What's Up With Asexuals?

I thought about a clever title, perhaps some play on words to indicate that asexuals do not desire sex, but hey, that would be pithy and inaccurate, and I'm all about accuracy, because it's ASEXUAL AWARENESS WEEK (or it was, at least, as of yesterday)!  Given the large and growing presence of asexual activism online, we here at SoT decided it's high time for a discussion on one of the most interesting, albeit perplexing and sometimes frustrating sexual identities.

For starters, a definition - or rather, host thereof - are in order.  What is asexuality?  The grandaddy of all asexual sites is the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN), which defines an asexual as "a person who does not experience sexual attraction to other people."  This definition is simple on the surface, but the wording is important.  Because asexuals tend to define themselves in relation to more established sexual orientations such as "straight" and "gay", the focus is on attraction - or the lack, thereof, as opposed to behavior. Just as a virgin gay teenager is still gay, based on who s/he is attracted to, an asexual can have sex, masturbate, and be in a relationship and still be asexual.  This is something of a difficult concept for many people to wrap their heads around, but it's important not to confuse lack of libido with asexuality.  Some asexuals have a libido, but what separates them from "sexuals" (that's the rather unfortunate term some asexuals call non-asexuals) is the lack of sexual attraction to people (or presumably, anything else, as I don't think they're objectumsexuals either).  They use the shorthand "ace" to refer to themselves.

Still with me?  It gets more complicated, because most asexuals see asexuality as a spectrum encompassing a wide variety of relational orientations and desires.  Many asexuals are interested in romantic relationships, although presumably are happier if sex isn't involved (some don't mind having sex to please a partner, many have no interest whatsoever, and some are repulsed by sex).  These folks identify as romantic asexuals, often putting a signifier in front of romantic to indicate what gender(s) they are attracted to romantically - such as heteroromantic, homoromantic, or bi/panromantic.  A smaller but significant group of asexuals have no romantic desires or attraction to others, and they're called aromantic.

The asexual tent is a big one, however, and allows room for yet more modifiers - 'gray' and demi', as in gray-ace or demisexual.  Gray is the more all-encompassing term, which refers to people who can experience sexual attraction, but in such a capacity that for whatever reason, they identify with asexuality more than non-asexuals.  Demisexual seems to be used specifically to define people who are only capable of experiencing sexual attraction once they know someone well.  Confusing matters a bit further, I've also seen people identify as "demiromantic" which as far as I can ascertain means they aren't generally interested in romantic partnerships, but can be under specific circumstances.

Whew, we've got the definitions out of the way.  I'm trying to be as fair as possible, because when there are discussions critical of some of the concepts within asexuality, I often see people told by asexuals that they don't actually understand what the definitions are.  These are based off reading lots and lots and lots of asexuals describing their identities and orientations in their own words, but if you think I have something wrong, please feel free to let me know.

The demographics of asexuality, at least as far as the Internet goes (I haven't encountered any self-identified asexuals offline), it tends to be a young group.  This isn't surprising.  While Kinsey and other sex researchers have acknowledged the existence of people who appeared to have no sexual attraction or interest for decades, asexuality as an identity politic is a very young movement.  David Jay started AVEN in 2002, and is largely responsible for how a lot of the discourse around asexuality has been shaped.  Given that the leather community is many decades old now, swingers date at least back to the 1960s, and even polyamory as a term was established in the early 1990s, asexuality is young indeed as far as sexual minority movements go.  So it's to be expected that the majority of people who identify online as asexual are going to be people who grew up with the Internet, largely in their early 20s, although obviously older asexuals do exist.  It is fair, however, to say that within the asexual community on the Internet, individuals older than 30 are few and far between.  AVEN is still the largest online community for asexuals, but Tumblr also appears to be a hotbed of asexual activism.  Since only people under 30 can figure out how to use Tumblr (this is a fact) this makes sense.   Based an absolutely nothing but my own late nights reading asexual message boards, it seems that hetero or panromantic asexuals are the most common group within the asexual community, with a fair-sized minority within that group in long-term relationships with non-asexuals.

