Well this goose was feeling a little troubled. Bisexuals (bays from now on) are in a limbotic world. (oh be prepared for new words to be developed and nurtured here, because I fucking can. Limbotic = a world in limbo but torn twixt two ideals that seem incongruent and yet are almost identical) They are neither hay or gay, neither here nor there. And then I got to thinking about partnerships. I can't even find one blind, desperate male unable of out running me to shag, a bay would need to find one of both sexes. Who don't mind sharing. And I thought I had it bad? So whilst responding to M I made mention of a new war. The hays had it, and lost it to the gays, who now have it but need to share it with the bays. But unlike the old war where it was the right for same sex, now we are faced with the right for destroying our last vestige of the sexual covenant. Gays and Hays alike ascribe to this practise when possible, and their relationships fail when they don't: Monogamy.
I'm not implying that a bi-sexual would not be faithful, and I'm not pretending to understand how exactly bays would work in terms of relationships, but from what I can gather there is a requirement for a polygamous relationship (a faithful one). A bay man would want to sleep with women, and equally with other men. A bay woman would need to be filled with man, and woman equally. This, to my mind, implies that if a bay selects the one, there will always be an urge to indulge the other. After all I can only image it as liking chocolate and ice-cream. Eating just the one would create a craving of the other. So the only healthy solution would be to eat both (as some of us do hence the weight problem...).
But this leaves the bay in search of other bays or very opened minded gays and hays. As a gay would I let my boyfriend have a girlfriend? Sadly I don't think. I'd constantly be thinking - what the fuck does he see in her? I don't understand why I'm not sufficient. As a hay husband could I let my wife go and sleep with another woman? (oddly enough most hay men desire this, so perhaps that is where we should aim our first revolution?) But the story gets more complicated. A hay and a gay can have a single partner, and get by and large marital rights. And one could arguably take a multi-partnered marriage to the courts and claim the cultural thing. But do I see SARS adding: Name of spouses to their already reduced form?
It looks pretty bleak for the bays I'll grant you. Or does it? Granted there are many battles still to be fought, but ultimately it was the gays who got electro-shock therapy in the past, the hay women who were imprisoned for bucking the system. Today's world is more a court battle than anything else, and I'd like to hope - in South Africa, where we have been legally forced to be accepting, that the future for bays is not as desperate as it at first seems. Perhaps the first phase is an influx of openly bay people? I knew of one, and I know of M (but only through this blog I think). If we had more openly bay people, bay people demanding rights and recognition perhaps we could move forward? But how does that resolve my personal problem of monogamy versus multi-partnered, multi-sexual existance? I need to understand it more, and have an open mind towards the idea. In short I need to deconstruct my dislike of women as a physical object. I don't mind women as a species, I just don't see them as being attractive sexually. So how do I now go and reprogram myself to see the virtues of sleeping with a woman so I can understand the urge that a bay has? I don't know. Exposure to bay thought. That's my only solution on this friday morning. And equally, all you hays out there, you need to start breaking down your society ingrained avoidance of sizing up a member of the same sex.
So the first step we need to take - hays and gays - is to welcome bays into our worlds, circles, groups. I'd like to know more bays to be honest. For we only gain understanding and acceptance of a thing if we actively engage in exploring it through discussion and shared experiences. It's an exciting time in this country for all things, and a 'new' sexual freedom that must be embraced by all of us. So M - like I said I'd love to chat more, mail me (sclanders@gmail.com).
So, and not being flippant: Have you hugged a bay today?
3 comments:
Your argument about bays (love the nomenclature) leaves out one important point : in ANY relationship a partner might be tempted to cheat on the other. This is true for hays, gays, and bays. Just because your hypothetical partner is (say) bisexual, doesn't imply that they will be any MORE or LESS tempted than any other person to cheat on their partner.
I would suggest that gay relationships tend to be fairly short and for a long time one-night stands (and sometimes one-hour or ten-minute-stands) were the common duration. Men are less likely to commit to a long-lasting relationship in general, so if you have two men in a relationship, both are tempted to seek (at least) extra sexual company. This is a debatable point, obviously, and there are long-standing relationships I'm aware of that buck this trend - and it could be that the trend exists solely because long-term gay relationships were not recognized by society and all contact was furtive and covert...we'll see, I guess.
I just wanted to weigh in on the bay side of things and point out that they're no more likely to want an extra partner than any other group.
I know why men form shorter relationships - at least according to Diamond. In his book 'Why is Sex Fun' he posits that in most reproductive groups - the male is a dominate alpha who will happily kill any progeny not sired by himself. Now as it so happened in Humans the secretive women don't show when they're ovulating. As a result we don't kill off unknown young. They may be our children, they may not be. We're not sure and so can't risk killing them. What this also then requires is the male to protect his offspring (a standard in most mammals who kill off kids).
However when you remove the equation of genetic transferance to kids as the principal - and technically only real- need for long term relationships you are left with a beast that gains more out of physical sex (chemically) than out of celebacy, and one where its only moral (self created) compulsion to remain faithful, as opposed to survival of the species/genes thing.
So I think we're likely to see more and more a collapse of the monogomous relationship. As humans we've moved beyond mere genetic continuation. Perhaps its time we move beyond the survival traits of those lesser species still obessessed with dominating the gene pool.
Does this then imply - with a survival of the fittest as a guide - that we will cease to evolve in terms of physical superiority in terms of survival and more in terms of physical attributes present societies deem the most attractive? what then becomes of the breeding couples? Perhaps we'll start to see whole communities forging for themselves old fashioned betrothal rituals to ensure their children reproduce as opposed to just having sex with no intention of continuing the family name?
Breeder colonies will keep the world going? will governments need to forcibly pay people to breed? Would we then call them prostitutional survivalists? God it's all so interesting...
I agree with Colin. The fact that I may be a bey does not automatically imply that Ihave a need to experience both sexes at the same time. All it implies, in my opinion, is that I am susceptible and stimulated to either of the sexes. As you know, I am currently in a heterosexual relationship catalyzed by the vows of marriage. Despite this I have had intense relationships with the most incredible people of both sexes.
Bi folks are baulked by both sides in many cases, but as is often said by the gay crowd: I am what I am.
Post a Comment