Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    I was dismayed recently to learn that a favorite couple of mine was
    having marital problems. They are in their fifties, with three grown
    children. He moved out last summer because he had to grapple with being 
    gay.
    
    He spent the summer away from his wife, visiting the kids and seeing
    the sights. She was an emotional shock-victim: quit her job, went off
    to addiction-recovery camp ("I'm addicted to my family"), vegged. The
    last I heard, he decided he would try to make a go of it and they are
    living in their house together again.
    
    The closest I've been personally is *repeatedly* dating women who
    immediately tell me that if I want to be more than just friends, think
    again. During my dating years, I tended to prefer strong women who
    didn't work a lot on being pretty, and I might have met more than the
    usual share of lesbians. It wasn't the kind of thing to take
    personally. Obviously, having married someone (and borne his children!)
    would be another thing altogether.

    I'd be really surprised if anyone in this file that had experienced
    anything like this would speak of it in this forum.  The subject
    is one that is bound to have caused a lot of pain for all members
    involved and I just can't see someone posting that experience here
    so that they can be promptly ripped to shreds.
    
    
    
                                    L.J.

    re: .2
    
    Sadly, you're probably right.
    
    	GJD

    The following reply has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






.2> The subject is one that is bound to have caused a lot of pain
.2> for all members involved...

Dear Basenoter;

You must have watched Oprah Winfrey last week.  The subject was that of
a married couple where the male partner turned out to be gay.  Almost
uniformly, the women said that when they found out - they were devastated.

Why?  Well, if there was "another woman" involved - you can (as one put it)
"cut your hair, pluck your eyelashes, dress differently, etc... but where
there is another *man* ... you're no competition".

Almost uniformly, it took the women quite some time to get over the
shock of finding out their mate was gay - and - as .2 says, it was
very painful ... very painful.

One psychologist who "specializes" in handling situations such as this
estimated that 20% of gay males are married in classical heterosexual
marriages and probably have kids ... 

.2> I just can't see someone posting that experience here so that they
.2> can be promptly ripped to shreds.

You are correct.  My wife was married to a gay male.  Me.   I'll not 
discuss it in this conference - for a number of reasons.  If you want,
send mail to the moderator and he'll forward it to me.

I can certainly identify with the 20% figure posted above.  The number
of (het)married/children/gay males that I have met in the last 5 years ...
well .. it's staggering.

    This note brings up a question that I guess I've had for a while, and
    I'm replying here even though it may be worthy of a separate topic...
    And please understand that I am not 'baiting' anyone here, nor do I
    wish to start another gay rathole - I'd just like some honest answers
    from our lesbigay community on the following question:
    
    
    How do you know that you are gay/lesbian/bisexual?
    
    
    Obviously, it is not a clear, cut-and-dried answer, otherwise we
    wouldn't have so many married, yet gay men (hence the relevance to this
    topic).
    
    I mean, I feel very confident that I am not gay, basically because I
    have physical attractions toward beautiful women (i.e. arousal) that I 
    don't have toward men.  And this does not mean that I never even look
    at men, and therefore wouldn't know if I would have a reaction - when 
    married, one of our favorite people-watching pastimes was to pick out
    people our mate might find attractive...  So, I'd find a muscular guy I
    thought was good-looking, and point her out to my spouse, and she'd do
    the same for me (picking out women, wise-guy :-)...   And, I'd have a
    different 'chemical' reaction, or feeling, when looking at an
    attractive woman v. an attractive man...  I could be 'clinical' about
    the man ("yeah, he must work out every day, huh?"), while I would be
    more 'emotional' about a woman...
    
    So, I guess I assume that this is different for lesbigays...  In other
    words, gay men have the same 'gut' reaction when seeing another man as
    het men have seeing another woman...  is this right??  If so, then how
    come we have so many married gays???   Are they living lies until they
    come out of the closet??
    
    Thanks for some straight (no pun intended :-) answers,
    
    Dave

    Re .4: OF COURSE dozens of women have expressed that "just friends" bit
    to convey that they don't find me attractive enough for more. I was
    referring to lesbians, however, as indicated by remarks like "You
    would be easy to love if you were a woman."
    
    I'm surprised I have to be so explicit.

    in re .5
    
    I wonder if you feel sexuality is bipolar, i.e. you are either
    heterosexual or homosexual. It is my guess that a lot of people
    make a heterosexual marriage and then discover later that
    they are attracted to a member of the same sex are actually
    bisexual. The Kinsey scale goes from 0 (exclusively heterosexual)
    to 6 (exclusively homosexual). 
    