So, we're now we're educated as to what asexuality is and who asexuals are.  But what do they want?  Many people new to the concept of asexuality seem confused as to why there's a movement around not doing something.  While there's no asexual Borg hivemind, there does seem to be a few key points of focus within asexual activism.  Asexuals are interested in visibility.  Think about television and film - can you think of many characters who have no sexual attraction to other people?  It's a fair point.  Many asexuals complain that nobody knows they exist, and when they identify themselves as asexual, people assume they are celibate for religious reasons, scared of sex, or suffering from a medical or psychological issue that can be "fixed" which brings us to another major issue.  Asexuals, by their own definition, do not see asexuality as a problem to be cured.  Borrowing a line from the mainstream gay rights movement, asexuals claim they were "born this way" and reject being pathologized.

These are two important and valuable goals, for asexuals and any sexual minority group, really.  Provided it doesn't cause you any distress (other than the shit society will fling at you) there's nothing wrong with not wanting sex, just as there's nothing wrong with wanting kinky sex, or sex with multiple partners.  Asexuality is the flipside of that old sex-positive mantra, "Your kink is not my kink (and that's OK)".  It's clear that human sexuality is an incredibly, amazingly diverse spectrum that encompasses all kinds of weirdness, so why is it so hard to understand a lack of interest?

There seems to be varying opinions about fluidity within asexuality, but it seems somewhat common for some to identify as strongly asexual at first, and then demisexual later.  Understandably, asexuals really hate being told they'll "grow out of it" or they "haven't met the right person" although quite clearly some people do in fact change their self-identification and it's usually in the direction of identifying as more sexual, not less.  This is a similar conundrum young people in the childfree community tend to face.  While certainly most people who don't want children enough to actual take on a childfree identity aren't going to have kids, it's also not surprising that older adults are skeptical that they won't feel differently later.

And yet asexuals today generally aren't defining themselves as a misunderstood sexual or lifestyle minority, such as kinksters, swingers, and the childfree, but as rather as a sexual orientation akin to homosexuality, often borrowing heavily from the language of the social justice movements.  And this is where things get a bit tricky, as this has created an ongoing major internet kerfuffle between some GLBT activists and asexuals, and also thrown some asexuals into conflict with sex-positive feminists.   Next time on Sex or Television: when a bunch of groups with similar interests in stickin' it to the man decide to stick it to each other, instead!  Ah, identity politics.  Aren't they fun?

Blog Wallowing

Since starting this blog, I've spent a lot of time wading through the sex/sexuality blogosphere. Anyone who's done this knows that it can be a mixed bag. Mixed bag may be too kind. There are more dicks hanging out than Chat Roulette. There are fascinating accounts of people's sexual lives. There are the hotwives, the cuckolds, the BDSM lifestylers, closet-cases, swingers, adult babies, hedonists, and cheaters. The whole lot form a fascinating tapestry of the complex modern sexual world.

Sometimes, you find yourself reading a blog because it's so well-written or interesting that you simply can't stop. Other times, you throw the bullshit flag and move on, realizing quickly that the person is making up a life to appear cool to the other sex bloggers. And then there are the ones that have you aghast because of the sheer awfulness of what is unfolding.

The cheaters often fall into the latter category. In nearly every cheating blog, the rationalization post is near the beginning. It's always a "don't judge me because of my actions" post. Usually those posts are gentle. Dear Husband (DH) likes sex less than I do. Dear Wife (DW) lost interest in sex after our twins were born. In some cases, though, the rationalization post is so full of nastiness and vitriol, it can't be contained in a single post. In those cases, there are typically multiple posts containing jabs at the spouse.

