I despise the focus many have on the mile high club. These people should learn to have some consideration for the other people flying with you.

"Me" and the TSARY...
"I" "I" "I" "I" "I" "I" "I" "I" "I" "I"
At the end of every episode. You may not be right, but you are consistent.

That call from the woman who wants a monogamish relationship with her monogamy-loving dude TOTALLY would've been a DTMFA if it had landed in the column. Dan's less likely to shout DTMFA on the podcast - I think it's because listening to people's actual voices and responding out loud makes them more human, whereas it's easy to type DTFMA in a column without expanding much on it.

I really don't think Bisexuals are more likely to cheat. I think a couple of things are in place here.
Out Bisexuals are more likely to have the "can we open the relationship" talk with their partners. And monosexuals do tend to blame Bisexuality when we do cheat. (I once knew a gay guy who tried that logic even though his BF cheated with another man).
and comment #2, that's Biphobic!

Also, that call by the cuckold gay guy annoyed me so much. It was this:

Caller: "Hey Dan, my partner and I are immature fucks and break up every time we argue. Is what I think is happening happening?" [bulllshit psychoanalysis]

Dan: "Yes, what you think is happening is happening." [followed by 20-minute useless rant complete with bullshit psychoanalysis and evopsych about "sperm competition"]

I was dying for Dan to just move on to the next call without even acknowledging that the "Mile-High" call had just played.

Hey, novel idea from a bisexual: what if bisexuality can be expressed over a LIFETIME rather than imagining us as having a deep and desperate need to fuck both genders ALL THE TIME?

I'm generally not a bisexual yeller. I haven't yelled at Dan in the past, and I understand that it's a tricky topic to deal with.

One thing that particularly got on my nerve(s) was the repeated declaration that almost all bi women wind up with men. What I found particularly funny about this was that they even discussed the reason for this perception--the fact that bi people more often than not get wound down or up to straight or gay--without making the connection. I'm a bi woman in a long-term relationship with another bi woman. Upon becoming friends with people, they immediately assume we're both gay, and even some of my friends regularly forget that I'm bisexual and are briefly surprised when I mention an ex-boyfriend or a previous male fling. I do my best to remind people without sounding obnoxious, but generally speaking, the world sees me as a lesbian.

I'm not. I should still be counted as a bi lady who's with a lady, but I get glossed over, in a way that I'm betting lots of other ladies do, too. We've got way bigger problems to deal with, but this one sure does bug me.

I'm bisexual. I've been turned down by a lesbian once she found that out (and I've read personal ads saying "no bisexuals please"). I've never had a guy turn me down once he found that out...

What I don't understand is why being bisexual is a touchy issue to homosexuals, but not to heterosexual (men at least). Why is this an issue for lesbians but not for heterosexual men (at least the ones I have met)? If my being unsatisfied with "only" women is problematic, isn't my being unsatisfied with "only" men? Is my question coming across correctly? I've always wanted to know why lesbians are extra scared of me...

Hey, novel idea from a bisexual: what if bisexuality can be expressed over a LIFETIME rather than imagining us as having a deep and desperate need to fuck both genders ALL THE TIME?

I'm generally not a bisexual yeller. I haven't yelled at Dan in the past, and I understand that it's a tricky topic to deal with.

One thing that particularly got on my nerve(s) was the repeated declaration that almost all bi women wind up with men. What I found particularly funny about this was that they even discussed the reason for this perception--the fact that bi people more often than not get wound down or up to straight or gay--without making the connection. I'm a bi woman in a long-term relationship with another bi woman. Upon becoming friends with people, they immediately assume we're both gay, and even some of my friends regularly forget that I'm bisexual and are briefly surprised when I mention an ex-boyfriend or a previous male fling. I do my best to remind people without sounding obnoxious, but generally speaking, the world sees me as a lesbian.

I'm not. I should still be counted as a bi lady who's with a lady, but I get glossed over, in a way that I'm betting lots of other ladies do, too. We've got way bigger problems to deal with, but this one sure does bug me.

Ugh. Sorry for the double post. *kicks interwebs*

@ 11- You're a bi-poster.

The "Bisexual women always go back to men" myth (and the bi-male version) is simply a numbers game. If you're a bisexual woman then your potential dating pool consists of at least 9 times as many straight men than lesbians. So if you're a lesbian dating a bisexual woman and the relationship ends, 9 out of 10 times her next relationship will be with a man.