    According to Boswell in Christianity, Homosexuality and Social
    Tolerance, the separation of human sexuality into two mutually
    exclusive divisions is a product of the 19th century.
    
    Bonnie

    I am the basenoter and I'd wish we stop harping at each other. I want
    to concentrate on the subject. A close friend (male) recently was told
    by his wife of 12 years that she would rather live alone and then, in a
    few months, the other shoe dropped when she told him that she was a
    lesbian and started living with a (very ugly, he said) woman, much
    older than her. He said he didn't know whether to laugh or cry but,
    obviously he couldn't do much about it. He made some joke about her
    poor taste for women and things didn't get much better after that.
    
    Personally I don't believe on bisexuality. I have never known a
    bisexual who, when pressed, did not admit he/she was really homosexual
    and used "bisexuality" as a front.

    >I have never known a bisexual who, when pressed, did not admit he/she
    >was really homosexual and used "bisexuality" as a front.
    
        Don't get out much, do you?  Have you truely never met a *real*
    bisexual or have you merely convinced yourself that anyone who states
    their bi must be *hiding* their homosexuality.
    
        And why would they use it to hide being gay?  Last time I checked
    it was no more socially acceptable to be bi than to be gay.
    
    
                                        L.J.
    
    p.s.  We obviously don't know the same people since I know lots of
    folks who are bi...not gay, but bi.

    I can think of three marriages that have ended due to the husband being
    gay.  One marriage was by cousins.  No one knew of the husbands "other 
    interest", even the wives. In each marriage, children were involved.
    
    I could never understand how this could happen, but was fortunate
    enough to have known each party well enough to be there for them to
    lean on, and be a sounding board. Someone to listen to what they were
    feeling.  I say fortunate, because this IS confusing, and it helped me
    understand why someone who is gay or even questioning their sexuality
    would marry and possibly go through the possibility of someday having a
    divorce.
    
    With each divorce the children were put in the mother's custody.  Not
    because the husbands did not want custody, but because they felt they
    had caused enough disruption to their wife and family and wanted a
    quick, clean divorce.  Each of the ex-husbands wanted to be fair in
    their divorce, and there was no long, drawn out battle over who was to
    get what and how much.  Each faithfully make the child support
    payments, and do as much as possible to fulfill their fatherly role. 
    Two of the men have also volunteered to keep up the College Fund
    payments for their children, in addition to the child support payments. 
    (Not one of the mothers felt as if they could not leave their children
    in the trust of their ex-husbands, before or after the divorce.  One
    friend raised a concern she had when her husband and his "partner" of 4
    years moved on together, but she felt comfortable enough to discuss it
    with him.  They came to a mutual agreement not to infringe on their
    childrens comforts levels.)
    
    The men's reasons for marrying were not surprising really.  All of them
    seemed to marry for the same reasons.
    
    	They all -
    
    	- Loved their wife (who was their High School Sweetheart)
    	- wanted to live "The American Dream Life"(wife,kids,house,success)
        - wanted a family
    	- suppressed their feelings for men
    	- thought their homosexual desires could be controlled
    	- inwardly denied being homosexual, because they did not fit the
    	  "Homosexual Stereotypes". (With this statement, I do not mean
    	  that all gay men are flamboyant or feminine.  It's just that,
    	  these men did not believe that homosexuals included masculine,
    	  macho, "butch", or "straight acting" (used only as a comparison)
    	  men.  Since they themselves did not meet any of the gay
          stereotypes, they denied being gay.  It's kind of an inner battle
    	  over the definition of being gay.  Is gay being attacted to the
    	  same sex? Or, Is gay fitting into the gay stereotypes?  Of course 
    	  the answer is obviously being attracted to the same sex, but if 
    	  one is looking for a justification for not calling him/herself gay, 
    	  they could convince themself that they are not gay because they 
    	  don't fit the stereotype.  It's hard to put into words, but I can 
    	  see where this could happen.  Like, not wanting to believe what 
    	  is true.)
    	- never intended to get divorced, or hurt their loved one(s),
    	  (wife, children, parents, family).  All men were married between
    	  10 and 16 years.
    
    The wives were devasted, hurt, and felt as if they were never truely
    loved, when in reality they always were.  At first they didn't want
    anything to do with their husband.  Over time, each of the women are
    now keeping in some contact with their ex-husbands.  This may be
    because of the children, but conversatins between the two "ex's" seem
    to be friendly and respectful, not malicious or demeaning.  (Sometimes
    I wonder if their relationships with their ex's are better than typical
    divorced couples.)
    
