It isn’t mutually exclusive with monogamy. But I suspect that given an alternate sexuality coming out of the gate, you might be more open to alternate arrangements.
And women, in particular, often go through a “college bisexual” phase that involves experimentation - often involving boyfriends and threesomes. And I think Dan Savage said most of them end up married to men, driving kids to soccer in the minivan and shopping at Target (its a wonderful column, but can’t google it at work).
I think there’s a lot of truth in this, although I also do think that bisexuality can also include people who are sexual opportunists or simply prefer to stick to just sex with the same gender (I also personally think this mindset is a product of social conditioning, but that’s another thread all together.) However, the idea that all bisexual women are are incapable of emotional intimacy with a woman is troubling–most people don’t seem to have that opinion, but it does seem to be the basis for some people’s opinions. If you know the specific woman only has relationships with men, that’s one thing, but please don’t assume that’s true about all bisexual women.
Everyone’s sexuality is different, and I don’t mean to imply that open relationships or bisexual women who are incapable of intimacy with a women are somehow wrong, but do keep in mind that bisexual women have to deal with a LOT of this kind of thing–both from bitter lesbians who are angry because they’ve been treated like insignificant bodies in the past, and straight men who are convinced that a woman’s sexuality is defined solely by how titillating it is to men. And, of course, we also have to deal with this “bisexuals are big old sexually voracious sluts” nonsense (see elmwood’s post.) Now some of us may very well be sexually voracious–nothing wrong with that!–but there are plenty of people in open relationships on this very board who are NOT bisexual–they just don’t have the excuse of “oh, I just need a woman sometimes…” :rolleyes:
Sorry, but I think your comment did imply it. Your clarification helps to clear things up. I think we are basically in agreement, though–as long as everyone involved knows what’s going on, an open relationship is just fine and dandy.
Good point. I agree, and I’ll amend what I said above to include this statement. I know Kinsey’s scale was actually recording behavior but it makes sense for orientation too - there is definitely a continuum.
Keep in mind that the original post in this thread was talking about ALL bisexual women, not just a few women and their particular sexual partners. I assume that most people are in part responding to that. I find the original OP’s boyfriend’s assumption offensive, since it’s made about all bisexual women and not only a few. I have no idea what Staderhouse’s opinion on the matter is.
Again, you said that if your girlfriend has sex with a woman, she is still monogamous. Just like if you have sex with an inanimate object, you are still monogamous. I don’t see how else you can read that. Although as I said before, if you are really OK with your girlfriend having the occasional insatiable desire for red-haired men, don’t see how I can complain about that–it’s the fact that it’s women-specific that makes it a double standard.
No, I didn’t actually say that. Not quite in that way, at least.
I originally mentioned a friend who at first self-identified as bi, but then kind of redefined herself as hetero who likes the occasional girl. When she said it, I understood her better. She wasn’t expecting me to dissect her, SDMB-style, in order to find out exactly what sort of hypocrite she was. She was opening up to me and letting me in her world a bit.
When she phrased it as “Sometimes I just need a girl, you know?” I didn’t take it to mean that she devalues women, or thinks that women are interchangeable with sex toys, or thinks that F-F relationships don’t count. I just thought it was an adorable way to put it, and I understood exactly what she meant.
I should have known better than to repeat it here, though. It was inevitable that someone would pick it apart in the worst possible way.
So let me repeat the story the way it REALLY happened. She said “I am fully bisexual and respect everyone I sleep with.” And I replied “I revere you as a human being.”
Well, if you had responded to questions about your first post with something along the lines of this, there wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) be an argument. But, you followed up with:
. . . making sweeping generalizations about what being bisexual is for women. You could have just said, “hey, my girlfriend and I have talked about this, and she is only interested in other women for sex, so back off,” but you chose instead to explain what bisexual women are almost never. So, don’t get upset that you’re getting called on it.
Actually, based on the responses in this thread, it appears the bisexual people who have chimed in are saying that monogamy and bisexuality are definitely not mutually exclusive, it’s the partners of bisexuals who are happy for them to play.