In my younger days, it seems virtually all the guys who identified as 'bi' ended up in long term partnerships with men and all the women who identified as 'bi' also ended up in long term partnerships with men. So, I'll admit when a young person (like someone in their 20s) tells me they are bisexual I usually think along these lines even though I know I shouldn't. When someone is older and they tell me I don't think this though. Just my limited experience.

girl with the bisexual boyfriend: count your blessings while you're lucky enough to have him. seriously.

OMG, Neal Boulton's advice was really not very helpful. I'm out and bi for many years and I disagree EXTREMELY with this idea that bisexuals have double the amount of possibilities out there to be attracted to other people besides their partner. It's Woody Allen's comment times ten. I think my bisexuality helps me to be more discriminating because I'm only interested in people who are open and accepting of my sexuality and that don't listen to biphobic crap like this in the culture. And I know plenty of other bis who feel very discriminating. And then Boulton says that people who want to date bisexuals need to be aware of this issue that bi people will have more opportunities. Garbage. Thanks for ratcheting up the biphobia out there, Neal, for no good reason.

@Nancy Hartunian

Hyuk hyuk! And yep. Registration issues. Sorry about that!

@bigirl777: I also find it interesting that the idea of "more opportunities" automatically seems to equate to "more infidelity" with this argument. Like, we just can't say no? (And never mind that the more opportunities thing may not be true, given the number of people out there who are "wary" of bisexuals.) To be fair, my girlfriend and I are slowly tiptoeing into a monogamish arrangement; I'm not saying that monogamy is the BESTEST THING EVER and people who can't do monogamy should be ASHAAAAMED. But I'm also saying that we're not incontinent as a group. Prior to this relationship, I'd done monogamy for years; it's less out of an inability to be monogamous and more out of interest in an open relationship.

What bothered me about the caller was not that she was cautious in her own relationship choices--that's her thing--but that she was treating her friends' bi partners with skepticism because of her beliefs. Not cool.

Oh, Dan, you managed to find a call-in expert who got me more riled up about bisexuality than you ever have. The idea that bisexuals should embrace their attraction to both sexes and not be limited by monogamy is such a one-sided notion. There are gay people who fight to get marriage equaity, just as there are gays who think that queers should abhor the heteronormative tradition of marriage. Similarly, there are bisexuals for whom sexual orientation is not a barrier to monogamy.

I think one thing we might be seeing is that monogamy is hard. People cheat, regardless of orientation. Bisexuals may have an easier excuse for infidelity ("I just couldn't go the rest of my life without sleeping with women"), but that doesn't mean that bisexuals are incapable of monogamy or that every bisexual should stick to open relationships.

Thanks for the heads up on Volunteer Park. We live in the neighborhood, too, and will make a point not to cut through there at night. Also excellent impersonation of "dick zombies" :-)

Here’s the deal with many bisexuals IMHO. We’re open. It’s not really an orientation. It’s letting go of orientation, of "sexual identity”. We have preferences, but we can usually roll with a lot. We’re the vanguard. Proto-sluts, if you will. (Not to say bis can’t do monogamy too if they want it. But I think they’re less likely to want it (monogamy, not LTRs). Not because they need the other gender, but maybe because they value variety more than people whose attraction is limited to one gender (?)). Single-gender oriented and monogamous humans, in 100 years (if we make it), will be the exception (I think truly monogamous ones are already, but…). Straight people will have to come out (along with strict homosexuals). We’ll accept them with love, hopefully. But they’ll be anomalies :) Betcha. This is not to put down heteros and homos. But honestly there’s a lot more crossover in people who identify as gay or straight than I think they like to let on. By the way, I never “came out”. I just mention my girlfriends when I have them, mention that I’m bi if the topic comes up, or note attractive-to-me women when they enter my field of vision (if appropriate, of course). Most people say “oh”. And that’s usually the end of it. If not, I explain a bit, or if it comes to it, get in a bigoted motherfucker’s face.

Oh, and if you decide to have a bi co-host again you might choose someone actually known and respected by bisexuals out there. Not someone pushing their pansexual project.
Adrienne Williams with Bi Social Network or Shiri Eisner come to mind.

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?

It is enough, Bryan. I don't think Dan was saying you need to be militant about it, but just not HIDE it.

Sounds like we're in the same boat - I mention my boyfriend at work casually, and there's a picture of us together sitting on my desk there. When people talk about significant others, I don't become silent or hesitant - I throw out any relevant anecdote or comment just as if I were dating a woman. I don't make a production out of it, my gayness isn't on my resume, etc. - I just live without shame.

In some instances, I think that helps more than being super radical and getting in people's faces about sexuality. As it was said on the podcast, if someone KNOWS a gay/lesbian/bi/trans person, they're less likely to be a bigoted Ahole, and less likely to vote against our rights. Once you attach the face and name of someone you get along with and care about to a label, people tend to look past that label and get over any ignorance or prejudice. They (hopefully) end up caring more about the person(s) and that supercedes any ridiculous bigotry.