    Six months after my cousin divorced her husband (of 10 years), he
    begged her forgiveness and asked to re-marry.  He felt he could sustain
    from having contact with other men.  He loved her and wanted to be part
    of the family again (they have one child).  They did re-marry.  That
    was four years ago.  I learned in July, they once again divorced
    because he had "stepped out" on her.
    
    I believe this is more common than we think.  I feel this would be very
    traumatic to find out your spouse was a closet homosexual, but on the
    other side of things, I also think the one who is closeted has had to
    deal with a lot of inner turmoil too.  I wouldn't want to be in either
    pair of shoes.
    
    MC
    
    
    
    

    I have a very close friend who once asked me to marry him.  I knew
    he was gay and so did he.
    
    He was an excellent father figure at the time and he thought he
    needed the respectability that having a wife and a child could bring
    him in our biased world.
    
    I said no.  He has since come a lot closer to dealing with his
    homosexuality and no longer craves the *respectibility* of the het
    world.
    
    I can easily understand the desire for normalacy when society today
    puts such a huge emphasis on conforming.
    
    If a future husband of mine discovered he was gay I would be mostly
    upset that he had lied to himself and me...but we would still be
    close friends...I just woulnd't let him meet any of my new boyfriends.
    Wouldn't want the competetion!  ;^)
    
    
    
                                    L.J.

    in re .9
    
    If you do much reading on contemporary research on sexuality you'll
    find that the current view is that most people are potentially
    bisexual but due to societial pressures function heterosexually.
    Given the Kinsey scale where 0 is exclusively heterosexual, and
    6 is exclusively homosexual or gay/lesbian, that means that any
    one from a 1 to a 5 could be considered bisexual. Even if the
    bell curve is skewed towards 0, that's an awful lot of people.
    
    Bonnie

>    Personally I don't believe on bisexuality. I have never known a
>    bisexual who, when pressed, did not admit he/she was really homosexual
>    and used "bisexuality" as a front.

    I, and the other bisexual readers of this conference had a good laugh at
    that one!   :-)

            -- Dave (a real bisexual)

    Thanks for the excellent .11...
    
    It gave me a much better understanding of how this could happen...   I
    WAS kind of surprised that you knew of THREE such cases, tho...
    
    Yet another reason I am so GLAD to be single (and het :-) again!  
    
    Dave

    To those who maintain they are bisexuals and are having such a laugh
    with this: Why don't you illustrate us a little bit instead of being so
    hostile/smug? Let us know, for instance: do you think genitalia, odors,
    tastes, body texture, body shape, fluids, lips, faces, minds, the
    actual lovemaking actions, etc. are just as exciting to you in both
    sexes? Let's get specific, will you ? This is the area that is very
    hard for most heterosexuals to understand. 

    I don't think it's hard for most heterosexuals to understand -- I think
    it's hard for you to understand.  
    
    Oh, by the way, unless great care is taken, specifics could offend some
    readers, and a result might be the closure of this conference, so
    please keep this in mind.
    
    					andrew

RE:  HSOMAI::BUSTAMANTE

    Your note 641.9 had the title:
                     -< WILL THE REAL BISEXUALS PLEASE STAND UP? >-

    I did that.


    Your note 641.16 has the title:
                     -< LET'S GET TO THE NITTY GRITTY, WILL YOU? >-

    I have no intention of doing that.  I will simply say I can be attracted
    to people of either gender.

            -- Dave

    re:Bustamante
    
        You want specifics, go buy a Variations magazine.  
    
        Don't expect those bi people here to break personnel rules just
    so you can get a thrill.
    
    
    
                                      L.J.

    re:.16: Do you really want to be illustrated?
    
    "I'm not really bad, I'm just drawn that way."
    
    			- Jessica Rabbit
    
    ed

>    sexes? Let's get specific, will you ? This is the area that is very
>    hard for most heterosexuals to understand. 
    
    Logically speaking, a het man should find it most difficult to
    comprehend the sexual urges of het women.  (: >,)
    
    Ray

As a heterosexual woman, I cannot imagine myself participating in a homosexual 
activities without being repelled.  I think this is true for most heterosexuals
I know.  For us, the statment:

	"Homosexuality is unnatural FOR ME."

is a truth.  I think that is where the incomprehension of bisexuality comes
into play.  Whether our heterosexuality is conditioned by societal pressures
(I cannot buy this theory ENTIRELY as I was raised in my early, formative
years in an isolated environment without TV or exposure to lots of other
people...and my parents kept their sexual behavior pretty much to themselves)
or by chemical balances during fetal development, it is very focused on players
of the opposite sex.

