"How Male Bisexuality Got Cool" article

[MetaSexual2]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-21/how-male-bisexuality-got-cool/

[M. Wolfe]

I was annoyed by this in the article:


“I don't know why these famehounds claim to be bisexual, but they don't set off my ‘bi-dar’ one whiff. While I'm hopeful that their posed bisexuality is a harbinger of a new generation of heterosexual men who are actually willing to face their bi desires

Bi-dar first. The concept of the orientation radar seems flawed to me, mostly because most non-heterosexuals just plain don't act abnormally. Not to mention the strait people who do act abnormally, get picked up by these 'dars' but are false positives.

Secondly: "heterosexual men who are actually willing to face their bi desires"
Ought it not be "bisexual men who are actually willing to face their bi desires"?

[M. Wolfe]

Bidar or gaydar does exist. It's kind of hard to explain unless you have it but you can tell who is bi or gay very easily and it has nothing to do if they act abnormally or not.

It does though. The only way a person is to be able to tell, when they don't know afore hand is if the can 'see' the differences in behaviour to other straits of a person around attractive people. Gay people, if they are closeted and want to remain unknown, have to emulate strait behaviour. Bi-dar and gay-day is in a sense a judgement of imperfect acting.

One of my friends had theorised that I may be gay or bi because I often became amorous around him, which I had a hard time suppressing. I didn't get that way with anyone else and no one else would have guessed.

[veganbigmac]

I've been boycotting TV and movies for awhile now...So I am really out of the culture loop, but at work I noticed this term "bromance" popping up a lot at work. What is a "bromance"? Is it how "metrosexual" men date each other? Where on the hierarchy of emotional connections does a "man crush" fit? Do "man crushes" lead to "bromances"?

I really don't want to come off as mean, but is all this lingo the first attempts at cultural integration of bisexuality. Or (more likely) some lame fad that trivializes emotional attraction.

In the near future will bisexuals rise up against this burgeoning fad, claiming it threatens the bisexual movement in the same fashion that some gays feel bisexuality threatens their movements legitimacy? Will there be a New York Times article called "Gay, Straight, lying, or Metrosexual?"

I don't know, but if somebody could venture an attempt to clarify these terms I would take them more seriously. But right now, it feels like a big joke, and I for one am not laughing.

[M. Wolfe]

I'm gay and I can tell very easily if a guy is bisexual or gay and he does not have to be a queen, amorous, or even out and I can tell with closeted men too.

Well how do you tell?

[M. Wolfe]

It is like a 6th sense and instinct combined.

That doesn't really tell me anything. Are you unaware how your mind works it out? Or is there things that are quite apparent that one can see?

[veganbigmac]

Well M. Wolfe if you've ever seen Daredevil, gaydar works EXACTLY like that!

No seriously, it's tough to explain to someone, like trying to write to somebody describing a smell, or scenic vista, or any other hard sensory function. I don't know how my gaydar works, but it's really accurate. Perhaps pheromones? It could all be body language. But I personally think it's a combination of many factors. I couldn't give you a concrete answer as to how it operates, only that it's real, and a blessing.

[M. Wolfe]

Does it make sense? Not really. I can understand that you can subconsciously deduce orientation, but I want to understand what your mind looks for. What the cues are. Though you can't seem to tell me, instead you have a 'gut' (or intuitive) feeling. I find that interesting.


Wolfe-I take it that you do not have gaydar.


Hard to say. 3 people at school whom turned out gay, I correctly picked. Although 1 of them was a bit sissy. The other two I picked purely on their mannerisms. But this was quite conscious deliberation. I don't have anything that is at all instinctive.

[MetaSexual2]

I posted this because its interesting to see bisexuality being portrayed in the semi-main stream media (TheDailyBeast is trying to become the "upscale" tabloid of the internet using mainstream journalists). In general, the portrayal of bi-men is pretty shallow in the article, but it is interesting to see that others are noticing the shift in cultural perceptions. Check out the comments though, the typical cretins are out in force.

I think you guys took the bi-dar quote out of context, as that was a interviewee (Ron Suresha) who was talking about guys faking their sexuality for publicity reasons. I can see your point though, Suresha's generally a good egg, but yeah talk of bi-dar is a bit immature. Sexuality is so fluid throughout our lifetimes, so I don't think its wise to try and pigeonhole people in to artificially created categories. It is helpful to be aware of body language to know if the sexually repressed male you are hitting on is about to take a swing at you though. I'm very sceptical of people who say they can always tell who is what sexuality, especially among those the queer community.

[M. Wolfe]

I'm very sceptical of people who say they can always tell who is what sexuality, especially among those the queer community.

Why? Do you think they may make skewed assertions?

