Our Shared Shelf discussion

1875 views
Feminism > Can being Bisexual come from Feminism (Revised)

Comments (showing 1-23 of 23) (23 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Lilliana (new)

Lilliana Mardeath (SimplySignificant) Bisexual and feminist subcultures have a lot in common. They are both woman-dominated communities (though the former less so); they both subvert traditional gender roles and they’re both frequently (deliberately?) misunderstood. There is a certainly a natural affinity between the two. But surely this isn’t reason enough for the two to so often overlap?

Biphobia manifests in many ways but one of the most common is slut-shaming; the belief that bisexuals (regardless of gender) cannot be monogamous, that they are vectors of disease and are indiscriminate in choosing sexual partners: all of these represent judgements on with whom one should or should not be having sex. The demand for sexual freedom is entry-level, user-friendly feminism and it’s hard to argue with. The feminist movement is huge and nebulous and can be intimidating to outsiders but as the rise of the Slut Walk has demonstrated, slut-shaming, sexual agency and the politics of consent are high on the agenda for most of us, and affords an empathic kinship between bisexual and feminist subcultures.

Movements like Slut Walk exemplify feminism’s embrace of grass-roots activism. Local feminist networks and groups flourish. When bisexual activism started to gain momentum as a movement, it too claimed a grass-roots, community-focused approach and the practice continues today. BiCon, for example, is an entirely volunteer-run annual conference/convention for anyone who thinks that sexual identity isn’t just a matter of gay or straight. The programme teems with workshops on myriad subjects; I can’t remember a BiCon that didn’t have at least one addressing feminism or feminist issues: at the biggest get-together of bisexual people in the UK, feminism is a hot topic. The event attracts LGBT activists and community-seekers in equal measure. There’s a strong case to be made that queer activists, with equality ever their watchword, are more likely to be aware of ingrained gender inequalities in our society and that political awareness begets political identities.

We’ve come a long way since the lesbian feminists of the late second wave attacked bisexuality as a phenomenon which undermined the fight against compulsory heterosexuality, and today only a little distrust for bisexual women still remains within the radical feminist movement. In this more liberal feminist community bisexuality is embraced as just another of the endless variants of personhood. The bisexual community, it seems, has responded in kind.

The answer may not be clear but feminism can be an inevitable by- product of bisexuality.


message 2: by Georgios (new)

Georgios Much more streamlined text. And it makes much more sense from the previous one. I actually like it.


message 3: by [deleted user] (new)

I wouldn't say so;many identify as bisexual without believing in equality.


message 4: by Cailee (new)

Cailee | 8 comments Personally I don't see a direct link between feminism and bisexuality but I still appreciate the parallels you've drawn here.

Although I'm both a bisexual and a feminist, I've never really felt like my involvement in either community has influenced my experience as a member of one or the other.


message 5: by Gerd (last edited Jun 28, 2017 08:19AM) (new)

Gerd | 389 comments I can agree with the conclusion you draw, which I read as "Bisexuals fight at large the same problems feminsts do" but not with the thread title, the idea of becoming bisexual from being a feminist is, ermm, strange... :)

I do agree with what has been said in the other thread, that movements like feminism raised sexual awarness and therefore, as a by product, allowed more people to admit to or recognize their bisexual nature. But then, so did the Hippie movement, yet we are not drawing any connection between being a Hippie and bisexuality - though, many of them might be.


message 6: by Ross (new)

Ross | 1434 comments The Hippy and other such phenomena are not targeted Feminism is. when we as people look at the world now it is as it is now open to different sexuality. If someone bisexual looked at the world and themselves in the past it may well have been with confusion, as many trans and non-binary people do now, because there was no "listening" for there way of being. Feminism over its evolution provided that and continues to do so. It may well be a byproduct and It is not the only such catalyst now or in the past but I believe it to be a significant one.


message 7: by Gerd (last edited Jun 28, 2017 11:08AM) (new)

Gerd | 389 comments Ross wrote: "The Hippy and other such phenomena are not targeted Feminism is.
..."