I have always assumed, naively perhaps, that homosexual men and women feel
the same way I do, except that their focus is on same-sex partners.  For them,
the statement:

	"Heterosexuality is unnatural FOR ME."

is a truth.  Perhaps other motivational drives are present....and perhaps,
with society's hysteria about homosexuality, other motivational drives HAVE
to be present for a homosexual man or woman to "come out" - the cost of this
choice can be so devestating.

However, I also wonder whether the bisexual man or woman generally finds 
partners of either sex EQUALLY stimulating or whether they, by and large, are
more directed to one sex or another.  I also wonder is the bisexual man or
woman is so directed toward the partner, or whether this individual is more
focused on the pleasure of the activity, regardless of the partner.  Again,
at least for me, this would be a difference from my focus when participating
in sexual activity.

I hardly think, however, that we need graphic descriptions of the activities 
in which bisexual men and women may participate.  

    re Bustamante and Wilde,

    I try to learn about people from people rather than printed materials.
    I've never seen the Variations magazine L.J. suggested, so I have no 
    idea what it's like.
    
    If you're looking for a 'one size fits all' answer you're going to be
    disappointed...bi's can be a) predominantly straight, b) predominantly 
    gay/lesbian, or c) equally ambidextrous.  Most of the ones I know 
    definitely lean in one direction or the other.

    Speaking of the 'baiting' and 'agendas' mentioned elsewhere, three
    cheers to Dave (.18) for not playing that game.

	deb

    RE: .23 et al
    
    We are definitely not looking for titillation here, just
    enlightenment.Almost everything I've seen so far seems to point to an
    orientation or polarization, let's say, rather than the diffuse, non
    selective, "equal opportunity" world of pure bisexuality which some
    seem to herald so stridently. I keep on hoping that someone will
    clarify the issues I brought up in my second note but still, the main
    subject is the sharing of experiences associated with the matter of the
    title.
    

>                    <<< Note 641.24 by HSOMAI::BUSTAMANTE  >>>
>
>     enlightenment.Almost everything I've seen so far seems to point to an
>     orientation or polarization, let's say, rather than the diffuse, non
>     selective, "equal opportunity" world of pure bisexuality which some
>     seem to herald so stridently.

The polarisation you mention did not occur until comparitively recently: the 
nineteenth century, when the word homosexual was coined in the English 
language.  Before then, there were words for sexual activities of various 
kinds, but not the preoccupation with pigeon-holing.

Today, it is in some quarters OK to pigeon-hole yourself as gay, rather than 
straight, but bi's simply don't fit neatly anywhere.  Consequently, far from 
any 'stridency' they are probably the most secreted and secretive of us all.  
Welcome in neither camp, misunderstood by all.  If they are not derided by 
straights as perverts they're scorned by gays as closet homophobes who 
'refuse' to accept the 'reality' of their 'homosexuality'.

Those who honestly examine the evidence (and they are far too few) admit that 
bisexuality is quite common, even prevalent.  For example, in cities with a 
developed gay infrastructure such as clubs, bars etc., a large number of the 
men who obtain casual sex in beats would, if asked, classify themselves as 
straight.  They would, if pressed, offer many and varied excuses as to why 
they were indulging in homosexual behaviour, but they would insist on their 
heterosexuality.  Admitting to bisexuality is the least of their options.

The fact is that many, far more than is fashionable to admit, people are 
attracted to both sexes.  Sometimes the desires swing in intensity, which 
further confuses the issue, but they are real, whether you understand them or 
not.

    Re -1
    
    Excellent note. I agree.
    
    I would highly recommend a book called "Bi Any Other Name", edited
    by Loraine Hutchins (and someone else who's name I can't spell by
    memory!). It talks about the many and various facets of being
    bisexual (if you claim that label - some call themselves something 
    else) from both the male and female points of view and through
    various "frames" - coming out, politics, self-acceptance etc.
    It is not only enlightening but also often very witty, funny
    and a darned good read.
    
    The polarisation of het/homo is arguably an artificial barrier.
    When bisexual people are accused of "sitting on the fence" it is
    certainly arguable that *there is no fence*, there never was.
    Someone said "The homosexual label is society's way of coping
    with it's fear of it's own bisexuality"....
    
    Bisexual identity and pride is just starting to make itself visible
    today. I believe that many people have been pushed into the het or
    homo "camps" simply because they were presented as the only two
    alternative labels around - this whole labeling business assumes
    that sexual preference is static and fixed, and many people at
    either end of that dratted Kinsey scale are closet bisexuals.
    