@22: Of for the love of... It's an orientation. I am a bisexual and way up on my very short list of things/people I can't stand are holier-than-thou-bisexuals who think they're just so much more liberated and free-thinking than other people, and the only reason everyone else isn't bisexual too is because they're too closed-minded.

First of all, the mile high club is amazing. All you haters are just jealous, or have had a bad experience. That's life. There are ways to be subtle about having sex on a plane, masturbating on a plane, etc. (i.e. do it when flying at night, when you're sitting at the back of the plane, if there's nobody around you. Just don't be a creep, ya know?). BE FREE! I don't think there's a need to make blanket statements about it. Although I did expect Dan to mention his distaste for the mile high club after his monologue/rant about the dick zombies....

I identify as straight, but the fact that bi-sexuals are under fire about fidelity, and that there's this perception that they can't maintain a monogamous relationship, is bullshit. People cheat or they don't. You're either emotionally and sexually satisfied with your partner or you're not. Why all the fuss? I feel like making it an issue only increases the false perception that the queer community can't maintain healthy relationships.

I am a (bi?) woman who was in a 2 year relationship with a lesbian who left ME for another chick! I was very in love and very commited to her and it was devastating. So there's one exception to your bi people can't be monogamous theory. The reason I struggle with calling myself bi is that I tried hard to meet other women after she dumped me, went to gay bars all the time, tried to check out girls, but...I just felt nothing. Besides my ex and Michele Rodriguez, I don't find myself attracted to women. Does this mean I still have to wave my bi flag even though I'm banging dudes? Do I have to be "open" and "out" about my sexuality even though I'm not sure how to define it? Bisexuality is a sticky seemingly sensitive subject for a lot of people. I don't hide my past...but I don't want to be a poser either...if that makes sense.

And #9: I feel you. When I was dating my girlfriend and we met other lesbians, they were EXTREMELY cold to me once they found out I was bi. They would be nice one minute and roll their eyes the next. I always felt like I was intruding on their space and they would even crack sarcastic jokes about my girlfriend dating. me. What can I say? There must be a well-earned amount of bitterness from the lesbian community about bi girls. But it's like...keep an open mind, ladies. Do I need to wear a shirt that says, "I went gay, got cheated on and dumped, and all I got was this stupid t-shirt?" Not ALL of us are experimenting, cheating, cock-loving liars.

Oh! And I masturbated on a red eye to Philly once! does that count? :)

@13
I don't know why that doesn't come up more often. It seems to me to be the overriding consideration.

Assuming for discussion that all lesbians are 100% lesbian and all bisexual women are equally attracted to men and women, then if a lesbian is dating another lesbian and they break up, that lesbian woman is going to look for another woman.

If she is dating a bisexual and they break up, that bisexual woman is going to be open to finding either another woman or a man - and straight men outnumber lesbian women by a huge proportion.

Add in the fact that the openly bisexual woman is going to get some resistance from lesbian women and potentially less from the far more numerous straight men, and that available other women are far more likely to be part of their existing social circle, which might create some resistance for fear of alienating their shared friend, and it just raises the likelihood that a straight man is going to who the bisexual "happens" to fall for.

And of course, all the bisexual women who start out dating men, and then on a breakup start dating another man, aren't likely to be seen as being bisexual in the first place.

Even if it's only statistical, the chances are extremely high that the bisexual people who do choose monogamy are with opposite sex partners, with far less motivation to be out as bisexual in the first place.

It seems likely that it isn't so much that bisexuals are incapable of fidelity and monogamy so much that openly bisexual people will be skewed towards those who don't choose a single partner, and monogamous bisexuals will tend to be far less visible.

Or am I missing something?

@29: The people in line outside the airplane bathroom thinking thoughts of death at you are not jealous or haters. They are people who want to use the bathroom. They think you're a jerk.

I normally give people a lot of slack on the "bi-phobic" thing and try not to jump on someone when I feel slightly offended, this episode was too much.

I have no problem with people not being monogamous but I am insulted by the generalization that a bi person cannot be monogamous because we have "more options." I am bi and have been in a happy monogamous relationship for 12 years.

Please do not make the generalization that someone who is bi "needs" to be with a people of both genders in order to be happy. This is not true for everyone... As someone who is a 4 or 5 on the Kinsey scale I don't feel like I have a whole lot more "options" than others.

And being leary of someone who is bi based on bad generalizations regarding sexuality is not bi-phobic or insulting? Are you kidding?