That part was more aimed at the misleading thread title which sounds as if she's asking if being a feminist can turn you bisexual.
To which the answer is no, it doesn't.

I do agree with her that the problems bisexual people face, or queer people in general (bi is part of the queer spectrum?), will make them more likely to identify as feminist, same as a lot of lesbian writers (of those I read about) identify as being feminist - same as I would believe that more Hippies are prone to openly identify as bisexual than, say, Utah politicans.

But as the Kinsey scale showed in '48 (?) sexuality is a spectrum, you are not soley straight or gay, you will however mostly fall closer to one or the other part of the spectrum*, feeling a stronger attraction to one gender, with only some falling closer to the middle of the spectrum, i.e. feeling (more) equal attraction to both sexes.

*Or outside if you're asexual, not experiencing attraction to either gender.


message 8: by Georgios (new)

Georgios Gerd wrote: "Hippie movement"

TREEHUGGERS! I guess if some of them had fantasies with plants involved, or doing it outdoors, they could also be classified as treehumpers? Shouldnt that be taken into account too?

Like... florasexuals?


message 9: by Gerd (new)

Gerd | 389 comments Georgios wrote: "Like... florasexuals?
..."


The scary thing about that comment, given all the strange terms for sexuality I keep encountering - florasexual might already be a thing, we just haven't heard of it, yet. :D


message 10: by Georgios (new)

Georgios Gerd wrote: "The scary thing about that comment, given all the strange terms for sexuality I keep encountering - florasexual might already be a thing, we just haven't heard of it, yet. :D ."

"Here is my girlfriend. Her name is Rose. Watch out because she is a bit thorny"


message 11: by Emma (new)

Emma Clement (emmatclement) | 1809 comments Gerd wrote: "Georgios wrote: "Like... florasexuals?
..."

The scary thing about that comment, given all the strange terms for sexuality I keep encountering - florasexual might already be a thing, we just haven..."


I wouldn't be surprised if florasexual was already a thing, or if it becomes one! With all of the changing and developing sexualities out there, it could very well be viable.


message 12: by Dana (new)

Dana | 21 comments I definitely think being bisexual can segway into an understanding of feminism and a search for equality for others, however that all depends on the person. You would think that any sector that is minority would see injustice and want to fight against it, but what that discounts is that some people will always seek to justify the belief that they hold at their core because they are afraid of being "wrong." Without enough push back people are not forced to question their beliefs. With too much push back people are more likely to hold tight to what they know. So again, it would all be individual based. As for feminism leading to bisexuality I don't fully believe that is something one can project. Sexuality is partially inherent. We may feel a deep connection with men or women but that doesn't mean we are able to feel sexually attracted to them. I was definitely bisexual before I considered myself a feminist. So the argument in the other direction works more, from my perspective. My husband considers himself a feminist and while he has no fear of gay people (which he shouldn't, duh) he admits he just isn't attracted to them. I think you can be enlightened and open minded but that doesn't mean it's going to change your sexuality. Which is also to say that, while gender and sexuality can be fluid, you can't necessarily choose where you fall in that fluidity.


message 13: by Georgios (last edited Jun 29, 2017 12:53PM) (new)

Georgios Emma wrote: "I wouldn't be surprised if florasexual was already a thing, or if it becomes one! With all of the changing and developing sexualities out there, it could very well be viable."

Well... According to psycologists heterosexuality, homosexuality and biasexuality are considered normal sexual behaviours.

There are several sexual behaviours described as paraphilias: (I am quitinng directly from wikipedia) "fetishism, pedophilia, transvestitism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, sadism, masochism, necrophilia, frotteurism, zoophilia (Bestiality), telephone scatologia, partialism, coprophilia, klismaphilia, urophilia, exhibitionism and a bunch of others.