One of the most appalling spent more than two years tearing down her spouse. When he discovered the blog, he was upset. The blogger then decided to use it to attack her husband for not being man enough to fight for her but railing about him trying to keep an eye on her activities. Another initiated a tirade about how she's such a giver and her husband craves her attention that she looks for men just willing to pay attention to her. The post was buttressed by dozens of accounts of selfish lovers slipping in through the back door of her house to get blow jobs and then slipping out. One claimed his wife didn't like sex, and later added that the reason he cheated was that their sex life went downhill after she was diagnosed with cancer and failed to account for his sexual needs.

Many cited a spouse who traveled too much for work as a reason for cheating. One, after several affairs complained that her spouse was just not motivated like the "alpha males" she was fucking and convinced him to start his own company, which took up much of his time, that she used to justify sleeping with even more guys.

I had originally intended to put links in this post, but I started it just over a year ago. Since then, nearly all of the ones referenced have gone dormant or disappeared. A few hinted that their divorce attorneys wanted them stopped. Others referenced getting caught. These blogs seem to have a lifespan of about 18 months. New ones are always cropping up, so anyone seeking to wallow I as did should mosey over to Google. New infidelity blogs seem to crop up just as fast as they collapse, so there's no rush.

What ultimately amazes me is that so many of these cheating blogs are so short-lived, and yet, many more get added. It's one thing to fuck around on a partner. It happens. Life is messy. To create an on-line persona around it and document at length how inadequate your partner is in comparison with your lovers is something else entirely. It's the deepest hurt one can add. Piling on cheap justification doesn't make it better; it only makes it more selfish. In the mean time, these blogs get discovered and the lawyers get involved. Is there any good in it all?

Non-Monogamy Seduction Fail

So I was talking to a single friend today about fuck-buddies, swingers, awkward situations, and what we did over the weekend. Coffee talk.

For the record, she knows nothing of Girl's and my open relationship. She knows some of my co-workers socially and there are somethings I refuse to be forced to discuss around the water cooler.

She talked the previous night's get together at her house with several couples she'd known for a while. As the night wore on, the the alcohol ran low, all but one of the couples left. The last couple proved to be the hardest one to deal with.

As she knew, or quickly learned, they had an open relationship. She also became aware that the wife had another guy on the side and that the husband was only allowed to play while the wife was present. With that on the table, the husband started making not so subtle come-ons. He had done this before without the wife around, and always been rebuffed by the friend, but this time, emboldened by wine and the presence of his wife, he kept pressing the issue, going so far as to repeatedly suggest they go off to the bedroom together.

It's not clear from the way it was relayed to me exactly what the wife was to do in the meantime. Sit on the sofa and channel surf? Put an ear to the door? Slip in and join them in some scenario from a third-rate porn video?

She declined, again and again, but it being her house, she had no retreat and even desperate looks to the wife weren't getting any response. No, she had to wait until the pursuer was too tired of the chase and finally retreated to the car with his wife.

The point of this story is that as there are good ways to make advances, so too are there awful ways that will definitely get you 86'ed from future guest lists. Not taking no for an answer was definitely the start, but putting the other person in an incredibly awkward situation in which they are cornered and have no idea how to proceed was the nail in the coffin. For anyone who wants to avoid being talked about the next day as "that creepy couple", it's something to consider.

Fuck The Rules! Part 1

So The Boy spends a lot more time on "lifestyle" blogs than I do, because he has a far stronger stomach than I do.  For example, he's been reading Sadie's Open Marriage for years, written by open marriage/polyamory expert Sadie Smythe, although he's not exactly a fan of hers.  Given her sometimes turgid writing style and tendency to resort to psychobabble, I can't say I blame him.  Still, I wasn't particularly interested in her blog until I happened upon the Boy's netbook, which had this entry from her blog up.

Oh hell no.  As you guys know, there's few things that piss me off more in non-monogamy circles than One True Wayism.  And once again, we have an "expert" declaring that a couple dipping their toes in open relationship waters are "doing it wrong" if they decide to agree upon some basic boundaries.