I always figure that some people were obvious, and some aren't. I can pick up the obvious ones, and some subtle ones, but if they are not strait yet behave like any typical strait person, in regard to gayday, they are invisible to me.

[MetaSexual2]

Why? Do you think they may make skewed assertions?

I always figure that some people were obvious, and some aren't. I can pick up the obvious ones, and some subtle ones, but if they are not strait yet behave like any typical strait person, in regard to gayday, they are invisible to me.

Yep. I mean sure, I can tell when a man is subtly flirting with another man or checking them out, or even when someone who identifies as straight probably has some underlying feelings they are not expressing. Its not something special, its just being aware of other people. When someone says they ALWAYS know anything, especially when that "anything" is a moving target, my bullshit detector starts going off. (For example - you see the same sorts of claims from "psychics") Human behaviour is extremely complex, very few people ever truly even know themselves, let alone other people.

The whole concept of "gaydar" is only necessary in a society which places people into artificially created groups. At its root, its about detecting members of your "in-group" or "out-group". Just because I'm feeling sexually attracted to one type of person today does not mean that tomorrow, or a few years down the road, I won't meet someone who breaks the category boundaries that I set up for myself. I understand that it is culturally important at this moment in history for the gay community to want to regard sexuality as fixed so that we (western culture) can get over the ridiculously conservative attitudes people have about sex and relationships, but ironically, the idea of fixed sexuality is also a conservative falsehood. We may have strong tendencies one way or another, but the human mind is always changing.

[M. Wolfe]

Yep. I mean sure, I can tell when a man is subtly flirting with another man or checking them out, or even when someone who identifies as straight probably has some underlying feelings they are not expressing. Its not something special, its just being aware of other people. When someone says they ALWAYS know anything, especially when that "anything" is a moving target, my bullshit detector starts going off. (For example - you see the same sorts of claims from "psychics") Human behaviour is extremely complex, very few people ever truly even know themselves, let alone other people.

The whole concept of "gaydar" is only necessary in a society which places people into artificially created groups. At its root, its about detecting members of your "in-group" or "out-group". Just because I'm feeling sexually attracted to one type of person today does not mean that tomorrow, or a few years down the road, I won't meet someone who breaks the category boundaries that I set up for myself. I understand that it is culturally important at this moment in history for the gay community to want to regard sexuality as fixed so that we (western culture) can get over the ridiculously conservative attitudes people have about sex and relationships, but ironically, the idea of fixed sexuality is also a conservative falsehood. We may have strong tendencies one way or another, but the human mind is always changing.

Interesting. One thing that always muddied the water is the "gay chicken" game popular today. In my circle of friends, it was not exception. I had no way to tell real flirts from empty ones, maybe one or two of us were using it as a cover, or vent for sexual frustration - God knows I did.

Anyway on the subject of categories, no I don't think categorising ourselves is intrinsically bad. We use labels to understand things, to recognise the nature behind the label. People who have problems with categories are the people who don't fit in them. The issue is not the act of labelling ourselves, it's the act of mislabelling ourselves that's the problem. I can understand why some bi people don't like the title "Bisexual", it's so vague and indecisive that it really doesn't tell you much about the nature of the individual.

It annoys me when people rail against structure like human categories, I want to understand people, and as such I need the information that their social identity tells me.

[MetaSexual2]

Interesting. One thing that always muddied the water is the "gay chicken" game popular today. In my circle of friends, it was not exception. I had no way to tell real flirts from empty ones, maybe one or two of us were using it as a cover, or vent for sexual frustration - God knows I did.

Anyway on the subject of categories, no I don't think categorising ourselves is intrinsically bad. We use labels to understand things, to recognise the nature behind the label. People who have problems with categories are the people who don't fit in them. The issue is not the act of labelling ourselves, it's the act of mislabelling ourselves that's the problem. I can understand why some bi people don't like the title "Bisexual", it's so vague and indecisive that it really doesn't tell you much about the nature of the individual.

It annoys me when people rail against structure like human categories, I want to understand people, and as such I need the information that their social identity tells me.

I agree, its not that categories are inherently bad, its the way people use them. People need to impart some structure on the world to understand it, but when people start to regard those categories as absolutes, when in reality they can be quite "fuzzy", they become problematic. Only in the simplest of cases do artificial categories and natural categories actually line up perfectly, and human behaviour is definitely not the simplest of cases. If you know the person's social identity, how much does that really predict their behaviour or desires? Sometimes people are who they appear to be, sometimes they are very much not so.

SB4U - As I said above, in my experience, people who go around repeatedly proclaiming "I know this" and "I know that" typically know the least. You assume quite a bit about who I am, and what your abilities are. To know the world is to be unsure about it.