Some of them are unwanted behaviours (for example excibitionism) and some can be extremely harmful such as pedofilia. Others are just considered unhealthy, such as necrophilia and beastiality. The thing with necrophilia is descration of the dead, while beastiality is in essence rape of an animal. Feminism has taken a step in protecting trans people.

But from Emma's comment i think that many feminists do not see the full spectrum of human sexuality and sexual perversions. They see only the ones that they want to see when they say "expand the human sexuality spetrum.

What really should be debated here is if paraphilias should be normalised by Feminism selectively or if this should be left to psychologists? I am gonna raise the question.

Is it what the group wants or has interest in doing, or should it be, what science has to say about it?


message 14: by Georgios (last edited Jun 29, 2017 01:00PM) (new)

Georgios And on the funny side

Emma wrote: "I wouldn't be surprised if florasexual was already a thing"

Well... It actually is, and it has been since 1943. Yes there is a guy that was all the way back then a florasexual. The little prince. Yup. That's the beginning of it, right there. Where do you think this quote came from ?

Georgios wrote: "Here is my girlfriend. Her name is Rose. Watch out because she is a bit thorny."

That's a quote from the Little Prince, after he went back to his planet and started going out with that damn Rose.


message 15: by MeerderWörter (new)

MeerderWörter | 2299 comments Is it what the group wants or has interest in doing, or should it be, what science has to say about it?

My remark on this is: As long as adults have a consenting sexual relationship with each other, and all the parties in the relationship know about each other and in which relationship they are, then there is nothing wrong with that.

It's about consent, trust and being of age, that's what it comes down to for me!


message 16: by Gerd (new)

Gerd | 389 comments MeerderWörter wrote: "It's about consent, trust and being of age, that's what it comes down to for me!
..."


Truth long as everybody is given the opportunity to freely consent and nobody gets adversely hurt by it (and I freely ascribe here personhood to animals as well - but may draw the line at plants), it should be up to everybody themselves how they live their sexuality or not.


message 17: by Georgios (new)

Georgios Gerd wrote: "and I freely ascribe here personhood to animals as well"

Yes. Because animals, can do art, religion, philosophy, mathematics, languages, logic, architecture and many other things unique to us humans

Gerd for me companion animals and working animals are very dear. But to think that a chicken is at the same level as a human being that just plain wrong. As I said before. The lines of what we can eat and what we cannot eat have been drawn a long time ago.

And if we gonna have to discusss that Vegeterian/Vegan thing about not eating meat: You will only persuade me not to eat meat if you can persuade a Lion not to eat meat. However the truth about this lies in the fact that in actual mediteranian diet, red meats should be consumed only once a month. You can definately persuade me with what kind of benefits such a diet will have for me, and not through pitty for cows, sheep, goats, pigs, chicken.

I also strongly agree that animals have to be protected from cruelty by assholes.


Delia ✨ (Bookish Nymph) (deelsian) | 3 comments Having been bisexual since I was very young (perhaps all my life, but I realized at the age of 12-13) I would say there is only a very small relationship with the two variables. Being bisexual doesn't have much to do with worldview for me personally, it's something I felt / feel. It has/had nothing to do with equality, it is simply an attraction that I always felt, as a straight person would for the opposite sex. Let me ask you this: by this logic, does it mean that being straight (in this instance, a woman liking men) can come by believing in the superiority of males vs. females?
I don't think I knew about feminism when I was 12, but I was still very much bisexual. Interesting train of thought, though!


message 19: by Georgios (new)

Georgios Delia ✨ (The Bookish Nymph) wrote: "does it mean that being straight (in this instance, a woman liking men) can come by believing in the superiority of males vs. females."

Very interesting arument. If bisexuality and homosexuality are represented by feminism, then likewise heterosexuality is represented by phalocracy.

Well as Delia has herself pointed out, being bisexual has to do with which gender she is attracted to and not with Feminism or Gender equality. There have been similar sentiments towards this direction by other people. I find that the issue of sexuality has become extremely complicated. The reason: Intersectionality.

