From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: Purity
Followup-To: soc.bi
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:49:09 GMT

In article <MUFFY.93Jan7184131@remarque.berkeley.edu> 
 muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>First, let's look at "hets can use their sexuality to oppress others."
[...]
>Now, for the "turnabout" part.  Suppose that I, who have never attempted
>to oppress anyone by my sexuality, am oppressed by someone else.  Is
>this "turnabout"? 
[...]
>If you believe that the oppression of others is wrong, then isn't it
>better for you to *avoid* doing it than to *perpetuate* it by starting
>it yourself? [...]

Yea -- I have been impressed by the example of one of my friends, who
worked in homophobia education, and stressed how important it was to
model better behavior than we are receiving. This does not mean being
passive - but it might mean being assertive and respectful rather
than being agressive and mindlessly hostile.

My prompt reaction was "It's not heterosexuality that is oppressive,
it's heterosexism that is oppressive."

I'm trying to unpack this a bit.  Part of heterosexism is the blatent
assertion that conventional heterosexuality is the norm to which all
will conform.

Ironically, while gays are accused of "flaunting it", heterosexuals
lead by a mile (why so many wedding parties have seemed, to me, in such
bad taste).

It's easy for homosexuals to blur the distinction between heterosexuality
and heterosexism (especially certian bitchy queens ;) ;) (I'm thinking
of a recent thread in soc.motss but I don't want to start a cross-group
discussion/flame war about it.) The use of the term "breeders" which so
strongly denies the reality of queer parents is an example of this.

However, bisexuals are in a position where we need to make the 
distinction -- heterosexuality, if not conventional heterosexuality,
is after all a component in our make-up.  A lot of the dubious ideological
trashing of bis comes from leaping to the conclusion that all heterosexuality
is oppressive.

Even going beyond bisexuals, I don't think this is the case.  Taking up
the example of weddings again, the last four I have attended were at
my church. I felt uncomfortable at none of them. Two were mixed-sex
couples, two were same-sex lesbian couples.  The cerimonies had a lot
in common -- one of the lesbian couples seemed the most "traditional".

Generally they did a lot designing the vows and the service to reflect
their values.  

One of the het couples started the service with singing "Ours the Journey"
by Julian Rush, a song which has a verse about gays and lesbians, and
in their vows spoke of fighting homophobia, racism and other sorts
of oppression. (Nor do I think these are empty words in their case.)

I may be in a better position than some to appreciate to possibilities
for a peaceful co-existence between heterosexualily and homosexuality.
I have seen it happen, on a small scale, and this leads me to think
the polarity that heterosexism insists on is totally bogus.

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
                      |  Feminist   |.......|.........................