Sadie describes chucking out the rules she and her husband had agreed upon, saying that rules are:

"...monogamous behavior, monogamous thinking, and that sort of thinking doesn’t fit within the open relationship paradigm. Our partners are not ours to control. Hell, they aren’t even ours at all. Open truly means open in this sense – open to allowing our partners the possibility to navigate their outside relationships without our interference."


Oh really?  I thought "open" meant that my husband and I choose to open ourselves up to a possibility other than strict monogamy.  Beyond that, what "open" means is totally individual and negotiable for every couple that decides to give this unique way of living the ol' college try. Not that I had to adhere to the prescribed notions of some blogger*.


Obviously, Sadie is far from alone in this mindset, which seems to come out of the "Secondaries are people too!" camp.  Because couples who have clearly stated expectations and boundaries hurt secondaries, or something.  Not that I should even be using the word secondary, as it's hierarchical and offensive to imply that my fuckbuddy may not carry the same weight as my husband when it comes to major life decisions.  Sure, I'm exaggerating (a little) but the idea that rules are just a misguided way of controlling relationships with secondaries has gained serious traction in the online poly scene.


Problem is, Sadie and those who agree with her are misapplying basic therapy concepts to relationships in baffling ways**.  "The only person you can control is yourself," is a truism so basic that it hardly needs repeating, but Sadie takes that to mean that there's no point in having established rules with your partner, because that's controlling.


Established boundaries and rules are not necessarily an attempt to control your partner, but rather a verbalized set of agreements about expectations around another's behavior.  I accept that I cannot control my partner and realize that if he wanted to, he could go out and fuck as many women as he wanted and there's absolutely nothing I can do about that.  However, I know and trust that my partner values me and our relationship, so he wants to know what my boundaries and expectations are with regards to him being intimate with other people, so that our relationship can continue in a happy and healthy manner.  And not communicating to him what I'm OK with or what makes me uncomfortable is just a recipe for bitterness, feelings of betrayal, and resentment.


The fact is, open or not, romantic or not, every human relationship is based on explicit or implicit rules and expectations.  My husband expects that I will take care of the food shopping and preparation unless I explicitly ask him.  He expects that I will handle our finances, because that's what we agreed upon.  I expect that he will go to work so we can pay our bills.  He expects that I will not jet off to Berlin for two days without checking in first.  This isn't controlling behavior.  These are all expectations based on discussions and negotiations we've had.  Why are expectations and boundaries when it comes to behavior outside the relationship different?  


Sure, at any point, I can decide to stop cooking and paying the bills and checking in with him if I'm not home, and he can't control that.  That doesn't make the concept of these sorts of agreements invalid, it would just mean that I'm being a really shitty person for changing the status quo without discussing it first.  Relationships function well when people articulate what they are willing to do and what they expect from their partner.  It isn't about control - it's about that favorite Poly word: communication.  Two people sharing their lives simply aren't going to get on very well if they aren't sharing what they expect and what makes them happy or unhappy about their partner's behavior.


Hypocritically, all the "Fuck the rules!" advocates in non-monogamy land ignore the fact that almost all of them have a hard and fast rule even if they claim they don't have any rules: they all have a rule about practicing safer sex.  The majority of people in long-term, established relationships don't use barrier protection with each other, which makes it pretty imperative that they do when playing outside the primary relationship and I have yet to encounter anyone in this relationship model who admits to not having a rule about safer play with others.  (Surely, the most soap-operaish drama in polyamory comes from "fluid-bonding" issues or when, god forbid, a primary-secondary couple end up pregnant.)  


But let's face it: "You must practice safer sex with other partners" is a rule, guys.  A controlling, nasty rule!  After all, you can't control your partner!  S/he could choose to not use a condom with another partner, after all, and there's nothing you can do about it.  I guess rules are futile.  Why do we have them? 


