From: idx009@cck.coventry.ac.uk (the Crisco Kid)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: New (? doubtful) thoghts on bi'phobia'
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:29:47 GMT
Organization: Eris's Restaurant

In article <1992Aug27.044200.25002@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bx304@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeff Epler) writes:
>As a bisexual, I have what might be termed a facination with both male
>and female bodies.  Since this is normal for me (Has been for a long
>time -- Long before I would admit such a thing to myself), I somehow
>expect it to be normal for everyone else.

It *is* normal - but not normative.  There's nothing abnormal about
an aethetic/erotic appreciation of both sexes; it just doesn't seem
to be a majority trait.  That's all.

>So, in blatant disreguard for others' rights to be themselves the only
>judge of who they are/should be attrated to, I still wonder (To myself)
>how anyone could fail to be attracted by a beautiful female body, how
>anyone could fail to be attaacted to a beautiful male body.

No, you aren't disregarding their rights.  I think of it this way.  The
only person of whom I have in any sense direct and immediate knowledge
is me.  I have two ways of understanding other people: perception and
analogy.  Perception has the disadvantage that I have actually to
observe/interrogate the other person's state; analogy allows me free
speculation.  This use of analogy is a foundation of basic societal
principles: do unto others as you would be done to by them, and so on.
Thus I refrain from aggressively hurting people: I know that I don't
like to be hurt aggressively, and therefore (I analogise) I don't need
to hurt them to observe consequent distress; I can draw the analogy.
This analogising process is barely conscious, usually, and can sometimes
go astray.

Preamble over.  I *know* that I have such attraction to people; I
therefore tend to assume (by analogy) that other people are similarly
constructed.  Thus, I often assume that people are bisexual.  I don't,
however, insist that they *must* or *should* be: to do so would indeed
be a disregard for their "rights" - I'll quote because that's not a
term with which I'm comfortable.  If you want to engage in discussion
of how "rights" get constructed, feel free to email me...

>This internal disbelief of someone's ability to be a mono (A term I
>probaly should dislike because it is another way for me to separate
>myself from other people) could probably seem similar to a heterosexul
>trying to tell a gay man that if he'd just *try* a woman, he'd decide he
>liked it, and somehow amazingly become hetero.  

No.  Take me and Justin.  He can't feel how I can find women attractive,
because he doesn't experience it, and so has to approach it as a matter
of pure intellection ("Suppose X were a man.  Yes, in that case I'd
probably find X attractive.  OK, that's probably why Kay fancies her."),
and I can't feel how he can't find women attractive (it's been so long
since I thought I was mono), so I have to perform a similar analogy.
It's not a matter of disbelief, but a matter of remoteness.

>'Could probably seem'?  That's putting it lightly.  It's the exact same 
>thing.   I'm guilty of the same fault as the one I abhor in others: by 
>not accepting the sexuality of others as valid, I'm just as bad as one
>of the many homophobes that seem to prevade this planet.  

If you did not, you would be.  But I don't think you are.

>PS Question -- If you believe that each person should be able to have
>his own beliefs, how can you react to one who believes that all should
>believe his way without being a hypocrite?

I'd probably turn happily to my philosophy texts and reassure myself
about the distinction between "t"ruth and "T"ruth.  The hypothetical
one to whom you refer is (by your belief) validly holding a proposition
that is true in her/his concept-space but not in yours.  You, however,
hold a proposition that is false in her/his concept-space.

My PS now: I speculated this past weekend that one thing that het
couples probably miss out on is the "Wow! s/he's sexy!"  "Yes, isn't s/he!"
exchange.  Of course, not all non-het couples have equal orientation of
eros, but...

Right.  I'm off to Norwich.  Be there or be elsewhere :)

				Kay
-- 
6'2", dark short hair, blue eyes, bisexual and horny as ....
Kay Dekker, Dept of Industrial Design, Coventry University, Coventry UK
37 Old Winnings Road, Keresley Village, Coventry   |B0 f t+ g++ k++! s+ e r p!
Phone: +44 203 838668 (work) +44 203 337865 (home) |Deflowerer-of-innocents