    Bisexuals can, and do, get bashed as much in the gay community as
    the strate. Encompassing the full variety of human sexuality can
    be scary, for the bisexual and for those around them who may have
    a massive emotional investment in whichever end of the scale they
    claim for themselves.
    
    'gail
    

    In my opinion, hetero- and homosexuality are purely cultural
    constructs.  As humans we are all - - - sexual.  These labels are
    imposed by society during our upbringing.  Even the term bisexuality is
    a reaction to the artifical polarization.
    
    I was reading yesterday that the term homosexuality was invented in the
    19th century.  In many societies, and probably in European/American
    society prior to the 19th century, people were not labelled and
    categorized this way.
    
    People can have many forms of sexual behavior, and can experience love
    in many forms including parenthood, the creation of art, teaching, and
    so on.  People can exist on any part of the spectrum, and their needs
    and behaviors change at different points in their life.
    
    I believe that to acknowledge our "omni-sexuality" including the
    broader experiences of love from religious devotion to playing music to
    nurturing children, is to accept our full range as humans.
    
    I believe that our maleness or femaleness are necessary biological
    adaptations for the survival of the species, and that there are (mainly
    culturally determined) differences in psychology, but that we have
    vastly more in common than is usually recognized.
    
    There is an awful lot of anxiety produced by the "need" to be macho -
    or feminine.  Its a shame.  There are lots of people who refuse to be
    limited by these artificial roles.  Who you go to bed with, is the
    least important thing, it seems to me.  The broader issues of human
    self-expression are the key to satisfaction in life.
    
    Laura

> There is someone who notes in some of the digital conferences who
> has at different times asserted being

>    o	[what could be my resume, deleted]

Why Herb, I hadn't realized anyone was keeping score! :-) If that was supposed
to be a description of me, it was pretty accurate except that I don't think I've
ever talked about my wife's preferences or practices - to respect her privacy. I
may have implied things, but I doubt I've actually said. If you weren't talking
about me, I apologize, but if it wasn't me, would you please send me the e-mail
address of this person or send them mine? If it isn't me, we have GOT to talk!
:-)

Jorge,

I am bisexual. I am queer. I am NOT homosexual, I am NOT heterosexual. Bisexual
does not mean that I am attracted to each sex equally, or that I am attracted
to the same things in each sex. Being bisexual does NOT necessarily imply
non-monogamy, I know of at least one completely monogamous bisexual couple.

I find this state completely natural and honestly have a hard time understanding
why everyone isn't that way. I accept that there are people who can't imagine
having a deep relationship with someone just because of their sex, but I don't
understand it. As for being bi, what's to understand? I am emotionally and
sexually attracted to individuals of either sex. I also know that for many gays,
claiming to be "bisexual" was a stage in their coming out, but to generalize
from that to ALL bis is just wrong.

As for details of my sex life, well, send me mail if you're really interested.
Enclose a current photo and an SASE. :-)

	-- Charles

     Herb,
    
     help me out. I am honestly trying to figure out the point of .28.

 -1
    	ditto.
    
    	I had put in a reply after .28 that read like gibberish. "Who?
    	Whaaat? Why? I don't get it. What's this saying?" and all that.
    	I deleted it thinking that perhaps I missed some mysterious question
    	asked earlier in the note string (not that I could see what the
    	'answer' was in .28)
    
    	.28 just seemed to come out of pure blue. 
    
    	blew me away, I didn't get it either.... 

RE .29
    
> I know of at least one completely monogamous bisexual couple.

    Could you please explain this? Seems like an oxymoron (sp) to me.
    
    Thanks
    Steve

 Is someone that is celibate necessarily asexual?  I don't believe so;
one's orientation is separate from one's practices. Or to put it another
way, one's practices are defined by one's orientation, not vice versa.
Therefore, a monogamous bisexual couple is a perfectly reasonable state
of sexuality.

 the Doctah

    re .34
    
    Did I miss something?  I thought this topic was about realizing that
    your <legally married spouse of the opposite sex> was gay (which to 
    me includes, but is certainly not limited to, bisexuals).
    
    	deb

    Re .33
    
> Or to put it another
>way, one's practices are defined by one's orientation, not vice versa
    
I agree Doctah.
    
    And to put it yet another way (just in case someone took the
    above to mean that the practice of nonmonogamy is necessarily
    linked to the orientation of bisexual)....
    
    ...bisexual is an orientation
    ...monogamy is a lifestyle
    
    The two are not necessarily linked (or disconnected) in any way.
    They are two separate choices.
    