I think that most people who are in these types of relationships trust that their partner will abide by that rule, because it's pretty morally reprehensible not to.  But how is this, then, strategically or morally different from choosing to agree upon other rules?  Why is this a rule the non-rules folks employ while shitting on the concept of other rules?  Don't look at me like I have an answer: it's just silly.  Either rules are "monogamist thinking and unhealthy methods of control" or they're a tool that some people utilize in different ways to create a sense of comfort and safety in their relationships.  


Next time, I'll talk about why the two most maligned rules: "Love" and "Veto power" serve a valuable purpose for some people.  


*Having not read Sadie extensively, I could say I have no real issue with her other than I'm not a fan of her writing style.  But then I saw this abject travesty of a spoken word performance in which she fetishizes, otherizes, and stereotypes black men to justify of her love of "black gangster porn"  and I've decided I'm kind of OK with actively not being a fan based on limited information.  If you think I'm wrong, feel free to say so.


**It would be somewhat inappropriate of me to mention that Sadie announced her separation from her husband just weeks after writing about chucking out the rules.  Wait, whoops.

iGive Up: Even in death Steven Jobs provides distraction

In the span of one week, we saw the deaths of two civil rights pioneers, one of whom defined the modern gay rights movement, and the other a cornerstone of the last century's fight for racial equality. In that same week, a former CEO of a tech company died. Two gave hope and voice to millions. The other marketed shiny tech toys.

One could argue that Mr. Jobs' impact was as great as that of both Rev. Shuttlesworth and Frank Kameny. Based on press coverage of their passing, though, one would get the impression that commercialization of the computer mouse stands head and shoulders above the fight for basic civil rights. The goals of a man driven to make his company number one in the marketplace must be more noble than the two who gave their lives and their safety so that others could live without fear, if media coverage is the barometer.

Slate would get some credit for at least memorializing Frank Kameny, if only the piece they published had not served to demonstrate their complete indifference. Not only does it say little about his life, but it appears to have been completely ignored by Slate's copy editors. One paragraph features the sentence, "They then and force the shrinks to listen to their claims that they were not crazy." The previous paragraph tells us that he founded the Mattachine Society. He did not. He founded the Mattachine Society of Washington. A week after the readers pointed out the error, Slate still
had not corrected it.

Farhood Manjoo eulogized Jobs for Slate in an article titled "The Man Who Invented Our World". He also deified the man, going so far as to say "Jobs had no patience for evolution. He was the intelligent designer." The writer even took his family on a pilgrimage to Jobs' house.

Slate's Rachel Larimore wrote "Steve Jobs Baby-Sat My Kids", about how Pixar, and by extension Jobs, raised the bar for children's entertainment. Thanks. Until that, few people had been aware that Pixar puts out good family movies.

On the same day, Aaron Lammer reposted a Longform.org collection of Job's speeches and interviews. Not to be left out of the dogpile, William Saletan wrote about how one should become an organ donor to honor Job's memory. Seriously, if you became an organ donor only to honor Steve Jobs, you should probably consider expediting the process.


Ron Rosenbaum's article on how Jobs was inspired by early phone hacking was published by Slate the day after Larimore's piece. Jobs was clearly inspired by the idea of using technology to circumvent paying for phone service so much that he created devices like the iPad where you are captive to the company store for content.

There was more in Slate about Jobs and Apple that week, but the point stands. And how many pieces about Reverend Shuttlesworth did Slate publish? Zero. Its African-American spin-off, TheRoot, had an announcement, a decent piece on the man's life and work, and a section of Al Sharpton's piece on HuffPo, but apparently didn't think his passing relevant to the general interest. Slate's editorial staff decided that its readers had no interest in Shuttlesworth's life. In keeping with the rest of their coverage, they could have at least tied it back to Steve Jobs, "Civil Right Leader Inspired Millions, Despite Failing to Impact Cell Phone Market."

