Bisexuality - just flexible.
Dating apps and sex sites now offer a wide range of options for labeling your sexual orientation: Sapiosexual, Questioning, Pansexual, Cisgender, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, hetero-, homo-, bi-, asexual... Strangely enough, some terms mean the same thing: Heterosexual and cisgender for example. The only difference here is in the application, because while the generality of society would probably call itself heterosexual, the term "cisgender" is mostly used in academic circles and higher levels of education. This term originated in the context of the transgender movement. Sapiosexual, on the other hand, only means to prefer a beautiful intellect to a beautiful body. It is only about a desired personality profile and not about a sexual orientation.
Heteroflexible. Not bisexual - just flexible.
This is where it becomes particularly interesting. For people who don't yet want to fully admit their bisexuality, there is now a term that names their temporary trips to their own shores, but doesn't allow for clear labelling. After all, flexibility is not a static state - on the contrary. Interestingly, this term is preferably used by men. Sure. Bisexual women are of course welcome on the sexual terrain: A male fantasy; even more insatiable than a hetero woman. Bisexual men, on the other hand, are quickly regarded as "faggots" and weak. The condescending insult does not seem to be reserved for homosexual men alone.
But why do we always create new concepts instead of simply understanding the concept of "sexuality & lust" and, above all, understanding that this is something beautiful/hot? Why does every group seem to feel more discriminated in this context? Admittedly, most of the terms I had to google first to be really sure about my own sexual orientation and intention so it’s represented correctly... (So I don't seem to be Sapio.) Doesn't pleasure stop here already?
Of course every single orientation, especially in the LGBT+ scene, has to struggle with prejudice and stereotypes. Of course, the degree of discrimination is particularly high here, because the mere designation as "scene" suggests its deviation from the norm. Since in this case I would like to speak from my own experience, I only refer to the "phenomenon" of bisexuality. To be drawn to both sexes still seems to be incomprehensible for many, even today.
The heterosexual friends mostly see you as hetero, because you are not "gay" enough. However, the homosexual friends also see you as hetero, as you are not "gay" enough for this group either.
But where does that come from? On the one hand, it surely has something to do with which gender you are currently concentrating on the most. Being a bisexual woman in a relationship with a man mostly robs you of any integrity in the gay community. Lesbian women like to accuse you of indecisive and the fact of "going to bed with the enemy". Heterosexual men often see in their bisexual girlfriend/lover rather the potential for future, relaxed, casual threesomes and thus a pure extension of the "lust spectrum". Why else is it okay for many men if their girlfriend meets other women within the relationship but not other men? This behaviour alone leads to the assumption that another woman is not a danger, at least not on an emotional level - another man is.
Admittedly, at this point the competitive thinking also plays a role, which is often more difficult with men than with the female sex. Maybe at this point the patriarchy comes to light again, which requires an omnipresent male part. Therefore lesbian women are also said to be especially manly. They finally dare to question the patriarchal system and to manage a life (of romantic relationships) among their own. Perhaps this circumstance simply frightens most men, for what are they still needed for? A sperm donation is ultimately easier to obtain than a surrogate mother. That's true.
Sometimes I even have the feeling that from the male point of view there is at least partly a certain form of envy at play. Envy for sexual freedom, not having to specialize in one sex. Admittedly, bisexual men have a much harder time in our society, because they are rarely a sex fantasy that is generally appreciated. But why? Aren't bisexual men just as exciting as bisexual women? And above all brave? The British journalist Marc Simpson also sees the problem here in patriarchy, which has always been more concerned about where men stick their penises instead of where women stick their tongues. After all, we learn at a young age, thanks to porn, what conditions have to be like. The dominant man, who takes what he wants and in return the submissive woman, who is always ready to do anything. Thanks to free porn sites like Youporn and Pornhub, this picture is available everywhere and therefore difficult to break through.
Gender Trouble sends its greetings.
"A Woman who sleeps with men and women cannot be read as either feminine or masculine without causing gender trouble. Either her gender is constantly changing (with her partner), or her gender does not match her sexuality. Further, by desiring men and women she has really removed herself from either gender category, as "men and women" is not an opinion in either masculinity or femininity."
Judith Butler has expressed herself in the context of "gender trouble" and thus assumes that bisexual women destroy/disorder the social order. Women who switch between categories are thus regarded as unpredictable and do not fit further into the gender-specific system or can still not be assigned to any category. According to Shiri Eisner, it is powerful and influential parameters that declare bisexual women a social threat.
"First, bisexuality poses a threat to patriarchy by constituting a subversion of gender and a disruption of the continuity of sex, gender, and sexuality; second it poses a threat through the idea of bisexual choice , which empowers bi women to engage with men only on their own terms ; and third bisexuality generates accompanied meanings of multiplicity and plurality that stand in contrast to patriarchal values of unity and singularity.”
Consequently, it is a seemingly logical consequence that the bisexual woman must be degraded to a sex object from the patriarchy’s point of view. ("more adventurous, more modern, more interesting... just more") But unfortunately so much adventure and complexity as well as modernity has its price, because the other side of the coin are negative qualities, which are assumed in the same breath: Undeciciveness, volatility, promiscuity and the associated lack of constitution for monogamy. Of course. This is a purely bisexual phenomenon. How else can the high divorce rates be explained due to side jumps between heterosexual couples? A little tip: it's rarely because mummy couldn't keep her bisexual side in check and jumped her neighbour after Daddy left the house to support the family.
And the moral of the story, being hetero doesn't protect you from cheating.
Well, finally, Shirin Eisner has summarized the still rather unenlightened way of dealing with the phenomenon of bisexuality in our enlightened knowledge-based society as follows.
"This is because as we've seen in the works of Writing and Rich, social rules of gender and sexuality are meant to secure male dominance over women. In this way, the bisexual woman who deviates from the rules of gender creates a form of resistence to patriarchy - once because of her disobedience to those rules, and again because men's access to her is not secure."
Photo by Shutterstock
Source: Eisner, Shiri: Bi - Notes for a Bisexual Revolution, 2013 (S.146-150).