Sorry for the excessive air quotes. I am just pissed. Dan, I never considered you bi-phobic. Your co-pilot is another story. Generalizations and popular myth make it very difficult for folks like me to explain myself or come out at all. Your buddy is entitled to his opinion but please don't apply this to me and the many bi people I have met that don't meet this standard.

@27 i see how that could have come across as holier than thou. it's not the last thing i could be accused of. but the point i was trying to make was more that the idea of sexual identity is changing, and won't remain forever so polar. look at all the letters that keep getting added to lgbtq... and i'm not saying that anyone is closed-minded because of their sexual identity. i'm saying it's partially shaped by society.

@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.

@36: You're treating cheating on a monogamous relationship as a passive experience that will be triggered when you happen to pass by the 1% of the population who triggers you to non-monogamous thoughts and actions. I don't believe this is actually how most of us--even the nonmonogamous--experience sex and relationships.

When I was first dating my husband I had a zillion options to cheat on him by virtue of being a hot young college girl, even if I limited myself to the male half of the campus. I didn't cheat because I'm not into that, not because I was saved by only being sexually attracted to half the campus. (A few thousand individuals.)

Also, I like math but I don't think this is an area where it applies.

Let us say in a pool of 100 men and 100 women, 94 of each gender are straight, one is bi, five are gay. Your straight people have 95 potential partners in the room. Your bi people have 101, minus however many are not willing to date someone who's bi. This 95 to 101-minus-squicky is just not going to be a noticeable difference in any one person's dating options.

@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.

Maybe its just because I'm from the east coast, but was I the only one who heard pearl clutching over the whole park rant? I used to live in a medium sized city with a park used for cruising (by any and all types of matches/match-ups), movies, picnics, music festivals, theater-in-the-park, and so on. Also, the park was situated between two major universities, so at any given time people could be found in various phases and stages of PDAs, waking up from sleepovers, hangovers, or whatever. Oh yeah, there were always some homeless people around too. We had cops on bikes, not harassing people, just riding the hard road surfaces, mostly handing out parking tickets--for the about twelve parking spaces available. Don't know if this is so very different from Volunteer Park, but I don't quite get the whole, think of the straights! the children! our reputations! thing. Our unspoken-but-pretty-much-policy, by visitors to the park at whatever time, should we stumble across, or heaven forbid, cross paths with, others seeking or involved in purposes other than our own, was either a simple greeting or an, "Oops, sorry," then move along. Nobody fainted at coeds screwing under (or even not quite under) blankets at high noon, or cruisers starting their searches at dusk. Gay men smiled at middle-agers on blankets waiting for some event to begin, straight families didn't cover their kids eyes, and the fights that there were usually involved the mix of alcohol and the aforementioned lack of parking.
And the reverse curfew of midnight? Jebus H.T. Christ, I'm a middle-aged woman almost ten years older than Dan, and I don't get it. Or maybe I'm just jealous, now stuck in a place where a "park" is the size of a hankie, has one bench, a dozen over-mulched begonias, and is surrounded by brush and scrub pine, all with attendant stinging a/o poisonous insects. And spiders.

In response to the feedback given to the young man looking for advice on how what to negotiate with his partner before a rape scene. Great job on emphasizing negotiation. I felt some mention of making sure that your scene can not be heard by others was worth mentioning, be it by neighbors or adjacent rooms in a hotel. I have heard stories of the cops being called to the scene of a rape or beating or abduction in progress because someone vanilla heard someone in distress or a security camera caught the license plate of a car where a man pushed a woman into the trunk of a car. Be aware that vanilla people can't know that it's consentual.

@33 there we no people in line, everyone was asleep. BOOM. That was so easy.

Ms Kait - I did think that, given the framework of chiding his fellow gays, Mr Savage could have done a little better than Think of the Children! when so many gay men are denied the privilege of being permitted to raise children in the first place.

Dan I love you but that bisexual guy is kind of a douchebag dipshit...not that everything he said was wrong or anything, but he was annoying as hell and loved the sound of his own voice. Ugh.

Ms IPJ and Mr Sebeck (inadvertently?) demonstrate that B-S and B-L/G relationships are considerably different. I'd even go so far as to say that, while this certainly does not apply to all B-L/G relationships I've observed and not all of them have been troubled, in those with troubles that could legitimately be pinned to the B partner (again, this is a subset, not the set as a whole), I'd venture that the trouble sprang far less often from disparate instances of temptation than from the B partner treating the L/G partner the same way (s)he treated an S partner or another B partner. I would not put this down to malicious intent.

