through the rough times in your life.
If you are happy to identify as someone who is sexually attracted to both genders then by all means call yourself bisexual. If you want to identify as a person who is romantically attracted to one gender but sexually attracted to both use heteroflexable. Or call yourself a velvety frog if it makes you happy. The only person you need to answer to is you.

@9: Holy SHIT, I need to learn to type!
Make that "You've gotta love yourself first!...."
*sigh*

@11 bxtorr19: Bravo! So well said!

Goodnight, everyone--after two glaring typos (and no alcohol consumed?!?
I honestly have no excuse!) in one column, I'm going to bed.
More later from this long haired galoot.
:) griz

I totally agree with Buck Angel's response and am so glad that it is included in this column. But I'm afraid that Dan's comments to the first poster are part of what perpetuates questions like that from the second poster (If I identify as male and I like trans men am I still gay?). In the first post, Dan wrote, "These guys invariably tell me that they're confused about their sexual orientation. They know they're not straight (not with all the cock they've sucked), and they're pretty sure they can't be gay (not with all the pussy they've eaten)" which breaks sexual orientation down to only the genitals of the sexual partners someone has had, rather than the gender identity. Some people might be attracted to certain genitals, but equating a straight man with "liking pussy" and a gay man with "liking cock" reinforces the idea that sexual orientation is only about genitals, when it is so often about so much more.

If sexual orientation is largely determined by the culture in which one is raised, does that mean the religious lunatics are right that acceptance of homosexuality will "turn our kids gay," or at least the 1 in 5 who are biologically gay but psychologically programmed to act straight?

And how do you know if the subconscious response is biological or also programmed? What if everybody is born bi and these 1-in-5 people have had both their subconscious attraction to the opposite sex and their willingness to accept being gay repressed?

It seems that research on human sexuality leaves a lot to be desired. We need a new Kinsey.

M? Movement - A good point, but you can extend it. Flip the case, and what's the difference? If THROWN had discovered a surprising genitalia-generated interest in trans women, would he be less "still gay"? would that be trans-erasing?

You open up a realm of new categories and comparisons. Run with it.

(I do wonder about how age enters into this and whether/how different it would be if THROWN were 28 instead of 58, but maybe more on that later.)

@4 - BUT - the same selection bias applies to the 28% of Bi's that are out to their nearest and dearest. Dan is comparing the same sample, so your point is irrelevant.

Ms Liz @16 - (I do so hope your last name is Probert!) That's a tough call. Maybe the best concept for you would be if sexuality were thought of as more like a compass point marked, say, G/S/B/A (replacing N/S/E/W); you might be, say, between SB and SBS. I suppose there are those for whom the model wouldn't work, but it does seem to offer more options for people who find the current menu insufficient.

Wait a minute.... my current relationship started as me and my girl friend and is now me and my husband (she is legally male;looks like one of the dudes from duck dynasty and we are legally married) SO am I still gay if I am married to a male? No?? WELL PRAISE JESUS I FOUND A CURE FOR HOMOSEXUALITY.....get involved with the trans community!!!

Coming out as bisexual (as opposed to bi-amorous) unnecessarily involves others in your sex life. I am trying to picture the conversation happening with my married male friends: "Mr. Horton - I think it's important for you to know I have sex with men, although I love my wife and the sex I have with men is purely for sport fucking."

Isn't the reason for coming out as gay to allow legal recognition and social acceptance of same-sex emotional partnerships, i.e. so you can marry, attend social functions as a same sex couple? How is being an out bisexual but not bi-amourous any more relevant to your close friends than announcing any other aspect of your sex life?

@22, yep. I don't feel the need to tell my family I'm kinky & in an open marriage, and likewise I don't feel the need to tell them I've had fun sexual playtime with women.

My husband and I are equal opportunity oglers when it comes to admiring attractive bar-tenders, etc., so our friends may pick up on that. But beyond that it feels like posturing and TMI to "come out' as bi.

Here's hoping that Dan will one day learn, as I have, that when people say "You're blaming the victim!" what they really mean is, "I'm too lazy to take responsibility to climb out of the pit of my misfortunes, please do it for me!"

Yeah, not sure if it's not an emotional thing, where relationships are potential, why JUICE's issues should be anybody else's damn business!
(I mean that in a nice way.)

But if it's not likely that he'll bring a dude home to Mom, then why does that matter? Seems like he's after a definition of himself, for himself, and that's fair enough.

I like the definition of bisexual vs hetero-amorous! Just because I don't know why we have to have a box to fit into that perfectly describes us, or why we have to be any percentage of anything, to fit that definition at all.

I think a lot more guys (or women!) than let on, would fit that description, if they realized that they didn't also have to be bi-amorous, and able to fall in love with both sexes too.