    'gail
    
    
    

RE: Note 641.37 by YUPPY::DAVIESA "Filling up, spilling over..." >>>

>>    ...bisexual is an orientation
>>    ...monogamy is a lifestyle
>>    
>>    The two are not necessarily linked (or disconnected) in any way.
>>    They are two separate choices.
>>    
>>    'gail


    Just a nit, 'gail.  I agree monogamy is a choice, but I don't feel (for
    me) that bisexuality/orientation is a choice.

        -- Dave
    
    

    Re. .35
    
    Yeah, I believe we are going in a tangent. The main subject is not
    bisexuality but what have been the experiences of people who ended up
    realizing they had married a gay person although s/he seemed to enjoy
    heterosexual intercourse for a few years.
    
    When I started reading some responses I felt it was important to understand 
    how bisexuality works in terms of lovemaking actions but it seems that
    the true bisexuals don't want to be specific.

    in re .39
    
    Well one would presume that a bisexual man/woman would do with
    a woman/man what other men/women do with women/men, and a
    bisexual man/woman would do with a man/woman what other men/women
    do with men/women.
    
    Make sense to me.
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .39
    
    >When I started reading some responses I felt it was important to
    >understand how bisexuality works in terms of lovemaking actions but 
    >it seems that the true bisexuals don't want to be specific.
    
    	Perhaps it is because the "true bisexuals" feel your
    	question is too vauge.
    
    	"..how bisexuality works in terms of lovemaking actions..."
    
    	What does that mean?  Seriously.  You mean specific sex acts?
    	Emotional response?  Physical reponse?  I imagine getting too
    	detailed in answering your inquiry might offend some people.
    	But who knows.  What Bonnie said pretty much covers it as far
    	as I'm concerned.
    
    	I can't speak for bisexuals (so this is only speculation), but 
    	I can tell you I have heard some people, especially bi women and 
    	lesbians, bristle at such requests because *in their experience* 
    	such requests are often motivated by the requestors sexual fantasies.  
    	So perhaps that is why bis reading this don't want to be specific...
    	they don't want to be the unwitting participant in someone else's
    	fantasy.  Naturally they have no way of knowing motives when any one
    	individual makes such a request, but you only have to be burned
    	once to be cautious from that point forward (i.e. don't take it
    	personally, but don't be surprised if you don't get an answer).
    
    	/Greg
    

Re: .40

Bonnie,

This was toungue-in-cheek, yes?  It sure was hard to follow.  I tried
using a pencil and paper, but the M's and W's got mixed up, especially
when they were upside down on top of each other.  And the arrows all
wound up pointing at each other.  Oh, well...


Ben

    Ben
    
    yes, but if you subsitute or for the slash it does work out okay :-)
    
    Bonnie

>    Just a nit, 'gail.  I agree monogamy is a choice, but I don't feel (for
>    me) that bisexuality/orientation is a choice.

re: sexual orientation as a "choice"

Okay, this is a test.  All you out there who had NO IDEA of their sexual
orientation until they reached the 'age of consent' raise your right hand.

I'd be very surprised if I saw any hands -- and I wouldn't believe the person
who raised his/her hand.  All we know about human sexual orientation indicates
that the human child DISCOVERS his/her sexual orientation sometime between
the age of 6 and 13 years.  Note, I said DISCOVERS, not DECIDES.  Whether
you ascribed to the "nurture" or "nature" theory of sexual orientation, the
fact is that sexual orientation is not a CHOICE, but a CONDITION.  This is,
perhaps, why we humans find "other" sexual orientation to be so appalling
to us - we are so much oriented in our sexuality that the idea of 
participating in "those perverted acts" that OTHER sexual orientation
implies is repulsive to us.  Hence, we do a great deal of damage to one
another in the name of "right".  Particularly hideous to me is the damage we
do to the children out there who have discovered that they "feel different"
than their friends - and who not only have the normal pain and misery of
growing up to contend with, but must also contend with that Greek chorus
in the corner over there repeating nice little words like "perverted",
"unnatural", and "disgusting".  This is a crime against humanity - whatever
the law says.

If a heterosexual man or woman finds that a spouse is actually homosexual, 
that spouse has not been "turned" gay/lesbian by anyone or anything recent, but
is someone who has been shrouded, even from his/herself, in DENIAL...denial
that is deemed "necessary" due to the rabid homophobia that runs through
all the religeous and legal institutions of this society...denial that may
actually HAVE BEEN NECESSARY to stay alive in the circumstances surrounding
that person's life prior to self-recognition.

re: the age of sexual orientation recognition in the child - the age range
given is commonly understood and well documented by scientists the world
over who research human sexuality.  Just about any book in your public
library that covers this subject in depth will document this age range
as the age of sexual orientation recognition.  Some books have even documented
sexual orientation recognition in younger children, but all agree that "the
deed is well done" by the time the child becomes a teenager.

