Bi The Way

I’m amazed as just how often the words “homosexual” and “atheist” are used in the same sentence and how frequently homosexuals and atheists are presented as being one of the same. And what’s more apparently share a political agenda to run rough-shod over Christendom and traditional family values.

There are a plethora of socially-conservative organisations, such as Americans For Truth (about homosexuality), and Christian Voice (UK) who are keen to drum up anti-gay and anti-bisexual sentiments by stirring the faith pot and portraying all gays, lesbians and bisexuals as godless creatures out to do the devils work.

Now in truth many gay, lesbian and bisexual people are agnostics and atheists, this I cannot deny. But they are not gay/lesbian/bisexual because of their lack of faith. Lets face it, there are millions of straight atheists too. More to the point most LGBT people lose their faith because they realise there is no room for them in Christianity.

This was a point picked up on by the Bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson in an interview with Gay Times.

“Encouraging gay and lesbian people to return the church is not unlike telling an abused wife to go back to her husband” – Bishop Gene Robinson, GT June 2008 Issue.

In short Christianity is creating atheists by being exclusionary towards homosexuality. Even straight parishioners are being turned off the church by its homophobic attitudes. Less than 7% of the British population attends church on Sundays. And according to the latest social attitudes survey less than 38% of people in Britain believe in God. Furthermore, as president of the National Secular Society, Terry Sanderson observes in the same issue of GT, a recent report on social evils actually cited religion itself as the pre-eminent social evil in society today.

Bizarrely, it would seem that the best recruiting banner for atheism is the Church’s continued bigoted objection to homosexuality. So groups like American’s for Truth and Christian Voice (UK) are complaining about atheists they created.

Who do you think is doing the devil’s work now?

Still, it can’t even be said that atheists, as a unified political movement, promote homosexuality. Even the National Secular Society does not campaign specifically for LGBT rights. The truth is, there is no real political link between atheism and homosexuality except that created by American’s for Truth and Christian Voice (UK) .

At the end of the Gay Rights lobby has only ever campaigned for equality, that is to say fairness and equal treatment. Yet if you listen to large sects of the Christian church you’d think LGBT activism was trying to push for preferential treatment. The reality is this isn’t true at all, its just right-wing spin. What they really object to is the loss of their perceived ‘right’ to discriminate against gays, lesbians and bisexuals. The agenda here belongs to these socially-conservative, religious-hate groups. They won’t be happy until they have the right to treat LGBT people as second class citizens.

Announced as “quips, tips and lists for those who go both ways”, The Bisexual’s Guide to the Universe, is a fun, irreverent and witty take on bisexuality. Packed full of feel-good bi philosophy and clever put downs for the straight and gay nay-sayers, this is not a book that takes itself too seriously. Nor can it be with 22 pages dedicated to lists of ‘famous fence-sitters’ and a further 18 pages on bi movies, television programs and cartoon characters it really can’t afford to be.

This book contains everything you need to know to be a ‘good bisexual’ including quizzes to help you test your bisexual prowess. Not that the author’s intend you to take this seriously, this is purely and simply a fun book, in stark contrast to the occasionally dry and overly serious Bi Any Other Name.

The Bisexual’s Guide to the Universe, is bi-pride for the T4 Generation, from helping you identify your bisexuality – to getting clued up on bi-trivia – to finding a date and even organising a threesome, this book has it all and nothing at the same time. Its self-depreciating style often encouraging you to take most of its advice with a pince of salt.

You can’t criticise this book because its not meant to be taken to heart, its a laugh, a buzz, a feel good book, and you know what? Its pretty good.

To purchase at Amazon.co.uk click the link below:
The Bisexuals Guide to the Universe

Authors: Nicole Kristal & Mike Szymanski

ISBN-10: 155583650X
ISBN-13: 978-1555836504

Did you know there are 13 different types of bisexuality?

No? Neither did I, but apparently there are 13 ways to pigeon-hole us. According to J.R. Little bisexuals can be categorised in terms of their sexual desires and experiences and include:

• Alternating Bisexuals – one relationship at a time, the first might be exclusively straight, the next exclusively gay and vice versa. Alternating Bisexuals are usually monogamous.
• Circumstantial Bisexuals – primarily heterosexual but bisexual because of circumstances, eg; Prison where there are no women/men available.
• Concurrent relationship Bisexuals – have a primary relationship with one gender, but may have multiple casual relationships with partners of the other gender.
• Conditional Bisexuals – will switch sexuality for personal gain, eg: Gay for Pay.
• Emotional Bisexuals – have intimate emotional relationships with both genders but only have sex with one gender.
• Integrated Bisexuals – have two or more concurrent primary relationships one with a man one with a woman
• Exploratory Bisexuals – testing the water seeing if they like it.
• Hedonistic Bisexuals -primarily straight or gay/lesbian but will switch purely for sexual pleasure.
• Recreational Bisexuals – bi only when drunk or high. “Party Bisexual”
• Isolated Bisexuals – currently straight or gay/lesbian – but has had one off sexual encounter in the past which qualifies them as bisexual.
• Latent Bisexuals – has strong yet so far unsatisfied urges to go the other way.
• Motivational Bisexuals – will go bi to satisfy a partner, e.g. straight women agreeing to MFF threesome.
• Transitional Bisexuals – the only type of bisexuality the gay community understands, the one “going through a phrase”.

Least that’s bisexuality according to J. R. Little. I’m going to mess the theory up in typical bisexual fashion by refusing to fit neatly into any of those 13 categories. In fact I’d have to describe myself as Latent-Alternating because my gay sexual exploration is incomplete and I swing between attraction to men and women yet would never want a poly-relationship.

What a surprise! Another bisexual fence-sitter!

Do you know any other men who are bisexual?

Chances are you don’t. But why not?

A US survey in the 1990′s put the incidence of male bisexuality at 1.8%. That’s almost 1 in 50 and most of us know more than 50 people. So how come bisexuals are so invisible?

Well to kick off with there’s the presumption that people are either straight or gay. People rarely pause to consider that someone might be bisexual. When I’m seen with a girlfriend, people assume I’m straight, when I’m seen with a boyfriend people assume I’m gay. It doesn’t occur to a casual observer that there is another sexuality somewhere in between.

And if someone is seen to be dating both guys and girls, then the presumption switches to “he’s going through a phase”. Straight people normally assume that phase is experimentation, Gay people tend to assume that phase is a stage in the persons progression towards being an out and proud homosexual.

The occasional celebrity comes out as bisexual, Angelina Jolie, Billy Joe Armstrong, Billie Piper and they are accused of being “bisexual chic” – Not true bisexuals, just pretending for the sake of headlines and publicity. Like bisexuality is a fashion statement. Come-on if bisexuality was that fashionable, everyone would want one, and yet I’m still single.

Other celebrities (mostly men) get caught – they’re filmed or grassed up for having a “gay fling” behind their wife’s back. Remember Liberal Democrat MP Mark Oaten? Yep a rent-boy squealed on him and the Tabloids called him “Gay” – but he’s married and wanted to stay with his wife. He’s not Gay – he’s Bi! It seems that even when one of number does something treacherous like cheats on his wife, the media still treats us like we’re not here. Still, I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies.

Though when they want to, the media can really put the boot in. Back in 2005 The New York Times launched an attack on the very existence of male bisexuality. In an article titled “Straight Gay or Lying” they reported on a study that claimed bisexual men were either straight men pretending to be bi, or gay men with no real interest in women. Its since been widely pointed that the research upon which this article was based was deeply flawed. However, I don’t believe the New York Times ever printed a retraction.

So no wonder bisexuals are invisible, no-body wants to even acknowledge our existence.

Homophobia seems to frequently take the guise of child protection, which is irritating as it perpetuates the myth that homosexuals and bisexuals are somehow not child friendly. And this belief was illustrated wonderfully today by one of my friends who over lunch confidently declared that he didn’t mind gays and lesbians but thought that “they shouldn’t be allowed to have these marches on the streets because children might see”.

I had a little flutter where I was first angry that this guy hadn’t taken the time to realise he was talking to a bisexual. I mean would it kill you to read the first 5 lines of my Facebook profile? You post on my wall often enough! But that soon passed into outrage at what he’d just said.

“Children might see?” Er… good! Let them get a good look. Perhaps if children were exposed to homosexuality as something normal rather than something taboo, then they wouldn’t turn out to be sexually repressed bigots? Just maybe if children grew up seeing Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual people holding hands in public, they won’t grow up to be the prissy grannies who ‘tut’ at us when we show outwards signs of affection for one another.

Honestly, aren’t you just waiting for the Simpson’s character Helen LoveJoy to appear and shout her morally outraged catchphrase: “Will someone please think of the children?”

In spite of the repeal of Section 28, homosexuality is still something children are rarely exposed to or allowed to openly discuss due to peer pressure, bullying and homophobia. Everyone is worried about protecting Children from homosexuality – but why? Is it really such a threat? Do people still honestly believe its a perversion?