That could be one of the coolest things I have ever heard from you Dan! :)

Didn't that study that proved that true bisexuals (as opposed to gay men who don't want to identify as gay) exist also show that all its participants were more attracted to one sex than the other? The textbook might be pretty small yet, but this guy sounds textbook.

My 2 cents on the gay/bi/straight thing … it's been said before that this is a continuous spectrum, not a clear dividing line, & this seems closest to the truth for me. I am a man who identifies as straight & has only had sex/relationships with women. Farthest I've gone with a man was kissing - mostly just to see what it was like. Nevertheless there are some men (super-twinky femme-type boys) who I MIGHT have sex with if the situation fell into my lap - I just don't care enough about it to pursue it actively so it probably will never happen. So call me 95% straight - there's still that 5% gay, but there's not enough of a "gay side" to me to make any practical difference in my life.

In summary - almost everyone is bisexual. It's just a question of where on the gay-to-straight spectrum they fall. Most people are so far out towards the edges that they might as well identify as gay or straight … but in the right circumstances the bi side can always arise.

@11 bxtorr19, the reason he is concerned about the label is that he wants to take Dan's advice about coming out.

And I don't think that coming out as bi is necessarily TMI or posturing. People talk about sex, love, romance, etc, all the time. It's perfectly natural to say, "I'm bisexual" in these conversations.

We hear a lot about bisexuals who are closer to the straight end of the continuum than to the gay end, so I just wanted to wave and say that here's a bisexual woman who's a lot closer to the lesbian end of the continuum than to the straight end.

I have fallen in love with both men and women in the past, but if my fairy godmother were going to conjure up a lover for me, she'd be female. Unfortunately, in the real world, there are a lot more straight and bisexual men than there are lesbian and bisexual women, so men are just easier for a woman to find ... and they're way more likely to meet a woman halfway.

While searching for the woman of my dreams, I keep stumbling across available men. (I don't quite understand why so many straight women say they can't find a man; it seems to me that nice men are everywhere.) I went to Boston's Gay Pride parade a few years ago and got picked up by a man (a bisexual man, of course) while there. That's the kind of luck I have with women, that I can go to the PRIDE PARADE and come home with a guy. *rolls eyes*

Ms Corylea - I'll see if I can conjure an image where you go to, oh, say, a 90% male-occupied driving range and get picked up by a woman.

I'm glad at least he was bi. There is a bi point to initiating an OS pickup at pride (whether it's the nicest of points or not might be open to interpretation), but, although you've probably given more than one of the straight men here an idea, I rather hope they don't act on it. To paraphrase the old saying, Every Day Is Straight(Straights'?) Day.

Thanks for that image, vennominon, though my chances of going to a golf course are vanishingly small. :-)

The man at the Pride parade was an adorable little queen, and we spent half of the march talking about other Prides we'd been to and about gay activism we'd been involved in. He also introduced me to his boyfriend (who was marching with the leather contingent, instead of with the Bisexual Resource Center contingent, like us) before the march was over. Trust me, a straight man could not have pulled it off. :-)

What is all the fear about, namely, regarding am I this or am I that? I think this is conditioned guilt about the notion that being one thing or the other thing or something in between is wrong. The only thing that should be considered wrong about sex is when it is done in a biologically irresponsible manner, that is, in a manner such as to transmit disease or produce unintended pregnancy. The nature of sexual attraction between people is not a reasonable source of guilt or anxiety. We are what we are, regardless of whether somebody, Kinsey or otherwise, tries to create a pigeonhole into which each person fits. The real truth may be that there can't be fewer than 7 billion pigeonholes, just like there might have to be 7 billion races if you insist on pigeonholing people into races. Of course the religious fanatics and the racists don't like my ideas.

I think the issue is that in calling for more bi-visibility, calling for more bisexuals to come out of the closet, you have to help people define bisexuality. The popular definition - "someone who is equally attracted to men and women" - at least acknowledges the straight-bi-gay spectrum.

Bisexuals are those closer to the center of that spectrum than to the edges… but where exactly is the dividing line? Really hard to say … depends on the person & the circumstances. Bisexual invisibility may be more a product of "the fish does not notice the water it swims in" than anything else.

Ms Corylea - Well, he sounds charming, but one would expect that.

As for the woman shortage, I have two words for you: Dinah Shore (sadly, no longer bearing Ms Shore's name, but we live in a corporate world, it seems, where only Wimbledon will remain pure before long) After the excellent example Mr Savage has provided of watching football despite knowing nothing about it, caring less, but still being able to perform a reasonable fake, there's your answer. You may not even have to go so far; I'm sure half the women there never get anywhere near the actual golf course. Did Johnny Weir really care about the horse races that used him in their telecasts or was he just enjoying a nice little appearance fee for saying in a suggestive tone that he was backing Game On Dude?