    WRT .0 and .39:
    
    You don't seem to be getting the responses that you want/expect.  Quite
    honestly, this doesn't surprise me.  You original question, and your
    latest attempt to redirect this string are filled with prejudgment
    (or should I use the correct word -- prejudice).
    
    In your inital note you ask:
    
    >The previous subject brought to my mind a related but different type of
    >problem: marrying someone to later find out he/she is gay. Has this
    >happened to someone here (or an acquaintance) ?
    >
    >Sometimes you even have children with someone before knowing your
    >spouse is gay. How do you react, what do you do about custody, what
    >does your spouse do, etc.        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                                   |
                                                   |
    This question immediately assumes that divorce is inevitable -- that's a
    prejudgment.                                              
    
    In response .39, you state:
    
    >                <<< Note 641.39 by HSOMAI::BUSTAMANTE >>>
    >          -< SO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DISCOVER YOUR MISTAKE >-
    >                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    You assume it's a mistake -- again, that's a prejudgment.
    
    > Yeah, I believe we are going in a tangent. The main subject is not
    > bisexuality but what have been the experiences of people who ended up
    >realizing they had married a gay person although s/he seemed to enjoy
    >heterosexual intercourse for a few years.              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    
    Why "seemed" to enjoy?  Yet another prejudgment.
    
    If I felt that you were sincerely looking for answers, I might feel
    better -- but you have obviously already made your decision, and
    I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain something to you
    that you've already rejected.
    
    					andrew

    Re. .41
    If you look at .16 again you will see that my questions are not at all
    vague, they are very specific and remain unanswered. Some people have
    said ( I am paraphrasing ) you just do with both sexes what heteros or
    gay do with the gender of choice. But my basic question was one of
    intensity, one of quality: Are they really that unselective or do they
    have a primary choice ?
    
    The only patron of reference that I have deals with female appearance,
    I may prefer blondes but I would certainly be very responsive to a
    pretty brunette. And some readheads. And some bald women !
    And I know some blondes that will not "light my fire".
    So I am rather unselective too, but within a gender. It's a big
    difference, the plumbing it's still pretty similar !
    
    I agree with .44 in terms of how early sexual definition takes place,
    which makes the bisexuality issue much more difficult to understand
    since it implies a lack of definition (or a third position, if you
    will). By the age of 6 I already knew I was fascinated by girls.

    RE: .45
    
    I am so sorry that you see prejudice in those statements. It was not my
    intention and I agree with you that my friend's divorce might have been
    avoided. However, she was the one that requested it, don't forget that.
    The question of custody was resolved amicably (joint). It is
    understandable that my friend thinks he made a mistake in marrying her.
    With respect to the phrase on how she seemed to have enjoyed marital life
    for a number of years I am just quoting, I don't really know but I
    assume he does. It's not easy to fake for several years, don't you
    think ?

    re:.16
    
        When you say *just as* exciting you're assuming all bi's have
    an equal amount of attraction for both sexes.  In most cases this
    is not the case.  They prefer one of the other.  
    
        You stated your preference for blondes, but would do a really
    nice brunnette.  Perhaps a bi prefers one sex, but would do a really
    good-looking member of the opposite sex.
    
        I am talking only of the sexual aspect of this, since that's
    all you seem to want to know about.  And golly gee, that part is just
    so surprising!
    
    
                                        L.J.

> Title:  LET'S GET TO THE NITTY GRITTY, WILL YOU?

> To those who maintain they are bisexuals and are having such a laugh
> with this: Why don't you illustrate us a little bit instead of being so
> hostile/smug? Let us know, for instance: do you think genitalia, odors,
> tastes, body texture, body shape, fluids, lips, faces, minds, the
> actual lovemaking actions, etc. are just as exciting to you in both
> sexes?

This sounds to me like a prurient request for details of my private sex life.
Why is it important whether or not my lovemaking is "just as exciting" with each
sex?

> Let's get specific, will you?

Why?

> This is the area that is very hard for most heterosexuals to understand. 

*I* don't understand what's so hard to understand. I believe I answered your
questions completely in my first reply in this string.

> Bisexual does not mean that I am attracted to each sex equally, 

Got that?

> or that I am attracted to the same things in each sex.