For quite some time now feminists have been arguing the issue of Intersectionality. That much of the problems in society have common causes. So they thought that dicrimination againt homosexual and gay people has the same casue as discrimination against women, and that cause is masculinity, patrirchy of whatever they have called it.

It is predictable though that doe to the volume of the feminist movement but also because of the potency of some of its members, many causes that were absorbed into feminism exactly because of "intersectionality". What followed is a that many of these movements started becoming indistiguishable from feminism and, to be honest at the very end they were drowned out. Feminists asserted so much dominance over these ideas that the causes and effects were eventually confused. Lilliana's logic is indicative to exactly that.

Presenting feminism as an intersectional package deal has also icreased the resistances of society against these issues and feminism as well. I mean yes there might be people who might want to admit that they are bisexual or homosexual, there might be others who are vegan or vegeterian and there might be others that like feminism. However how many people can accept all three as a package deal.

And how many people would agree that feminism has the same goals and objectives as climate change activists? This last one is occuring lately and extremely dangerous. Why? Because if people percieve climate change as part of feminism or walking hand in hand with it, if reject feminism, they will reject climate change too.

I would also like to point something else out. Many homosexual people and bisexual people seem to identify themselves with the fact that they are homsexual or bisexual. What does this mean? That they fut forward first and foremost their sexuality and they pretty much demand that they are not segragated by this. Is this not exactly the same as with matcho behaviour being put forward and demanding that others respect this?

Just a couple of thoughts.


message 20: by Robert (new)

Robert Smart | 261 comments Georgios wrote: "Delia ✨ (The Bookish Nymph) wrote: "does it mean that being straight (in this instance, a woman liking men) can come by believing in the superiority of males vs. females."

Very interesting arument..."


Georgious you definitely need to read the book "Sex And World Peace" by Valerie Hudson. It may put things in a better perspective for you when it comes to intersectionality.

But I know I am preaching to the choir so to speak with you so there is probably no point in me mentioning it at all!


message 21: by MeerderWörter (new)

MeerderWörter | 2299 comments When it comes to plants and animals: No, we shouldn't have sex with them. Why? Well, because we all know that animals feel pain like we do, and if you have any doubts for the flowers: Read this: The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate – Discoveries from a Secret World


message 22: by Georgios (new)

Georgios Robert wrote: "Georgious you definitely need to read the book "Sex And World Peace" by Valerie Hudson. It may put things in a better perspective for you when it comes to intersectionality"

I have never thought of it like that Robert. However the way that this is described brings to mind "Clash of civilisations" theory, for which i have severe reservations and objections. However in the light of even that scewered view the writer seems to have mixed up cause and effect. He seems to think that gender equality will social evolution and it's positive effects. Well... as a matter of fact its the other way around. Social evolution eventually brings gender equality.

The problem is that these societies are not able to evolve. Sure some of them are extremely ritch. Sure a lot of them have access to technology. These things however are the products of the social evolution of other societies, not their own. Whats the difference between the two words? The societies that produce wealth, that produce technology, that produce solutions? Well... "I only know one thing, that I know nothing". And all that came from it.

MeerderWörter wrote: "When it comes to plants and animals: No, we shouldn't have sex with them. Why? Well, because we all know that animals feel pain like we do, and if you have any doubts for the flowers: Read this: [b..."

What do you mean? That now I cannot even have twinkies? Is that what you mean? What's next? Sea algea?

Seriously Meerder. Think about what you are saying. How perverse for human nature this is. And besides what do you think? That animals do not cause pain to one another? Come on.

That's not Humanism. Thats putting humans and human behaviour to the stand and accusing them for... well accusing them for being what they are: Human.

You cannot seperate human beings from their nature. This nature means that (among other things) that we are omnivores. This means that we can eat everything.

Keep in mind that despite all our great mental revolitions, all our triumphs of the spirit, all our revolutions that progressed humanity forward there is only ONE revolution that counted the most and it happen many tens of thousants of years ago. And that is the use of fire to cook food, and more specifically meat which is highly nutricional and contains a lot of fat. This allowed our brain to become bigger, have more energy to use and eventually develop into something that allows us to thing creatively.