This feels almost like playing Sister Mary Ignatius again, or even getting an opportunity, now that I am of a certain age, Hilda Rumpole.

@ 29 "So... this week's column consists of edited versions of letters answered in the blog over the last couple weeks. Lame."

Jeez lllppp - do you want your fucking money back?! Ingrate.

#11, excellent response to JUICED. However, as his primary sexual and romantic attraction is to women, he's sounds more straight with bi leanings, which I guess nowadays is called heteroflexible,a term (along with homoflexible) I think takes into account the sometimes fluid nature of sexual orientation and attraction.

However, given that this guy is unlikely to have a romantic relationship with a male, and his sexual encounters with other men seem to be few and far between, why the need to "come out" to anyone besides people he fucks?

This isn't to bash bisexuality--I think any orientation that involves consenting adults is all right--but to suggest that people not reveal too much information to people who don't need to know this stuff.

@11: LW1 addresses "why do I need a label" in his letter to Dan. He's responding to Dan's call for more bisexuals to publicly identify as bisexual. If he didn't think there was merit to this, he wouldn't be writing in.

One big element of bi invisibility/erasure (see Traci's comment) is the tendency of people to say things like: "So, you're bi? Does that mean you're equally attracted to men and women, like 50/50?" And of course, that's highly mathematically unlikely; we're attracted to individual people, and it's logical that more of the people we're attracted to will fall under one gender definition or the other. But admit that you're, say, 60/40 into women, and your questioner will immediately say "So you're a lesbian then!" The 40% of your identity is disregarded once you admit a preference. So hurrah for Dan, and for Robyn Ochs (what a -wonderful- quote) for helping spread the word that you don't have to be 50/50 to help the bi movement by coming out as bi.

And to those like @39 who question why anyone would need to come out: You're perpetuating the stereotype that bisexuality is a dirty little secret we are better off keeping hidden. It isn't; why should it be?

@40, do you likewise think that people should come out to their family & colleagues about being swingers? Kinksters should wear their bruises proudly in public, otherwise they're making their kink a 'dirty little secret'?

Drusilla @31 is right that it's fine to bring this up (kink, swinging, bisexual-w/o-romance, etc.) when among certain friends, where talking about one's sex life is appropriate. But usually it's not appropriate to explain one's specific sex preferences to one's family & colleagues.

Why does Dan always bring up that he gets in trouble from bisexuals EVERY TIME there's a question regarding bisexuality? It might be turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy, constantly pointing out how mean a few loud-mouth bisexuals are and in the process giving other bisexuals the idea that you find them, as a group, hostile.

Stop dwelling that a few d-bags got mad/are mad at you. They will be regardless of what you say because they clearly set logic aside so they can handle their pitchforks and torches better.

No, @40, I'm not suggesting it's a dirty little secret or should be hidden. I never said that. I'm saying I don't think LW1 is bisexual, given that his sole romantic attraction is to women and his overwhelming sexual attraction is to women, not to mention his sexual encounters with men have been few and far between. (He's 40 now; if you assume he started having sex around age 16, that's 6 men over 24 years.) He's not going to be in a relationship with a man the way he has been with women, so why tell anyone but close friends and intimate partners that every few years, he likes to have some fun with another guy?

The more open people are about their sexual behavior, the less stigma and shame will be attached to it. Homosexuals have proven this spectacularly in the last couple of decades. Why wouldn't other sexual minorities do the same thing to achieve the same goal?

Obviously there are circumstances where coming out as fill-in-the-blank would hurt someone professionally. A dentist probably shouldn't wear a T-shirt saying "I love anal fisting!" But lots of people are in a position to be more open about what they do with their junk than they are now.

The too-much-information reaction is based on negative feelings about sex. It's okay for someone to tell you their favorite band or restaurant, or their hobbies, but if they reveal anything about sex, all of a sudden you get all uncomfortable. That's sex-negativity and it's something to be fought because the religious nuts are doing all they can to keep it going.

I'm bisexual (and a girl) and I totally get JUICED's dilemma. It's difficult for me to be openly bi around my female friends. Just recently I posted a pic of Ariana Grande on my Facebook with the caption "Bisexuality shifted. Full lesbian now." And one of my best friends who I've known for 16 years (a straight female) went ape shit and said I was no better than a guy, and that I was objectifying women and being disrespectful. I get that a lot. Whenever I comment about an attractive woman on TV or on the street, my straight female friends will cringe and be like, "Oh God, you're such a lesbian." It bothers them and I don't know why. Like JUICED, I am physically attracted to both genders - I would say 50/50 - but I don't think I could ever fall in love with or date a woman. Bitches be crazy.

I'd posted this before in an old column while perusing the archives, but it seems relevant to repeat it here.