Even magazines like The Pink Paper and the Gay Times still find themselves placed on the top shelf in many newsagents. They are placed out of reach along with the porno-mags, even though there is no full on nudity in either title. What’s with that? – “But the children might see…”

All this misplaced ‘child protection’, stems from the assumption that people are born straight and they can only become lesbian, gay or bisexual through exposure to homosexuality. Well that’s bollox! And what’s more, I’ve got a radical alternative theory. Its not new, its over 80 years old. It was first coined by psychiatrist Sigmund Freud in 1920, its the theory of innate bisexuality.

Innate bisexuality means we are predisposed to bisexuality. Or in other words we are born bisexual but social pressures make us straight, not vice versa. This is accomplished by religion and society vilifying homosexual acts so they are treated as something disgusting and taboo. Of course whilst this conditioning successfully represses most of us, it fails on a small percentage who are banished into Gay-dom. Gay-dom also successfully represses bisexuality in its own way, most notably by constantly discussing it as a “phase” or in 1980′s lesbian-feminist circles treating it as a betrayal of one-self to your male oppressors. Ahem, moving on…

Now innate bisexuality is just a theory, but there is as more evidence to support than there is to support the notion that we are all born straight and then some how corrupted by homosexuality. So with this in mind, the next logical step is to protect children from the overt heterosexual bias. If we don’t, then surely we risk corrupting their precious and innocent innate bisexuality?

“Will someone please think of the children!”

Sometimes, I suffer for my sexuality. You won’t believe it, but I just had a request to use one of my photographs (yes I’m an amateur photographer) as part of the cover design for a new David Wilkerson book. And I turned it down.

For those of you who don’t know him David Wilkerson is an evangelical preacher who has written at least 9 books I know of, the most famous being the The Cross and the Switchblade. He is also the founder of The Times Square Church in New York City. Wilkerson runs a prophetic ministry and he believes that greater acceptance of homosexuality in society and within the church will spell disaster for America and the world.

In spite of being a bigot and a homophobe, Wilkerson’s books sell millions of copies. If my photo was to be used I’m sure I could have commanded a small fee to say the least. From what I understand market price for a cover photo is about £500. Even a credit line for a cover-photo would have been gold dust, what better way to launch a new career than to have your photo used on the cover of a bestseller?

But fuck that, I’ve got principals, I’m not going to sell out to the Christian Right by having my work adorning the cover of yet another book that tells me my sexuality is sinful. Even though I really could use the money.

Anyway, I include a low-res copy of the photo in this post. Its a photo of the Chrysler building in New York. Personally I think I have two better shots than this one, but if anyone is interested in using it as a cover shot on a book that doesn’t promote a socially conservative Christian agenda, then I’d be happy to give you a discounted rate.

PS: Photo is copyright me (c) David Parkes 2005 All rights reserved.

MP’s begin debating the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill this week. This legislation which is designed to update the existing 1990 Act, covers a number of points regarding what can and can’t be done with embryos and foetuses. This is a pretty controversial piece of legislation and the Pro-Life, Christian lobby are out in full force against most of the more progressive parts of the bill.

Why is this relevant to bisexuals? Well one of the aspects of the existing legislation requires that IVF clinics consider the welfare of the child being created, in particular, the need for a father. This means that many women including lesbians, bisexuals and evens single women have been refused IVF treatment. The new bill is set to scrap the requirement for IVF Clinics to consider the absence of a father and instead to simply ensure the child will have ‘supportive parenting’.

This a crucial change as far as gay, lesbian and bisexual rights are concerned, particularly as it is set to declare that gay, lesbian and bisexual couples (or even single mom’s) can be as a good at parenting as straight couples. And about time too! It seems insane to me that you could be judged a more fit parent just because of your sexuality rather than your parenting skills.

According to my gay friend who thinks of himself as a bit of gay rights activist, bisexuals are (quote unquote) “a threat to the gay community because they undermine the cornerstone of gay political activism”. Namely that people can’t help being gay, they are born that way. Yet bisexuals come along and mess that right up because they “choose to sleep with both men and women”, so consequently the whole notion of sexuality as a choice is brought right back onto the table, thus undermining gay rights.

This to me was reminiscent of a friend of my mothers who (without knowing I was bisexual) declared. “I can understand gay people being gay, they can’t help it, they were born that way. But I have no time for bisexuals, they are all just perverts because they can clearly help who they sleep with.” I hasten to add that this is from a women who thinks: “All Muslims should go home” and that “nig-nog” is an acceptable word to describe black people.