Besides cooking and cuisines are part of out national cultures each and every singe one of us (I call Germans Wurst eaters, Italians Pasta Eaters, French gurmet eaters, American McDonalds eaters etc)

And besides tell me something. Why is it more important for you, if a goat or sheep suffers two thousant miles away from you, that your brother/sister/parents/relative/friends enoying a meal that they really like? Ror example a nice jucy stake. Why would you want to deprive them of that? Out of some sensitivity that the Goat may feel pain before it dies?

Come on. Its one thing to care for our companion animals (I consider my cats to be part of my family) and working animals (horses, donkeys etc) and quite another to feel sorry for the death of a goat or a chicken. Please stop making people feel guilty for eating a damn burger. They enjoy the burger and they might enjoy the company of the people they are in while eating it.

You like it or not cooking is part of our civilisation. Asking people to become vegeterian is asking people to give up a part of that civilisation. However I do believe that consumption of meat like we do today leads to many health problems and diseases. Maybe it would be wiser if you would discuss the benefits of reducing the amount of meat in people's diets.

I am starting to think that all feminists want to do is stop people from having fun.

Also the link you just posted. The introduction makes people think that plants actually choose to share with one another and they have some sort of "manifested intellect". Well they dont.


message 23: by Georgios (new)

Georgios Robert wrote: "Georgious you definitely need to read the book "Sex And World Peace" by Valerie Hudson. It may put things in a better perspective for you when it comes to intersectionality.

But I know I am preaching to the choir so to speak with you so there is probably no point in me mentioning it at all! "


Let me rephrase that. I Do not like the "clash of civilisations" theory at all and I cannot believe that it represents or it can represent an explanation for the current situation. For example itr classifies Greece as part of the orthodx block, and by ordodox Huntigton means "slavic". However orthodox are not slavs and not all Greeks are orthodox. As a matter of facy Greece has always been primarily under the influence of France and Germany and now Primarilz Germany and then USA.

The fact is that the entire world is in a state of upheval. We are not talking about one big team vs another big team like it was in teh cold war. We are taking coalistions such as China and N.Korea vs Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Turkey, Iran and Quatar Vs Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Egypt, Iraq and the rest of teh Arab World. Greece, Cyprous and Israel Vs Turkey in the east mediteranean. India Vs Pakistan. Several peripheral wars in Africa or weapons races. On top of that you got the upsets in the balance of power due to Arab spring.

None of these can be explained with the "clash of civilisations" theory.

There is only one real reason that wars happen at the moment. Its what it always have been: The access to resources. Natural gas, minerals, pipeline routes and pipeline policy, undermining the strategic abilities of the opponents (putins favourite tactic). Balances of power exist everywhere and the main deterent to agression from powerful countries at the moment is that smaller countries are well eqquipped in terms of military equipment.

All these for me point out towards only one direction: That no matter how evolved a society is it will always find or manufacture the excuse if it is in need of resources. Yes its true. It's Greed that make us go to war. Thats been the case since the Trojan War. They did not go there to rescue "Hellen of Troy". They went there against another Greek city (yes Trojans spoke Greek) becase Troy was in a position to block the grain shipments from the anicnet Greek colonies of the black sea unless they paid tax. And that really pissed the rest of the Greek cities off.

So unless we find a way to strengthen the UN, the rule of international law, and persuade all countries on earth that they need to abide by those rules, then we will constanty see wars. And you know what they say about wars. That the women and the children are the biggest victims. What must happen for me is that women must participate equally in the armed forces of all countries. The peshmerga female infantry has proven to be better than ISIS fighters in combat.

Believe me though when I say that the current world peace heavily relies on militray equipment balance of power. If we have a collapse in the balance between two rivals a chain reaction will occur and it will affect us all everywhere. Untill UN resuloutions start meaning something again and the UN regains its status.


back to top