From: seamus@ravel.udel.edu (James G Dilmore)
Subject: Re: A hug request and a general growl at the world
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:48:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.172324.4416@vpnet.chi.il.us> orc@vpnet.chi.il.us (david parsons) writes:
>In article <C0F82s.MnG@news.udel.edu> seamus@ravel.udel.edu (James G Dilmore) writes:
>|I like the label of bisexuality because to me it represents the
>|closest position to the rejection of artificial distinctions as I can get.
>|But yet with it I can still find an identity and a community.  I think that
>|the labels of het, gay, bi and such are intrinsically false and that they
>|needn't exist if the above conditions prevailed. 
>
>   They describe behavior and/or orientation, and thus are
>perfectly accurate.  They may not be very precise; bisexual applies

But it is also an identity.  This identity carries may society-deemed
"essential" characteristics.  In your sense sure they are right and useful.
but there are hetboys who have had repeated motss experiences.
This are also bi folk who have had only het experiences (dammit).
The labels are certainly not true in these cases.  I think that the
baggage involved with any label makes the label inaccurate.  Especially
dealing with such a subjective topic as sexuality.

>to me, a Kinsey 1/4(*), just as it would describe a Kinsey 3/3 or a
>Kinsey 5/5.  Use it as a part of a winnowing process to describe
>someone - it helps resolve your image of that person.
>
That I like alot.  Just because of its indeterminateness.  I have
seen other sexual scales which are a bit more topological with more
levels and dimensions.

>(* theoretical Kinsey 1, experimental Kinsey 4)
>
I am about your compliment there. :)

>   If you don't use the labels het, gay, or bi, what then will be
>used?  It's a wonderful shorthand, so we don't have to spend all day

Good point.  It is useful.  But it is not always representative.

>describing ourselves.  Take a look at this description of myself,
>with the common labels and without:
>
>  [Labels]  Orc: a promiscuous bisexual bottom
>  [Without] Orc: I sleep around, a lot, almost exclusively with
>            friends <pickups and casual flings are okay, but
>	    dangerous emotionally, and I don't do them if my brain
>	    is working>, and most of them at long distances from
>	    where I live.  I am mainly sexually and emotionally
>	    attracted to women, sometimes more than I'd like to be,
>	    but I do respond quite well sexually to men, and very
>	    rarely emotionally.  I'm into pain, but only when it's
>	    inflicted in a sexual situation, and only when it's
>	    inflicted by the person topping me <this means no
>	    whips, clamps, and all those other fun things that seem
>	    to be part and parcel of Classic S&M (tm)> and I don't
>	    do submission, and fight like mad when I'm tied down.
>
Does drool hurt keyboards? :)

>   The second description is a better one, by a long shot.  But
>it takes 15 minutes to relate.  I can casually describe myself with
>the labels very quickly, and then relate the gory details at my
>leisure.  (In this context, not wishing to use labels is a way of
>labelling yourself; as what, I'll leave up to you, but not in
>casual discussion because I'd like to get some sleep today!)
>
I believe that the only true way to know anything is through
direct experience.  Yes that is an invitation.

>               ____
> david parsons \bi/ pedantic e-slut
>                \/


-- 
Jim Dilmore - seamus@brahms.udel.edu    or    dilmore@che.udel.edu 
   Deconstruct your Gender          Safe sex doesn't mean no sex.          
Give me life, Give me pain,         It just means use your imagination. 
Give me myself again.  Tori Amos.            Billy Bragg 
Newsgroups: soc.bi