Dan's bi copilot made a few good points, but his math is totally wrong. Bi people DO NOT have double the playing field of potential partners that gay or straight people have, and I was surprised to hear a bisexual person make such an assertion. Bi people do not get to pick from ALL men and ALL women. Their options, like everybody else's, are limited by other people's sexual orientation. So, as a bisexual woman, my playing field is made up of: other bisexuals of both genders (a small group, and often hard to spot), lesbians (many of whom rule me out automatically) and straight men (THERE ARE LOTS). Some straight men aren't interested in dating real live bi women (they like it only as a fantasy, if at all), but opposite-sex straight people still make up the biggest group of my potential partners.

This is why the lesbian caller has had so many experiences of her ex-girlfriends dating men after her. When bi women are looking to change partners, they have a lot more male options than female ones just because queer women are so thin on the ground while straight dudes are everyfuckingwhere. THAT'S the real math of being bi.

Dan, you and your bi copilot also both conflated being left by a bi person (serial mongamy) with being cheated on or forced into nonmonogamy by a bi person. They are fundamentally not the same.

Also, it would be great if gay people would stop placing so much emphasis on the gender of who their bi partner leaves them for. Why does it matter if you get left for a woman or a man? Either way, you get left; your partner wants to be with somebody who's not you, and that's an awful feeling, and the gender of the person who got picked doesn't change the situation. Do I have some kind of bisexual blindness about this? Because from where I stand, it just looks like lesbians feel more threatened by straight male competition than by female competition, which is kind of sad.

i used to id as 'bi', but feel it is no longer an accurate descriptor... but my potential pool of mates is small: other bi folks, lesbians with an open mind, and gay guys with an open mind. it would never occur to me to even look at a straight man - different species shouldn't breed. however, i have also had the 'experimenting' girls experience, and it does burn. i suspect that being highly visible as queer means i pick up more of these than statistically indicated... in my neck of the woods this (and sleeping with newly-coming-out folks) is referred to as 'community service'.

on the monogamy front... i'm not sure why people think it's something to be proud of. i personally think monogamous = 'short-term relationship'. i like long term relationships, therefore fidelity is irrelevant - and also a tad superficial. if your going to split over who people fuck... why even bother to start?
aside from which, you can only claim to be monogamous if you're in your 80's, and have had the same lover since you were 12. every one else is just pretending.

That "double the options" repetition was driving me crazy. Glad other people caught that too.

Also, wow, holy NIMBY, Dan!

Ms Skipper - If same-sex relationships never suffered for their composition, I'd be inclined to agree with your last paragraph, probably with a proviso or several. But I am not going to quarrel with anyone who finds the societal benefits that befall the dumper to be too great an extra twist of the knife to be deemed bearable.

Marriage, work considerations, family/societal approval - there are many perks lacking from many same-sex relationships that many L/G people would like/find to be positive for the relationship. Lack of such support has assisted in if not caused the demise of many same-sex relationships. Yes, it's horrible being dumped. But in this particular dump it can feel to the dumpee that the dumper is being rewarded by walking into a new relationship that will have so many perks missing in the same-sex relationship.

I can't speak for women, but the question of children might be even more of a consideration for them. The straight parallel in Death of a Hollow Man (during their marriage, Esselin always talked Rosa out of her desire to have a baby. After their divorce and his remarriage, his new wife Kitty got pregnant right away) is a tough enough case, and I suspect it's a good deal harder on a lesbian for whom the subject involves jumping through a good many hoops whereas her bisexual partner could get pregnant in a twinkling even before dumping her.

It would be nice if it really didn't matter societally, but, while it does, it can be considerably irritating to be told it shouldn't matter personally.

@vennominon, thanks for that explanation, which makes sense in a lot of ways. Yes, there are some societal perks to being in an opposite-sex relationship that aren't present in a same-sex relationship. (Different people place different amounts of importance on those perks, relative to other aspects of the relationship.) Yes, I acknowledge I have access to straight privilege sometimes, and that it must be frustrating when bi people forget their sometimes-straight-privilege matters. And I'm not suggesting anybody treat gender as invisible.

However, I'd like to point out that for bi people there are perks in same-sex relationships that virtually no opposite-sex partner can recreate. As a feminist, especially, I get things out of being with another woman that I almost never get from men. I've been with some terrific straight men who made major inroads to understanding what it means to be marginalized as a woman and as a queer person. Straight men can be pretty good feminists and queer allies. But their experience is so far from mine, they rarely understand in the same way a bi or lesbian woman would. Also, with a woman, I don't have to feel like "the girl" all the time. I can take on a multitude of roles in the relationship that most men don't make available to me. The list goes on. So it's frustrating that my options for dating women are so limited, not only because of sexual orientation-related statistics, but because queer women choose to eliminate themselves as potential partners. It's as if they have no faith in what they have to offer (aside from their bodies) that a man can't offer.