How about revising the Kinsey scale labels as follows:

0 heterosexual
1 heteroflexible
2 heterobisexual
3 bisexual
4 homobisexual
5 homoflexible
6 homosexual
X asexual

I think 0s and 6s are people who would only have sex with their preferred gender, even trapped on a desert island, and are squicked by the idea of sex with the "wrong" gender. 1s and 5s aren't really turned on by the "wrong" gender, but aren't totally turned off and wouldn't necessarily kick the person out of bed. 2s and 4s are mostly attracted to their preferred gender, but also somewhat/sometimes turned on by the other. 3s are equally turned on by either gender.

So LW1 (M) at W/M of 70/30 might go with heterobisexual, while a guy at 10/90 might go with homoflexible.

I’m a bisexual man who’s been a few bad heterosexual relationships, so lately I’ve been choosing to be gay by trying homosexual relationships instead. It’s been working better for me – I think that’s what Cynthia Nixon was getting at when she said “gay is better.” She didn’t mean homosexuality was better than, heterosexualshe meant that being in a gay relationship worked better for her than an heterosexual relationship. However, I do feel the pressure from “both sides” wanting me to “pick a side” – like sexual orientation was a team sport or something! It’s pretty irritating for people to assume I’m gay just because I’m dating or having sex with men or that I’ve actually changed my sexual orientation. Sorry, my sexual orientation is not just a pit stop on the way to homosexuality!

I also don’t really like labeling my relationships as heterosexual, straight, homosexual, gay, etc. because that sort of generalizes the genders, despite the fact that I’m dating men now, I think the gender shouldn’t really define a relationship.

I’m definitely of the “born this way” stance – I appreciate the sentiment of “we’re here, we’re queer” but I also don’t fully accept the idea that sexual orientation is something chosen. It’s that “nature vs. nurture” argument – it’s not one side or the other. I can’t really help being sexually attracted to the people I’m attracted to, so that’s natural, but I could always deny my feelings, which is more of a social sort of thing. Sexuality is very complicated and I would say anyone who implies that a person is gay from birth is thinking hard enough about it.

P.S.
And when I say sexual orientation is complicated, I mentioned I identify as bisexual… that’s not strictly true. I identify as bisexual, pansexual, homosexual, and queer. How I feel about each those might vary from day to day, even! .

Oh, dear; I am just listening to Mr Savage's hour-long talk in favour of monogamishy, and have just heard his conflation of number of relationships with an equal number of breakups (and suggesting the inference that all breakups are equal/voluntary).

As someone who pulled off the unicorn-like MTD by way of a highly premature death, why do I get the feeling that our Fearless Leader would respond to MTDs so prematurely "successful" with derision? I can practically hear him saying, "Well, he would've if he hadn't died," - the analogy being Brian Kinney after Vic's death. (And I don't long for the Moment of Partial Recantation.)

I quite see the point about the prescriptive types; pity he has to take down the rest of us with them.

It seems to me that you need a second scale to describe human sexuality: dominant to submissive. A guy who's exclusively attracted to women but never wants to do anything but be tied up and pegged (exclusively submissive) has a very different sexuality than a guy exclusively attracted to women who needs always to be in control (exclusively dominant).

I would love to hug Gay Boy Problems and give him a big ol' kiss on the cheek. He didn't use one single label. Not a single "homosexual/bi/trans/cis/whatevs" in the letter. Thank you for that, Gay Boy Probs. (And I hope you and your boyfriend can come to an equitable arrangement that makes you both extremely happy.)

I'm also pleased to see that apparently I'm not the only one who is getting tired of all the labels. I will not label myself, not for the convenience of others, nor in an effort to find some ridiculous societal niche to tuck myself safely into. Who I'm fucking and how I'm fucking them has nothing to do with who the fuck I am.

For the bisexual, heteroromantic: a coffee mug on your desk from your favourite gay bar, next to a picture of your partner and children.

Mr. Ven @51, I don't think Dan derides "monogamy until death." He just thinks that judging the success of a marriage (or of a commitment to monogamy) by whether one of the partners has died is perverse. Judge success by how happy it made the partners while it lasted, not by whether one partner outlived the other.

When Dan was thinking about getting married, he worried about jinxing his relationship with Terry by getting married (promising to stay together), instead of just continuing to choose to stay together day by day.

And he also believed that his parents' marriage, which had ended in divorce, was not therefore a failure.

>> When a marriage ends in divorce, we say that it’s failed. The marriage was a failure. Why? Because both parties got out alive...It's a rather perverse measure of success. ...My parents... were happy together for two deades, they raised four children together, and then...they parted. That doesn't look like a marriage that failed to me. It looks more like a marriage that reached its expiration date. >> (From: The Commitment)

Dan believes in marriage, and believes that the expectation that monogamy should be easy is a real threat to marriage. So he has made it his mission to persuade people that a good marriage is worth tolerating a few flaws in your partner (including some difficulty with strict monogamy). But Dan would not mock the early death of your partner, Mr. Ven., or disparage the bond you shared.