Isn’t bi-phobia great? We get in stereo. Maybe soon it’ll be available in Dolby 5.1 Surround Sound or perhaps one day we’ll get our old memories of bi-phobia digitally remastered in THX. No, on seconds thoughts scratch that, its bad enough the way it is now.

For the record, can I just say, that I can no-more help being attracted to both genders than a straight guy can help being attracted to women. The only choice involved is to ignore the nagging feelings of guilt and self-repression, feelings which really shouldn’t be there in the first place, but are there because society tells you to be straight, and if you can’t handle that, then the gay community tells you to be queer. Well screw that, that isn’t who I am. I’m not straight, I’m not gay – I’m something else and if that isn’t OK with you then tell it to someone who gives a damn cos I really don’t want to hear it any more.

What is this obsession with nice neat boxes all about? Straight – Gay, black white? I’ve dealt with the theory but the reality is a real ball ache.

There’s a risk that as soon as you adopt of label such as ‘bisexual’, others peg you with a stereotype, often that stereotype is unflattering, ill-informed or even prejudiced. Who wants to be judged by a label? Does owning an Adidas tracksuit make you a Chav? Does being a Scouser make you a car thief? Does being bisexual make you a deplorable fence-sitter?

No wonder that many people choose not to come out. The word just carries too much baggage.

So why do I choose to label myself as bisexual, why not one of the wonderfully inventive euphemisms which also really mean “bisexual”? Why not: pansexual, trisexual, hetero-flexible or this seasons fashionable word ‘fluid’?

Well for a start “fluid” makes me sound like an amoeba, “hetero-flexible” conjures up images of a contortionist and “pansexual” sounds like a word Ford Prefect might use to describe a cocktail in The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy.

That said, the most compelling reason not to beat around the bush is search engine visibility. There are far more searches for “bisexual” than “hetero-flexible”, so if I want my blog to be read I need to use words which people are likely to search for on Google. And finally, these other euphemisms are just that, euphemisms. They might not carry the baggage of the bisexual label, but that’s because they are not mainstream words and I refuse to hide my sexuality and other people’s reactions to it, by using language which is ambiguous or otherwise obfuscates the issue.

It always makes me laugh when people say “I prefer not to label my sexuality”. Honestly Mr [no-label] who are you kidding? We all know you mean you are bisexual, you’re just shying away from the word because either a) you want to sound trendy, which is pretty lame, or b) you’re too timid to challenge other people’s misconceptions about bisexuality.

And lets face it bisexuality is a broad church, it spans everyone from Kinsey 0.00001 to 5.99999. The Kinsey definition leaves a lot of room for anyone to carve out their own identity within it. As I see it, bisexuality is just a convenient catch-all term for anyone who has a sexual interest in men and in women. These interest does not have to be evenly split or even acted upon with equal vigour. The term exists, or should exist, purely to differentiate us from monosexuals (people who are only attracted to one gender).

Definition:
Bisexual (noun) – Someone who is not monosexual.

Labels can be a problem, they pigeon-hole us, but only if you let them. Taking time to explain to others what bisexuality means to you is the only way to challenge people’s preconceptions. It helps educate the world around us. Until we reclaim the bisexual label and start defining it for ourselves, then others will continue to define it for us and chances are we won’t identify with their definition.

I identify myself as bisexual, though I fully expect that the following revelation will lead to a lot of people questioning my self-identification. You see whilst I’ve had sex with several female partners, I’ve yet to have sex with a guy.

Bombshell? Perhaps not, I suppose that a lot of people would simply consider me ‘bi-curious’ rather than ‘bisexual’, but I’d disagree and here’s why:

A straight virgin is still straight. It doesn’t matter that he’s never had sex with anyone. He’s still straight. Agreed?

You see, to my mind, sexuality is about who or what you are attracted to, not where you put your dick.

I know I have the capacity to be attracted to either gender, and I don’t need to prove that attraction by having sex with everyone I date. I’m certainly not going to feel pressured into proving my bisexuality by heading out to the local gay-cruise zone just to get myself laid.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m keen to explore homosexual relationships, but only with the right person. I’m not going to jump into bed with the first guy I meet… Well I might, but if I do, it’ll be because we share a deep emotional understanding, not because I’m desperate to pop my anal cherry.

I’m bisexual, I’m confident and comfortable with that label and I’m happy to claim it, because I know I find myself attracted to both men and women. That alone makes me bisexual. I reject the bi-curious label because that implies a degree of uncertainty on my part, and I’m not in the slightest bit uncertain about my feelings.

I’m just waiting for the right guy… or girl for that matter.