Got that?

> Being bisexual does NOT necessarily imply non-monogamy,

Got that?

> As for being bi, what's to understand? I am emotionally and sexually
> attracted to individuals of either sex. 

Clear?

> As for details of my sex life, well, send me mail if you're really interested.
> Enclose a current photo and an SASE.

This time I'll remove the smiley.

No I am not equally attracted to members of both sexes, nor am I equally
attracted to individuals of a single sex. WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT TO YOU? It's
clear that you are fixated on the physical aspects of the sex act (your title
and questions make that clear.) Your questions make me want to go wash my
hands. I've learned to trust that reaction. I hear leering and slobbering.

	-- Charles

    If I were to marry someone who turned out to be gay, (and I was not), I
    would:
    
    	a) question why  this person was attracted to me in the first place
    
    	b) figure out why they either felt it necessary to let me know they
    were gay or "slipped up" enough for me to figure out that they were gay
    
    	c) wonder if it was I that was not able to fulfill their needs, so
    as to create the environment that they felt at odds enough to explore
    the other side
    
    	d) learn enough about the gay world to be able to help them
    (non-sexist singular) to explore their sexuality
    
    	e) probably engage in conversation with my spouse as to why all
    this came to the surface
    
    	f) realize that all of this had very little to do with my
    performance/persuasion/ability/etc.
    
    	g) ...therefore, reassess myself in order to help my partner
    through the tough times that I vowed on my wedding day to make sure
    that we got through.
    
    agb 

    Re. .49
    
    Charles, 
    
    I cannot figure out why you would think that I would be interested in
    knowing details of your particular life. You are a complete stranger, I
    find that rather presumptuous, certainly self-centered. I am asking for
    information, not personal information. You could have answered
    protecting your identity and that would have been fine with me. My
    curiosity about bisexuality is shared by many and not because we are
    attracted to it, another self-serving statement by your tongue-in-cheek
    request for a photo and SASE. You are very defensive in your letter and
    assume a prurient intention (I find prurient intentions quite
    respectable, I may add ) which is not the case in this particular Note I
    started. I am surprised that you sound just as moralist as my
    87-year-old aunt.
    
    You have given some information and I thank you. I wish you would have
    answered in more detail through a means that protected your ID but so
    be it. You have confirmed something I suspected, which is that there is
    a preference among bisexuals for a given sex.

    RE: .48
    
    L.J. I also mentioned "minds" in my list in .16 so please don't assume
    that I am interested only in the physical aspects of bisexuality.

    RE .50
    
    Please re-read 641.9, it will answer some of your questions.

    
 >You have confirmed something I suspected, which is that there is
 >   a preference among bisexuals for a given sex.
 
    Sorry to rock the solidity of this idea, but personally I don't
    find this to be so.
    
    I know bisexual people who are attracted primarily to a given
    sex *for a certain length of time*. They may then be attracted
    primarily to the other sex for a period. It seems cyclical....
    
    The fluidity and amazing diversity of bisexual behaviour if hard
    for me to get my mind around sometimes - I haven't found a single
    "rule" that applies across the board.
    
    RE: bisexual "choice"
    A good point - I don't believe that sexual orientation is a choice,
    personally.
    But I do believe that you can choose whether to acknowledge your
    diverse sexual attractions or not, and that you can choose whether
    to claim the bisexual label or not. I didn't put that too clearly
    before.
    
    With all the mono-sexual polarisation around, bisexual (or multi-sexual,
    or just sexual, or any non-polarised label) is, I believe, especially
    difficult to own, explore and validate for yourself.
     
    ("Mono-sexual" is a word I've found usful for referring to people
    who feel that they are attracted exclusively to one sex, be it their
    own or opposite - that it, it covers both heterosexual and homosexual
    orientations).
            
    RE: basenote
    I think this tangent is persisting because we may assume that, if
    someone has been heterosexually married and enjoyed strate sex
    for years and *then* comes out, they are more likely to be
    bisexual than homosexual. Hence the bisexual discussion.
    
    Personally I think it's all a matter of restrictive labelling.
    People's sexuality, and their capacity to acknowledge their own
    attractions, changes over time. As an individual grows within
    a marriage their self-awareness, honesty and the information
    available to them may change and hence their view of their own
    sexuality may change. I'm not sure that this means that they're
    bi, homo, hetero or anything else.
    They're just a growing human being.
    With the courage and honesty to communicate with their partner
    rather than going into a twilight dual life to explore their same-sex
    attractions - a sad situation which seems to apply to many, many
    people....
    
    'gail