Dan you are right on about bi men needing to come out and be more open.

The reason many bi men say that they enjoy sex with men and women but they fall in love only with women is because up until recently they could only marry women and have a more stable relationship approved by society. Now that they have an option to marry men, you will see more bi men that can and do fall in love with other men.

Dan you are right on about bi men needing to come out and be more open.

The reason many bi men say that they enjoy sex with men and women but they fall in love only with women is because up until recently they could only marry women and have a more stable relationship approved by society. Now that they have an option to marry men, you will see more bi men that can and do fall in love with other men.

I find it curious that so many of the comments here keep using the percentage model for expressing the bisexuality spectrum, when the point of the letter in question is that it's not as simple as numbers. You could, in fact, be sexually attracted to equal numbers of men and women, but only romantically attracted to one or the other: the percentage is not the only issue.

@52 Are you saying receptive sex is intrinsically submissive?

Why keep a part of who you are a secret, is the better question. There are many ways the info can come up naturally (The best come back to homophobia is "I sleep with . Knock it off". Or if you're talking about dating or love interests.) Why, other than fear, would you ask for reasons to disclose? It is ironic that it takes coming out to eliminate the fear of coming out, but the past evidence is clear. Just don't come out in a dangerous situation, get yourself out of there first.

Love the gay bar coffee mug idea.

I vote for an edit option. I meant:

The best come back to homophobia is "I sleep with [my own gender]. Knock it off".

@52 My impression of dom/sub is active/passive. Then there is sadistic/masochistic. And very high vs low libido. Dick centered or clit centered. Buildup vs climax centered. There are many spectra of preferences. Who you are willing to go to bed is relevant if you are open to dating or a hook up. What you are interested in doing in bed is usually not relevant unless you need something that turns most people off.

I don't really understand the hatred many of you seem to have for labels. As long as you don't consider the labels the be all and end all to a person, what's the problem? Particularly if you also believe that sexuality in general and bisexuality in specific should not be kept secret. I mean, how much easier is to to say "I'm bisexual" than it is to get into the particulars? Or of any other sexuality or gender identity you might have. We use words to express an idea, and somewhere along the line, it became taboo in some circles to apply those words to people.

@58: More on percentages, how is that even a valid way to express it? It's expressing something as an aggregate, when it is really a function of individuals.

Either you are attracted to the individual(s) you are sleeping with, or you aren't. It may sound reasonable as a hypothetical, but eventually it boils down to a specific person. Following that line of logic, you would find yourself saying, "Well, I'm attracted you you as a woman, but that's only about a 70% attraction, while I am 30% attracted to men like you." It becomes kind of nonsensical.

Okay, this long-haired galoot is back from enjoying some amazing sunshine with her beloved!

vennominon, I honestly hope that my Looney Tunes-esque, scwewy wabbit opera-quotin' antics from last week didn't leave you (and others?) violently seething. I am just a hopeless ultra-maroon (hot pink?), and spring seems to bring this out in full blossoming 'yeeeeeeeeeahh, (munch, munch, munch, munch) what's up, doc?' glory.

But then, you all knew I was a nut, right (I see Hunter78 slowly nodding his head)?

Grizwatch update: Whoooooo-EE!! Spring definitely IS in the air!
A longtime friend and I wined and dined last night at a local Billy McHale's, and enjoyed some excellent prime rib and teriyaki sirloin. My wise-older-sisterlike pal noticed and pointed this out while I was unaware as we got up from our table after paying the bill and leaving a tip. Two younger guys half my age at the next table across from us were giving me the Big Eye! Oof!
"INACTIVE", as I have once written in to Dan, is going to have to get used to this newfound male attention!

One new "dumb" question arises, however: Is the double standard I see in our society a byproduct my own self-induced dating apprehension and insecurity? I mean, these guys are within my nephews' generation, and most older people my age and up in the county which I live would go totally apeshit gorilla-snot at the idea of my actually dating someone young enough to be my son.

Dan and everyone, I know that a lady within Dan's column in which my initial "INACTIVE" Savage Love letter was published kindly shared a website that encourages older women to date much younger men by a difference of ten or fifteen or more years, but------YIKES!! My friend was laughing in Billy McHale's parking lot when I started singing the theme from Simon and Garfunkel's "Mrs. Robinson" from The Graduate.
Dan and Savage Love readers: what do you advise a shy, non-breedin' h, long-haired galoot heterosexual like me? Most men in their late 40s/ early 50s up here are married with kids and give me weird (disapproving?) looks just for apparently being myself. I'm getting mixed signals in public here! What's up, doc?