I'm also inclined to suggest that if there were more B/L-G relationships in the world, the resulting increased visibility for LGB people would help wear away at the societal obstacles for same-sex couples. (Not that anybody should select a certain partner just for the activism of it.)

And on that note: bi people, please be out and visible even if you're in a hetero relationship.

Way to pick a copilot to diffuse the bi-backlash, Dan.
Boulton didn't just come across as a dick, but as a dick who wasn't interested in answering the caller's goddamn question.Plus he just wasn't good podcast material. Maybe his writing is good, but not every writer is improvisationally witty or even a good conversationalist. Maybe he should have gotten the questions ahead of time and written out some answers?

Ms Skipper - It interests me that you mention dating straight men and then queer women removing themselves from your pool. Why would bisexual women prefer lesbians as partners to other bisexual women (I actually wondered after my other post how the potential hurt might apply to a bisexual dumpee, guessing that some of it might be lessened because the dumpee could make the same choice) - does any of my other post apply? And I can hear the old folk song with lyrics adjusted to Where Have All the Bi Men Gone?

I'm sure the perks you mention are genuine perks for you. But you seem to have gone from questioning the end of the relationship to the beginning. One can't just turn the reasoning around and say that your dumping a man to date a woman would balance your later dumping the same woman to date a man. And, while I sympathize with your frustration, it could appear as you wanting to have more opportunity to exercise a choice that other people don't have.

If I could think of corresponding general perks for lesbians in dating bisexual women rather than other lesbians, I'd be happy to pass them on as recommendations.

I'm assuming you'd think more B/L-G couples would provide a benefit because it would swell the numbers of same-sex couples. Of course, in many parts of society they'll be taken as G or L couples, which could be an irritant to the Bs involved. The level of bi awareness even in otherwise "enlightened" circles is shockingly low, as I'm sure I needn't tell you.

At any rate, good luck, and may you enjoy all your partners of any gender or orientation.

Holy crap Dan, your "expert" on bisexuals was far more offensive than anything you've said.

1st & foremost most people are bisexual. Only about 20% of the population is completely hetero or homo so trying to categorize bisexuals in one way or another is rather silly. Perhaps not all bi folks technically identify...but they're still out there, kinda like folks who claim to be one race when they're actually multiracial.

2nd. The lesbian caller that got cheated on/dumped by bi women is the one to blame for her woes...not the bi's. We have to responsible for the choices we make & she chose cheaters. Her girlfriends that went on to men after her, probably just needed someone to cleanse their sexual palate & it's often easier & with fewer strings with a guy.

3rd. The other annoying thing this caller doesn't seem to get is that confidence (not ego) goes a long way. If one is confident in themselves then they don't view their ex's post break up relationships as some kind of attack. You just move your heart and vagina on wards.

I came out as bi when I was 16. I have dated an equal amount of women and men. I'm now 37 & have been with my gold-star lesbian wife monogamously (were both women) for 6 years. Do I occasionally miss men... sure. Sometimes I miss other femmes & butches too. That's just part of the reality w/ monogamy. My wife accepts my love of both genders and isn't threatened. We play with it even, which keeps us happy, healthy, and outrageously queer.

So dykes get over yourselves, grow a pair (of ovaries that is) and date based compatibility and heart...not out of fear that you'll get dumped for a dude. And don't be jealous of us bi's either because I've know PLENTY of self identified lesbos that wanted man-dick just as much as I did... they were just too afraid to admit it.

I'm a straight woman from Seattle and occasionally take my young children to Volunteer Park. But I know goddamn well that I don't belong there at night, and certainly wouldn't take my kids there. Especially because I don't know the "sex" part from any other part, it seems best just to stay away altogether. Not just because I'm a prude and really do not want to run into anyone having sex in public (although I am and I don't), but because it seems almost like private property. I think it's well known to anyone who's been in Seattle for any period of time. Nine does seem a bit early, though.

@41: If no one noticed you having sex, then no one would give a damn about the mile high club. Someone somewhere is messing up on the whole "so discrete no one notices" thing. You may be certain no one came to the door of the bathroom, rolled their eyes, and went to sulk under their blanket until you freed up the space for those with a full bladder. You may be certain your under blanket touching was so subtle no one in the surrounding seats noticed At All. And maybe you really were.

