Cipel says McGreevey is bisexual

[glantern954]

Source: Seatle Post Intelligencer
Published: Thursday, November 30, 2006
Title: Cipel says ex-Gov. McGreevey is not gay

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

TRENTON, N.J. -- The man former New Jersey Gov. James E. McGreevey identified as his gay lover said Thursday he believes McGreevey is not gay.

Appearing on "Larry King Live," Golan Cipel, an Israeli citizen hired by McGreevey first as a campaign aide and later as his homeland security adviser, said that McGreevey's 2004 resignation speech admission that he is "a gay American" was "part of the spin."

Through lawyers, Cipel had threatened to sue McGreevey for sexual harassment shortly before and after McGreevey's resignation. A lawsuit was never filed.

"I think McGreevey had no choice. There was a sexual harassment lawsuit against him. And he didn't know what to do, and his advisers told him, 'come out first,' and he would be perceived as the victim" and thereby gain control of the story, Cipel said.

While he said McGreevey did make sexual advances toward him on several occasions, Cipel said the former governor also frequently spoke about heterosexual encounters, including sex with prostitutes on trips to Germany and the Dominican Republic.

"I believe that Jim McGreevey is bisexual," Cipel said.



Cipel, 37, in his first extended national television interview since the publication in September of McGreevey's memoir, "The Confession," also urged the gay community "not to embrace McGreevey," saying the former governor committed sexual harassment against him and others.


Rest of Article at:

Link: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Gay_Governor_Cipel.html

[glantern954]

There is some interesting debate over bisexuality in response to
this topic here:


http://www.towleroad.com/2006/12/golan_cipel_mcg.html

Here is a clip from one of the more interesting ones. I think most of the posters have well intentions, but ultimately don't get what it is like to be bisexual. This one in particluar gave me the borg vibe, meaning "You will be assimilated".

Clip:

The fact of the matter is there are countless men like Jim McGreevy
who are totally gay even though they have, or have had, girlfriends
and/or wives and/or children. We ALL know plenty of them. My best
friend was married for 16 years and has two kids but he has no doubt
that he was always 100% homosexually oriented. Strangely enough
there are always people who argue with him and try to convince him
that he must have been straight or bi when he was married. They seem
to be unable to accept the fact that he could have been a gay man
married to a woman.

For the record, I know that there are truly bisexual people. I know
at least a couple. I also know that there are truly ambidextrous
people. But I believe that a significant portion of those who claim
a bi or ambi identity technically aren't. I know that there are
varying degrees of bisexuality and ambidextrousness but just as I
personally don't consider a person who is right handed but CAN
clumsily throw a ball, or clumsily write his name with his left hand
to be ambidextrous (even if he claims to be), I don't consider every
gay man who has had, or can have sex with a woman, or identifies as
bisexual, bisexual just because he claims to be. Others have
different opinions.

I'm sure many bisexuals have a hard time with gay and straight
people who don't believe them or possibly even shun them. That's
unfortunate but it seems to me that their beef should be with those
who claim to be bi when they actually aren't, and with individuals
who doubt their personal identification as bisexual.

[JohnnyV]

Thanks for the clip on McGreevey. Very interesting.

I think America has classified itself into sexual labels that no longer make any sense. What does it mean to "be" a gay man but still have sex with women? The analogies to right and left-handedness are silly because sex is much more sensitive and ambiguous than hand coordination. If you're a gay man there will still be some men that you don't feel sexually connected to, and there could be men that you have sex with without enjoying the sex, as well as others who will leave you impotent and therefore dysfunctional. The same goes for straight men and women.

The quest for an airtight sexual identity has become one of the biggest fool's errands of our national politics.

And then, if you just get to the more practical matters of life, what is it that we hope to get from sex anyway? Isn't a big part of it to give pleasure to others who support us emotionally, who build homes and shared lives with us, who give us children? Let's say that you are a gay man but you marry a woman and have sex with her because those other, not purely sexual things are important to you. Why would that be so wrong?

What if you are a gay man and there is a wonderful woman whom you can have sex with, and who cares about you, and there are no men around who can fulfill your need for love? Is it wrong to say, "I'm bi" and then commit yourself to that woman?

The tragedy of American sexual politics is that we've lost sight of how sex fits into our larger life goals. Now we're lost in this fruitless attempt to figure out what we are and "stay true to it" even if everything else in our life points us in another direction.

The great thing about bisexuality is that it opens the door to more complex and reasonable beliefs and practices that could bring us happiness.

J

PS. I have no doubt that McGreevey is bisexual and he probably got pleasure from both sexes. Now that he's an out gay man he's probably watching straight porn and jacking off while he fantasizes about those hookers overseas.

[bi_scott]

This whole thing just confuses me, hence my blog, fluidsexuality.

I am bi. I find men and women attractive. I am not out but I am more comfortable myself knowing this, rather than the turmoil that I have been through. I have mates who flirt with both men and women and I think that this is growing in the youth culture, certainly.

I wonder whether sexual identity is becoming less important to young people, whether they are more interested in friendship and sexual exploration rather than having a particular label attached to them - are young people wanting to be more fluid that this. I know that this is not a topic about young people but I am just interested to know whether there is an inherant stigma in an older generation that requires a sexual definition / label that needs to be stuck to that may not be so prevalent in young people?!

[citystyleguy]

when i came to the realization of what i am, the artificial barriers put up by society through its institutions, codified behavioral identities, and other such limitations, it was a true epiphany. i no longer attempted to code my desires, interests, etc. by others defined parameters, but by my own measures. this need to codify my sexual desires, needs, and pursuits seemed futile and pointless; many times i read threads here, and there is always a need to define the bisexuality by "...how gay..." it is or "...how straight..." it is for a person at a single moment. by what sort of self-rightousness do i need to limit myself to what is gay or straight (i do not mention lesbian here, as i am speaking of my own discoveries as a male).

if one is gay or straight, so be it; i would never be one to define what that is for you. so do not attempt to with my sexuality; for that is what it all comes down to, but individual sexuality without specified gender labels. at no time do i feel or would describe myself at a given moment as gay, or straight; i am at all times sexual, and that is as fluid as moment to moment.

unfortunately for the bisexual community, we have to fight battles on both fronts, the straight community that attempts to set up the belief that they are the norm and all else is at best a "...lifestyle..." like picking out a leather chair instead of fabric; what a hoot! then the gay community says we are uncommitted, closet straights that are just dabbling with guys until the right woman comes along! yet another hilarious hoot!

hell, we can fill cyberspace with writings on this subject; many others are writing disertations(sp?) on this that will never get it right.

the bisexual is a stand alone being; not given definition by other sexual standards, nor just to please someone else who gives of themselves or for the expectations of shared material goods. when we seek others to share our sexual being, it is for mutual enjoyment, the sheer pleasure of giving someone a sensual high, as well as a purely selfish desire for the same, NOT TO ENCASE IT ANOTHER SEXUALITY. this is also extended to non-sexual expectations, such as sharing space, having children, etc.

our american society is pulling itself apart in attempting to come to terms with the desire of gays and lesbians to have a sanctified and legal marriage; just think what will happen when bisexuals demand a truly polyamorus(sp?) sanctified and legal marriage. mmmhh, mmmhh, what a hissy fit that will prove to be when those wheels get to turning.

be true to thyself...only then will you set yourself free!