@47, "It bothers them and I don't know why."

Because they're homophobic?

Also, I just googled Ariana Grande, and even though I'm straight (OK OK: "heteroflexible"), I'd totally hit that :-).

@65 Ha! LOL

re @66: I'm wondering if the overwhelming majority of local guys from within my age group are grizophobic (a bit like Barbra Streisand in What's Up, Doc?).

@69: ...meaning that I'm a bit like Barbra Streisand's kooky-but-educated co-ed, Judy Maxwell, from Peter Bogdonovich's 1972 screwball comedy, What's Up, Doc?

The reason so many guys like you are confused about their sexual identity is because the popular definition of bisexuality, "someone who is equally attracted to men and women," excludes guys like you.

Interesting. I never thought that was the popular definition. I thought it was "someone who is attracted to men and women." That's certainly always been my definition. But maybe you're right. Maybe most people assume the attraction must be equal.

What happened to the roughenest, toughenest gun totin' hombre who ever locked horns with a rabbit-critter, sb53?
Fearless Freep? Are you still out there selling specs?

Ms Erica - My post was a reaction as I was listening to Mr Savage's talk in Australia from the end of last year. While I have nothing against his defence against those who would thrust monogamy on others, his description of marriage until death made it clear that his model included having decades and decades together and erased those couples that didn't get decades. When he said that someone who had had seven relationships had broken up seven times, that really stung - not really because that was presuming that all breakups were equal, which isn't really so - especially the way he said he would phrase his response to such a person along the lines of "you choose to end the relationship" when so many marriages/committed relationships of all stripes end very early through death... okay, one has to have some generalizations in an hour's lecture, but that felt almost like being accused of murder, which would, of course, be choosing to end a relationship by death.

I believe I was also reacting to the passage when he was combining the 50-60% of men who cheat and the 40-50% of women who cheat and saying they aren't all married to each other (though I'd think it perhaps likely to be the case more often than not, but it's hard to make an intelligent guess because there are so many varieties of infidelity and cheaters) and that therefore over 99% of marriages that last until death will have at least one case of infidelity. I could almost hear myself speaking to Mr Savage and telling him that my committed nonmarriage wasn't tested by infidelity, but of course we didn't have decades and decades together. And I can hear Mr Savage replying, "Well, if you had been together for decades and decades, it would've been," or "he would've cheated" as a substitute conclusion to the sentence.

That strikes me as exactly the sort of thing Mr Savage would say, at least if he perceived the statement to be coming from someone who tries to impose monogamy on others (not my style at all, as I've never attempted to impose it on a partner, let alone any other partnership). It doesn't have quite the ring of Heartless Truth to it as Brian's pronouncement before the grieving lover/sister/nephew that Vic was on his deathbed four years ago and would say himself that the extra time he got was gravy, as it requires rather a high percentage of cheaters to have faithful partners to reduce the number of faithful couples to statistical insignificance. And I can entirely accept that he wouldn't intend it as derisive. I think I just felt judged and found wanting, as if he respected couples more who were tested and survived infidelity than who didn't have the good fortune to have the long time together.

Please consider the earlier post more an instantaneous reaction than a measured response.

Mr. Ven, I think you make a good point here, just as you do each time you flag the mistaken assumption that people are heterosexual unless otherwise identified.

It's painful but important to be reminded that relationships are often cut tragically short, through no choice of either partner. None of us ever knows how long we will have with our loved ones, so all we can do is make the most of each day.

I'm very sorry for your loss.

Ven @ 37...Thank you for mentioning Johnny Weir. It was always great to see the competition between him and Evan Lysacek (I prefer Lysacek myself.) Another fantastic skater who was pretty openly gay was Rudy Galindo, and since then several other skating greats such as Brian Boitano have come out.

Ms erica - Thank you. I allow we don't fit easily into the conversation, and I'll agree with something else Mr Savage might say, that undergoing the experience, even if it were more unpleasant than I ever anticipated, would certainly beat what's actually happened.

@vennominon: I love your romanticism. You're so lucky to have found a partner who brought that out in you.

@cynara 49

Those labels are quite nice.

I currently identify as heteroflexible in theory. But the right lesbian (or any lesbian) has not made advances to me yet.

If then I discovered that I liked lesbian sex, I suppose there's a chance I could be in fact heterobisexual, but I can't know without trying first. I might as well end up as being heterosexual after that experience.

Not entirely serious, but there is a fun rule of thumb that male pairs skaters defy generalization, but that male ice dancers are (almost?) always straight. Given how ice dancers have to be in nearly continual contact, one can see a glimmer of sense.

The best thing about Mr Boitano's coming out so long after his prime is that it makes it quite interesting to go back and watch his commentary on national championships. Perhaps he was supposed to be the next Mr Button at one time, but the booth was not his strong point.