But someone out there is convinced they are the picture of subtle sexy hijinks, and failing, or the rest of us would care about the mile high club the same way we care whether you wear bunny ears during sex in your home.

Ms Frantasm - Who died and made you Hilda Rumpole?

Expanding or contracting the definition of bisexuality to suit oneself and one's point can be highly irritating no matter who's doing it.

Without saying that all cheated-upon partners are innocent victims, that line of reasoning rather depletes any sympathy for anyone wronged by a partner, doesn't it? There might have been signs, certainly, but perhaps not every time. I'll agree that some people do have broken choosers, but why so harsh? It would not be at all feminist to blame someone whose partners abused her, even if the frame would be approximately the same. And as for cleansing sexual palates - LMB.

It is not the place of someone who has occasionally been in privileged relationships to tell those who have never been and will never be in privileged relationships how to feel about privileged relationships. It does not have to be viewed as a deliberate attack to be painful. The pain is just as often in what society is doing for many people. I have friends whose relationships have been broken up by external homophobia, or at least it was a major source of stress and among the leading causes of the split. These were not all B-L/G relationships, but in the cases of the ones that were, when bi partners married within three months of the breakup, it was sufficiently devastating even for those who didn't eventually become less pro-bi that I for one would not have wanted to tell anyone so gutted just to suck it up.

Congratulations. You and your wife are compatible. But not every gold star lesbian enjoys playing with the idea of attraction to men. One of the great advantages of homosexuality is that one can have as little regard for the opposite sex as one finds suitable and ignore all those such as much as may be practicable. Such a woman would presumably not date you because you would be incompatible.

You would be entirely within your rights to insist that any women you might date would be comfortable with your attraction to men or even bisexual herself in order to have shared that attraction. You dated and married a woman who enjoys playing with it. Again, I congratulate you. But why try to deny other people the autonymy to prioritize what they want in their relationships? One need not agree with every choice someone makes to defend to the death her right to choose it.

And wouldn't a self-identified lesbian who wanted to be with men but was too afraid to admit it be exactly the person who would envy bisexual women who were where she wanted to be?

Re the park dick action: you're old! lol! What will your neighbors think? Dan, you have caught the grown up disease.

Skipper,
Vennominon addressed the major part of your question very well I thought. Here is my take. Since I have already expressed my opinions on other posts here at The Stranger, and been given the label of biphobe, I may as well be honest. However I will point out that I have learned not to be honest in real life about these things.

We all have our own experiences to go on, and we can try to rationalize them away all we want but they don't go away. My experiences seem to be not all that uncommon as I have heard many other gay guys express similar experiences.

Every bi identified guy I have known has ended up with a woman. I know that not every bi guy does, but everyone I know has. Including the two I used to date.

It isn't just that they walk into a privileged relationship after dating guys. It is that it seems that most (the ones I know) of them seek it out. Kids seem to be a major factor in it on top of the other more general privileges of societal acceptance and lack of discrimination that they get in a mixed gender relationship. It is so much easier for a guy to have kids in a mixed gender relationship, even if they still plan on adoption, than for a same sex couple in most places.

It makes sense, and I can understand it. But having been on the other end it is more than just getting dumped for someone else who happens to be a different gender. I am convinced that both of the bi guys I was with, one who cheated and one who didn't but still left, did so because they had decided that it was time to settle down and have kids, and although I thought that in both cases we were pretty settled down they apparently didn't.

To me it wasn't just that they left for someone else who happened to be of a different gender. It was that in retrospect I honestly believe I never really had a chance. I was just a fun diversion until the real time to settle down, at which point I couldn't give what they wanted.

Now I know not all bi people are like that. But I can't help the fact that after that when I heard someone was bi I automatically disregarded them as a potential partner. And the fact that all the bi guys I know basically did the same thing, even if not quite so deliberately, my mind just figures the odds are even more stacked against a relationship with a bi guy working out.

I don't believe that bisexuals are less capable of being monogamous. In fact despite all I just posted I was pretty shocked at Dan's guest. He makes me look like the poster boy for bi acceptance.

I know there are many bi guys here who can and probably will chime in to display their same sex relationships as proof that I am wrong. And people can question the math all they want. But the fact is that these things rooted in personal experience aren't necessarily rational and can't be swept under the rug. You can't just decide to get over it.

Of course in the real world you can't express these things without getting piled on, so I don't. Luckily I am in a long term, and I hope permanent, relationship so it doesn't come up. Before that I learned never to express publicly that I wouldn't date a bi person. "Of course I would. I just haven't met one in a long while that I feel compatible with."

So there is my take. It isn't that the other person happened to end up in a relationship with someone of the opposite gender. My personal experiences I am convinced that this was a deliberate goal for specific reasons, and my experiences tell me that it isn't a rare thing.