What is clear is that they were judged based on how their efforts impacted us today. Largely straight, white fans of iPhones carried the moment because their interests dominate our view. This is a small part of the larger picture of how groups must continue to fight for basic rights in an environment of apathy and distraction. It isn't enough to say that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is over, or that people can no longer be fired explicitly because of the color of their skin. The fight for equality is far from over and it never will be as long as we fail to value freedom from oppression over the latest touch screen baubles.

More Savage Assholery on Bisexuality

We've chronicled extensively former advice-columnist-turned-one-man-media-machine Dan Savage's assholery, particularly on the subject of bisexuality (see tags). Or rather male bisexuality, since Dan generally doesn't seem to have an issue with the bi ladies, aside from their general flakiness and habit for breaking the heart of lesbians.


Dan's former issue with bisexual men could be generally summed up as: they don't exist.  They are either gay and in denial, as he was when he briefly identified as bi (and how shocking that a self-absorbed jerk like Dan would take the tiny realm of his personal experience and project it onto something as complex and varied as male sexual orientation) or they're basically straight, because bi men end up in relationships with women.


He's whistling a slightly different tune now, blissfully unaware that this new technology known as "the Internet" has recorded years of him denying the existence of bisexual men, but he's now insisting that the problems bisexual men face aren't entrenched societal homophobia and biphobia but their own cowardice because bi men just won't come out.


Now he's probably right in that it's likely that the majority of bisexual people are likely to marry or have long-lasting relationships with opposite-sex partners.  Part of it just a numbers game.  There are vastly more people interested in the opposite-sex than the same.  There's also the trope that bi people are only into same-sex people for casual flings, but want to settle down in a more traditional manner.  It's a bit of a stereotype, but it does seem that to many bisexual people are sexually attracted to the same sex but not particularly interested in more.   That doesn't mean they're "not really bi" or that "bi people don't exist" - it just means that bisexuality/pansexuality is really an umbrella term that covers a huge range of sexual and romantic orientation styles.  And the fact that we live in a virulently homophobic society with huge social pressures to conform, well, it's not surprising that if you are romantically and sexually attracted to the opposite sex that your life might end up taking the path of least resistance.  This doesn't make a bisexual identity invalid.


And I think with that I might be hitting on one of the main issues I see in gay resistance to, or disdain of bisexuals.  In this lovely little piece, Dan claims he never said bi men don't exist (he just implied it over and for years and years) he opines that bisexual men need to stop whining and come out of the closet already.  I agree about the closet.  All it takes is a little life experience (or a brief glance at the Craigslist M4M section) to realize that clearly a decent chunk of the straight-identified male populace has significant bisexual desire.  But man, it's fucking irritating for Dan Savage, of all people, to be wagging his finger at the craven bisexual men for not coming out yet, when it was exactly attitudes like the ones he's espoused for years that make the option of coming out for bisexual men not a particularly attractive one.


I mean, what does a bisexual guy stand to gain from coming out?  The vast majority of women - even bisexual women - don't want to date a bi guy, the fear being that he's actually gay and in denial.  A viewpoint that Dan still proudly champions, by the way.  According to the bi men I've talked to, gay men aren't too thrilled to date them either, because it's assumed the bi guy is just lookin' for some cock and will end up breaking their heart for a woman.  Well, at least there's the well-established, supportive community for bisexual men...wait.  Nope.  If your friends or family are homophobic, well, you're not "less queer" in their eyes because you like pussy, but there's a decent chance you're seen that way by plenty of your gay brothers.


Now as Dan rightfully points out, if coming out was easy no one - gay, lesbian, or bi - would be in the closet. Yet he totally misses the fact that in addition to serious risks and repercussions, coming out as gay or lesbian does provide a couple of worthwhile benefits - a dating pool and a chance at the kind of relationship you want being a pretty big one! - that is a lot harder to access in the closet.  Bisexual men actually lose the majority of their potential partners when coming out specifically as bi (as opposed to identifying as gay for the sake of dating men, or letting yourself be assumed hetero when dating women).  