Mr Weir may have suffered as much as anyone for having come from the US, where the perception that he had to play politics would have been strong enough even if he didn't to bring about the ambiguous line he took while he was podium-viable. The quietly open Mr Buttle, one of five Canadian men to be world champion in the last three decades without winning any Olympic gold medals (although Mr Buttle was the only one of the five who didn't go in as favourite or co-favourite and won his world title after his Olympic bronze), never had the same worry about being held down at nationals. This is the pro-Weir case.

Mr Galindo easily has the most sympathetic story. His pairs success dashed when Ms Yamaguchi blamelessly switched to solo skating, held down by homophobes for years, he at least had his 1996 with national gold and world bronze. Besides his convincing victory and joining the 6.0 club, there was a strangely nasty air about that nationals. The association seemed determined to hype the bleep out of Mr Weiss, who was just a shade young to be ready for prime time that year; almost all the commentary about his skating and programs was highly coded for STRAIGHT-STRAIGHT-STRAIGHT.

: "I call myself bisexual because I acknowledge that I have in myself the potential to be attracted—romantically and/or sexually—to people of more than one sex and/or gender, not necessarily at the same time, not necessarily in the same way, and not necessarily to the same degree."
-------------
Late to the party, but I do consider myself in this boat and have for years. "Ambisexual" is a term that works better for me. Like JUICED, the 50/50 thing simply doesn't apply to me, nor does, I suspect, it apply to most other bi types Also, the "both men and women" thing leads some people to believe we'd be happiest with group sex. I can't speak for others, but I've been in a few girl-girl-guy threesomes and found them rather boring. I'd rather go one on one with someone. Hence the "either/or" rather than the "both/and" model works best for me. YMMV.

Returning to the subject of people at sporting events who aren't particularly into the sport in question, there may be some among us who find themselves today at a function connected to the Kentucky Derby. For anyone whose system at such events is to go by names or connections (such as Mr Weir's support for Game On Dude or, not long ago, Ms Bertinelli's backing the Jenny Craig-owned Chocolate Candy), I have just seen a list explaining the names of this year's entrants. Most names reflect the pedigree. Of names with connections:

DANZA was named for Tony Danza, but GENERAL A ROD has no baseball connection at all. SAMRAAT is owned by the Barnes & Noble chairman, but UNCLE SIGH is named after one of those Duck Robertsons. WICKED STRONG (doubtless the choice of the younger of my sisters) has nothing to do with Elphaba but is tied to the Bostonian adjective (that was my sister's favourite word for several years, so that I nearly had a t-shirt made up to read "WICKED IS FOR WITCHES"), the name being a tribute to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing.

Two interesting-sounding names turned out to be ancestral. CANDY BOY (Mr Weir's choice?) is a descendant of Candy Girl fathered by Candy Ride. VICAR'S IN TROUBLE has a maternal connection to names containing Vicar and is fathered by Into Mischief.

The "I'm bi but heteroamorous" is a bit wordy, but gets it across.

sissoucat @78, "But the right lesbian (or any lesbian) has not made advances to me yet."

You might consider making the first advances yourself, at least as far as flirting, maintaining eye contact, etc. How else are they to know you're open to the idea?

Cat in Fez asked me: Are you saying receptive sex is intrinsically submissive?

I'm not certain what you mean by receptive sex, but even if it's just that one partner is doing all the moving, that person is playing a slightly dominant role while the motionless one is slightly submissive. If you're more comfortable with sex as something you do to your partner or as something done to you by your partner, then you've begun to deviate from the center of the dominant/submissive spectrum.

@85 "the motionless one" -- um, what?

@85 "Receptive" means the person is the penetrated partner. I would disagree that being penetrated automatically makes one more submissive, and more, I would say it's part of a network of objectionable ideas about women and gay men that have been prevalent for a long time in our society.

I'd suggest being 'dominant' or 'submissive' is largely separate from who is 'doing things' to the other, which some would call 'topping' versus 'bottoming'.

There are a lot of axes to sexuality, and I don't think conflating those two is doing anyone any favors.

@45
Hunter78 said "The person coming out as bi is announcing to their partner, 'you can never fulfill me.' Unless they, too, are bi. The more registers, the better. But it's the end of 'you're the only one.'"

Nope. Bisexual does not equal polyamorous. Some bisexuals only have monogamous relationships. Others do not - just like gay and straight people.

@86, EricaP: I'm sure you're never motionless during sex, Erica! I can't say the same for everyone though!

@87, Cat in Fez: I didn't conflate being penetrated with submissiveness. I made it very clear I was talking about who's in control. A chick riding a guy's cock is in control even though she's being penetrated. Don't try to make me out to be a male-chauvinist, sweet cheeks.

