\input zine.sty \centerline{\hl The Anti-Bi Bias in ``Gay Culture'' or} \centerline{Why Can't I get Lesbians to Fuck Me Even Though} \centerline{The ``Straight'' Boys Bend Right Over} \lline{by Mykel Board} {\small\narrower\it (Note1: This article was originally written¨ for {\rm The National Organization of People} Newsletter. I don't¨ know if they printed it. It has been revised a bit for inclusion¨ in {\rm HOMOCORE}.) (Note2: The term ``bisexual'' bites worse than a novice boy who's¨ afraid to swallow. There's a SPECTRUM of sexuality -- not an¨ ``either-or''. ``Pansexual'' or ``non-mono'' are nicer words but¨ I'll avoid them so this won't sound like an RCP position paper.¨ Also, although this paper is written from and for a male point of¨ view, it wouldn't take many changes to make it equally applicable¨ to lesbians. Finally, I've made no mention of AIDS here. It's¨ affected the attitudes of ALL the sexual communities, creating¨ more than the ``normal'' amount of hostility. It has not,¨ however, changed the facts.) } There are no homosexuals -- only scared people. Of course, there¨ are no heterosexuals either, but I'm not writing this for¨ HETEROCORE. I'm talking to you. Homo-and-proud you. I want to¨ talk about so-called bisexuals. You could say a bisexual is like the coffee-with-more-or-less­ cream-colored child of a black and white couple. It's rejected by¨ both communities, considered always an outsider. Sure you could¨ say that, but you'd be wrong. The difference between a bisexual¨ and a mulatto is the difference between hate and fear -- between¨ inside and outside. Both blacks and whites reject the mulatto¨ because to each group, he contains an element of another group --¨ a foreign, usually hated group. A white person looks at a mulatto¨ and sees black -- or worse -- a white person denigrated by¨ blackness. The vice holds true for the black versas. Reaction to¨ the (overt) bisexual is something else. Ever since Freud stuck beard to inkwell, folks realized that¨ sexuality was (in humankind) a universal. Kids are born with¨ sexual feelings towards everything. The cigar-sucking shrink¨ called it ``polymorphic perversity''. Those feelings narrow down¨ and become focused with age. Hormones, family, social¨ conditioning, lots of stuff, create a ``sexual orientation''.¨ This orientation is really a selective suppression of natural¨ polymorphous perversity. Within our society, the majority narrow their perspectives to¨ members of the opposite sex. Most get even more specific (eg.¨ girls with big tits, boys with hairy chests, etc). Since heteros¨ are part of the majority, these folks don't even think about¨ their orientation. They certainly don't build an identity through¨ it. I've never met a person who introduced himself, ``Hi, I'm¨ Sam, a heterosexual.'' On the other hand, those who find their orientation narrowing to¨ members of the same sex have a more difficult time. They are¨ sometimes subjected to ridicule and in any case have many fewer¨ examples of behavior to follow. One reason there are so many gay¨ ``clones'' (short hair, mustache, flight jacket, hiking boots,¨ tight blue jeans for boys, the same with a flannel shirt and¨ usually less of the mustache, for girls) is that when a person¨ finds he or she is attracted to the same sex, they often¨ simultaneously discover the label ``gay''. Gay is more than just¨ homosexual -- it's a ``life style''. There is another aspect to this lifestyle. That's the ``beards¨ and dresses'' look adopted by, among others, the ``Radical¨ Faeries.'' The implication of this is that somehow homosexuality¨ is ``feminine'' (dresses are, in our culture, clothes for women),¨ and that a homosexual -- or homosexuality -- is less masculine¨ that other sexual orientations. Of course, this is exactly what¨ society at large thinks and these folks do nothing more than¨ reinforce it. They're as bad as the guys who dress like Brando­ bikers claiming that homosexuality is MORE masculine than other¨ sexualities. Neither of them makes the more radical claim -- that¨ it's HUMAN -- and part of ALL sexuality. (I give credit to the¨ homopunks who reject these clone looks for a more aesthetically¨ appealing one. At least one that makes a statement about the¨ person as a whole, and not one confined to cuntness or¨ pricktitude.) In any case a gay life-style includes one of these ``clone''¨ looks. ``So,'' reasons the novice, ``if I like to sleep with¨ boys, that must mean I should grow a mustache'' (or wear a¨ dress). Often the new homo will move to New York or San Francisco¨ or at least to his local gay ghetto. He makes it so that his¨ surroundings are as homosexual as the majority's are¨ heterosexual. But, the homo goes further. He has ``chosen'' a¨ difficult course; a non-mainstream course; a course that can¨ subject him to ridicule and possibly physical danger. Like most¨ people who feel in danger, he tries to protect himself -- both¨ physically and mentally. He sees himself -- rightly so -- as¨ being courageous in openly bucking the mainstream. His sexual¨ orientation becomes a badge -- or more -- his identity. A homosexual who becomes ``gay'', surrounds himself with more and¨ more gay friends. Often, he suddenly finds himself with more¨ female than male friends, and he gradually loses the ability to¨ bond ``non-erotically'' with other males. Old friends will move¨ away from him; a few because they're uncomfortable with his¨ sexuality; more because they just don't fit in with his new¨ ``life style''. That narrowing circle of friends makes his life­ style even more one-sided. He lives in a mental as well as a¨ physical ghetto, building walls around him to keep out the¨ foreigners. The bisexual puts a chink in this wall. He doesn't fit into this¨ us vs. them bunker mentality. The bisexual represents a part (the¨ heterosexual part) of the homo that he has worked to suppress.¨ (Of course, heteros also suppress part of themselves -- the¨ homosexual part -- but they don't have to work at it. They simply¨ fall into it by being caught up with the boring masses of¨ society.) The homo sees this invader, the bisexual, as either a¨ liar or a traitor. He's a liar because he's really a heterosexual pretending partial¨ gayness to be trendy, hip or ``sensitive''. Or he's a traitor¨ because he is really a homosexual pretending to partial¨ heterosexuality to make himself more acceptable to the ``straight¨ world''. In either case, he is a threat to the pat life-style¨ that has so neatly defined things for the gay person. The homo resents the bi-guy because the former felt like he had¨ to work to become what he was. Now, along comes someone who has a¨ free ride. The resentment is deeper still because the bisexual¨ tells him, ``You were wrong. You didn't have to make that choice.¨ You didn't have to grow that mustache (wear that dress). You¨ could've gone on being polymorphous perverse and had a grand old¨ time of it.'' Any bisexual will tell you that it's dozens of times easier to¨ get a person who thinks of himself as hetero to try homosexual¨ sex, than to get a person who thinks of himself as homosexual to¨ try heterosexual sex. (There are of course lots of ``homo­ haters'' among the heterosexual community. ``Fag-bashing'' is a¨ real danger to effeminate of openly gay men. This attitude,¨ however, springs from the same type of insecurity that makes¨ homos hate bi's. The homo-hating hetero is almost always a person¨ who hates the homo inside himself. The street gay exposes this¨ uncomfortable side to the basher. The basher, afraid of his¨ hidden self, literally wants to stamp it out.) To most heteros, a¨ bisexual is at worst ``weird''. Since the hetero never had to¨ build a wall of protection around his sexuality, however, he has¨ an easier time releasing his other -- less used -- half. To the¨ homo, on the other hand, the bisexual is a danger. He is a danger¨ not only to a view of sexuality he had to WORK to achieve, but to¨ his entire way of life. \bye