But here is the thing. I don't go around bashing bi folks. I don't go warning my friends away from dating bi people. I keep my nose out of other people's relationships unless my opinion is solicited. I don't discount people as friends or feel anger at people when I find out they are bi (I wouldn't date most of my friends, even the 100% gay ones, anyway). Really, outside of dating I don't really care if someone is bi or gay or straight.

As a bi girl, I never understood at all why lesbians find it so offensive when a bi girl leaves them for a man until I read these comments. Now, it makes some sense.

It's true that most bi chicks end up with men. There's something going on there other than the numbers game, though. I'm currently in a relationship with a guy; it's pretty much monogamous, but we've worked it out so that if I want to, I can have one-night stands with girls or even female fuckbuddies if I can get them. I've never met a lesbian who would allow a bi girlfriend the equivalent arrangement. While I'm sure I'm capable of a completely monogamous commitment to a person, why should I bother with a person who demands that when I can be with someone who doesn't?

Bi-sexual female here. Or at least I ID as bi. I don't see myself in a relationship with a woman, but I sure do enjoy sex with them. I don't flaunt my bi-identify, but I don't hide it either. And I think that's sufficient. If it comes up, it comes up. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

I'm in a 3yr+ monomagish relationship with a bi man. I tend to find bisexual men far sexier, often because of that increased sexual confidence (the bisexual men I've been with have pretty much always been sexually confident and open). Confidence really is where it's at.

I think Dan maybe should have asked the first caller what motivated her to give her bf a blow job on the plane - was it just to get into the Mile High Club? Is that what her boyfriend used to egg her on? She just sounded a little naive maybe. A little caught up by the kudos she would receive socially - which can equate to peer pressure!

That said I'm catching a plane in a week and am looking forward to the challenge of some discreet sex en route.

Did anyone else catch the comparison between romantic caution and outright racism?

Your guest compared racial profiling with bi-phobia and then unsuccessfully attempted to justify being suspicious of bi-sexuals because "they have more options." His use of racial profiling and the path of his argument could lead listeners to believe that being suspicious of people because of their race is justified because what? They have more options to commit crimes? Most often race is used in criminal profiling by police to excuse individual AND institutionalized racism. I kept listening and waiting for you to correct him, Dan, but you let me down. So did you intended to make bi-sexuals feel like they should tolerate it when a partner is unjustly suspicious because that partner has now been given your green light to be a controlling, jealous partner? And did you intend to make people of color feel like they should tolerate it when the police stop them because suspicion can lie only on race and not just cause? You said nothing when your guest ate his foot, giving racism your green light. Didn't you say that silence is ascent? I didn't, and have not, remained silent when Satan .... pardon, Archbishop Sartain, waged war on gays. Not one sent of my money will Papa Ratzi recieve because his Church is bat shit, oppressive crazy. My money now goes in larger amounts to Planned parenthood and Northwest Aids Alliance. Where are you, Dan, when this black woman needs you? Silent. That's where. And I expected more from a man with your knowledge. I would like for you to make this right. Can you do that, Dan? Can you admit that distrusting bisexuals based on their sexuality is wrong and that distrusting people based on their color is wrong too?

Did anyone else catch the comparison between romantic caution and outright racism?

Your guest compared racial profiling with bi-phobia and then unsuccessfully attempted to justify being suspicious of bi-sexuals because "they have more options." His use of racial profiling and the path of his argument could lead listeners to believe that being suspicious of people because of their race is justified because what? They have more options to commit crimes? Most often race is used in criminal profiling by police to excuse individual AND institutionalized racism. I kept listening and waiting for you to correct him, Dan, but you let me down. So did you intended to make bi-sexuals feel like they should tolerate it when a partner is unjustly suspicious because that partner has now been given your green light to be a controlling, jealous partner? And did you intend to make people of color feel like they should tolerate it when the police stop them because suspicion can lie only on race and not just cause? You said nothing when your guest ate his foot, giving racism your green light. Didn't you say that silence is ascent? I didn't, and have not, remained silent when Satan .... pardon, Archbishop Sartain, waged war on gays. Not one sent of my money will Papa Ratzi recieve because his Church is bat shit, oppressive crazy. My money now goes in larger amounts to Planned parenthood and Northwest Aids Alliance. Where are you, Dan, when this black woman needs you? Silent. That's where. And I expected more from a man with your knowledge. I would like for you to make this right. Can you do that, Dan? Can you admit that distrusting bisexuals based on their sexuality is wrong and that distrusting people based on their color is wrong too?