[For the easily offended morons with no sense of humor: The sweet cheeks crack was a joke: feigned unintentional self-contradiction.]

@89, If my partner's not moving in response to my fucking or sucking them, I'm going to stop and see what's wrong. Happy people move during sex, regardless of which partner is getting more of a workout at the time.

So, returning to your comment @52, Allen Gilliam, I guess what you're saying is that there's a spectrum from dominant to submissive. I'll agree with that. But there are many such spectrums: monogamy vs non-monogamy, light vs intense stimulation; privacy vs exhibitionism; routine vs variety; etc. etc.

spectra?

Furthermore, @52 you contrasted "A guy who... never wants to do anything but be tied up and pegged" with a guy who "needs always to be in control."

Those two guys are both controlling. They'd both be more likely to find compatible partners if they can be GGG and not make every sex session about getting off their way.

I am still reeling from Dr Sean's calling me "romantic" (for those seeking a sincere compliment, it's not the best choice for an Austenian), although at least now I know how Brian Kinney felt when Jim Stockwell predicted he'd be elected mayor, "...thanks to you and the good people at the Gay and Lesbian Centre"(Brian's least favourite same-sexers in Pittsburgh).

I did, though, rather like Mr Weir's hat.

@94 Sounds like you are describing topping from the bottom. But I think Guilliam meant a strong preference to bottom. Hopefully in a GGG way.

I looked at the horribly written Wikipedia entry and have to amend my previous post. D/s in sex seems to mean more than physically in control. Like a general power or vulnerability trading dynamic. The sub is in the more vulnerable position (pain sub, bondage sub, humiliation sub etc). So receptive sex is kind of submissive... The receptive partner is physically more vulnerable; the inside of the body is easier to damage and harder to heal.

@96, lol, with someone's dick in my mouth who is in the more vulnerable position?

@92, EricaP: Yeah, there are several spectra/spectrums/spectralufuguses. I was responding to the mention of the Kinsey homo/hetero scale.

@94, EricaP wrote: Those two guys are both controlling. They'd both be more likely to find compatible partners if they can be GGG and not make every sex session about getting off their way.

I was describing their preferences, not what inflexible demands they make to their partners. And that's also a different kind of controlling that's arguably not part of sexuality. It's actually just selfishness.

@97: I agree, Erica. Receiving a blow job is slightly submissive for the guy. And not just because of the Bobbit potential.

Hunter78 wrote in 98: ...the penis is not going to be easily severed by mouth. Think of a very tough steak.

Fuck, Hunter. I sense you have a harrowing tale to tell along those lines!

GBP should read "The Ethical Slut" a fantastic book about managing polyamorous and open relationships ethically and respectfully. Dan has recommended this handbook repeatedly,In it, the authors outline suggestions for types of arrangements between couples in alternative relationships that underscore the emotional health of all parties involved while accommodating potentially complicated differences in preferences such as the LW who only is comfortable with annonymous hook-ups and his partner who only wants to hook up with people he is familiar with. I think everyone could benefit from the wisdom that the Ethically slutty alternative relationship counselors impart in this book. It's a great book to read with one's lover to spark the healthy discussions that are so necessary when navigating a complex relationship.

I don't think any position is inherently submissive. It all depends on the dynamics between the two people.

If I want the guy to feel submissive, I'll bind him securely before blowing him, so he knows I could hurt him, though I won't (much). If the guy is in charge, his hands will be on my head as he fucks my face.

@97 My bad, I forgot about teeth, yeah guys have to trust. Ok receptive oral is the less vulnerable position, and receptive anal and vaginal are more vulnerable positions.

To clarify, I don't think that women are physically more vulnerable. Despite being more easily internally damaged and being generally physically smaller and less inclined to violence. Men have a panic button right next to their penis. If your goal is to disable a man it's more effective to twist balls than bite down I think.

I definitely think that some positions and acts are more vulnerable for one person. If D/s is about control vs. vulnerability, or trustingly trading power, positions can be D/s too. It seems these examples show that you can mix submissive and dominant elements in the same act (guy trusting teeth but controlling movement, or commanding someone to peg you), which I also agree with.

@103: "positions can be D/s too"

I don't think so. D/s is all in the head. When my dominant orders me to beat him, or peg him, I'm the one who is vulnerable and submissive, and he's still the one in charge, deciding how it will go. That's just how it works.

@104 Wikipedia defines D/s as BDSM actions that give control, Psychology Today defines D/s as active vs passive actions. Different definitions but both are action based, not mentality based. So I am having trouble understanding what you mean by "it's all in the head". Ok I think I got it; in a bdsm "scene" the dominant orders and the submissive obeys. BDSM language sucks. So D/s specifically means master slave role playing in the kink culture. It is not some common usage of of the words dominance and submission applied to sex. Why not stick with master and slave or M/s?