This is not to say at all that bisexual men are more oppressed than gay men, or that gay men are capable of oppressing bisexual men by not wanting to date them or not giving them a big ol' "Welcome to the queer club!" hug when they come out.  Gay people, if they want to be partnered and live a "normal" life with a picture of the spouse on the cubicle desk have to come out to achieve that.  Bisexual people don't, necessarily (although let's not forget the largely invisible population of bisexuals in same-sex partnerships that everyone assumes are gay).  So to people like Dan, bisexual men don't have it as tough as gay men do.  And it's true that many bisexual people do possess what people in the sociology world refer to as "passing privilege" or what the social justice set calls "invisibility".  But it's both a perk and a curse.  Sure, you're far less likely to be beat up by a homophobe when you've got a wedding ring and a picture of your wife in your wallet.  That is a powerful privilege that some bisexual people possess.  


But there's a downside: lack of community, isolation, no support network, the feeling that you're projecting a lie - even if you're out - because unless you're walking around with a bi pride button on, opposite-sex-partnered bisexuals will be assumed to be straight.  Opposite-sex-partnered bisexuals do not get to out themselves by placing aforementioned picture of partner on cubicle desk, or walking hand-in-hand with their partner down the street.  They generally will have to specifically raise the issue, because they are assumed straight.  Or maybe Dan just thinks they should wear the buttons?  Maybe a cloth badge of some sort.  After all, they "owe it" to themselves, as Dan suggests, to awkwardly bring up their sexual orientation when no one has asked the question.  Imagine those water cooler discussions:


"What did you do this weekend, Bob?"
"You know, the usual.  Watched the game, went on a hike with the wife.  And just so you know, Jen's great, but I happen to be bisexual."
"...." 


Obviously there are times when a bisexual person can out themselves in a more relevant manner, such as when a co-worker makes a homophobic remark or what have you. But generally, outing yourself as a bi person in a opposite-sex relationship does not function in the same way it would if you were gay.  


Dan also lives in some crazy bizzaro world - perhaps a function of his advanced age, since he was a teenager in the '70s and I'm told male bisexuality was "cool" then - where gay men identify as bi "because it makes them feel superior and/or more masculine".  To be fair, I'm not a gay man, so maybe some gay men do think bisexual guys are more butch, i'm skeptical, but willing to entertain the notion.  I can tell you in the straight world, bisexual guy = gay guy, but creepier, and certainly not more masculine.  A lot of straights who have no problem with gay dudes have a visceral disgust and hatred of bi guys, because they're the insidious, treacherous disease spreaders, and their orientation makes no sense. It's so common for a sort of liberal-ish straight dude proclaim their sympathy for gay men, with the understanding, "Well bro, I mean, I love pussy, but I was born straight.  If I was born gay then I'd like cock as much as I like pussy now, so gay, yeah, I totally get it."  Bi men don't fit into this picture, because what kind of sick fuck would go for cock when he totally likes pussy, too?  Even as our society becomes more accepting of homosexality - as long as you're just born that way - attitudes about sexual flexibility remain retrograde and threatening.  Unless you're a chick, because that's hot.


So bi guys - geez, why won't you just come out already?* 


On a related personal note, my brother visited me this summer.  After too many beers, he came out to me as bisexual.  And this is one of the many reasons my hatred for Savage on this issue is not just snark.  My bro is an introverted, slightly awkward 25 year-old who hasn't exactly had a lot of relationship experience with any gender.  He trends towards the gayer side of the Kinsey scale. He knows I'm queerish.  He knows my husband is a bisexual man.  And yet it still took him this long to come out to me, someone he knew would be supportive.  He said he has no intention of coming out to anyone but his closest friends because all he hears from the straight and gay world alike is hostility towards people like him.  Good job, Dan.  Making life easier for queer youth, all the time.  I'd love to have him look my brother in the eye and tell him how he's making things better for him.


*I do think that bisexual men should come out when it is safe for them to do so.  I just think Dan saying it is a real dick move.