\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