I don’t think anyone’s saying “They’re not bi enough” - I think all of us recognise that gender preferences exist, even if you’re open to relationships with both men and women. I think where people have taken offence (at least, me, anyway), it’s because there’s a societal context which says female bisexuality isn’t really real - we’re either lesbians in denial, or just doing it to turn the guys on. And some of the comments in this thread, against that background, have jarred a little.
Congratulations! (Or soon-to-be congratulations, whichever’s most appropriate…)
That makes sense. But maybe we can remove that societal context from this discussion. I’d like to believe that we’re a little more enlightened than general society.
I don’t think that anyone’s said that here. I certainly haven’t. I even called you “a real bisexual”. I simply claimed that you’re outnumbered by the not-so-fully bisexual women out there. Claiming you’re rare isn’t the same as claiming you’re nonexistent.
This is an excellent observation. I knew a therapist many years ago who worked a lot with GLBT clients about various issues . She once remarked that people in GLBT relationship as well as their immediate friends and family, who were more exposed to different relationship structures and options, tended to have a less black-and-white view of relationship dynamics. I think some of her exact words were “they think things through a little more”. So basically their expectations of “what is a relationship” were less rigid than their peers who were not as exposed to different “relationship cultures.” As a member of the GLBT community you are more exposed to a greater variety of “relationship cultures” so you may be more open to a non-traditional structure.
More rigid would be the people kind of like my ex-boyfriend who believed that all meals, by definition included meat and potatoes. So exotic things like sushi didn’t fit his idea of “dinner.”
For thread data , I’m a monogamous bisexual woman. I have zero interest in pursuing any relationship with anyone other than my partner. It’s like when you meet someone who is super-attractive, but married. While you think “Wow, that person is hot!” it’s not something you would act on because the person is off limits, and it really kills the flame and tempers the hotness.
I think it’s pretty obvious that Chessic is making no sense at all. Hell, he probably knows it. But his reasoning is what allows him to let his girlfriend have sex with other people and not have a problem with it. Let’s not shake up his logic and destroy his fantasy.
Nope. Because I don’t provide the same thing to a relationship as a woman does. We’re not competing.
It’d be like if there were two businesses- a shoe store and a mechanic. When a customer goes to the shoe store, does the mechanic go “Aw man, I’m an inferior business!” No. He understands that that customer obviously wanted shoes and he doesn’t sell shoes.
My husband and I are in a mostly monogamous relationship, and I’m the bisexual party in the relationship. For us, we have a simple agreement that it’s okay for me to introduce women for a casual three person encounter every now and then, just as it is for me to have a casual encounter with a woman on my own. However, I make a point of checking in with him if I am interested in sexual behavior with another woman. As far as other men are concerned, we don’t have an agreement allowing other men into the relationship, even for casual sex, which is fine by me; I only occasionally get interest in casual sex with women, and my needs regarding men are met by my husband. Our relationship was originally a negotiated arrangement for casual sex which turned into something a lot more serious over a number of years, and we have been open about our interests, desires and needs throughout the relationship. There’s no jealousy with me or him in this arrangement, but I have a feeling that, if the terms were to allow other men, some jealousy would potentially rise up. I find that the women that we’ve selected thus far have been really good about playing by the rules, whereas any man I’ve met or known who would be okay or even interested in playing a NSA third position would quickly start trying to bend or break the rules set forth by the original couple. YMMV, but I’m not all that interested in having other guys fight for my attention with my husband, and considering my past luck with men, it’s a total crapshoot to find a good sexual match who would be fun for more than one or two encounters total. While a second man in the bedroom isn’t completely off the table, it’s not really in our frame of interest but may be an option in the future.
Mind you, all of this is in the context of not looking for a romantic relationship, rarely being interested in bringing a third person into the bedroom, and me not being as romantically interested in women as I am with men. We also make it very clear any time a threesome arrangement is made that there are boundaries and what they are before we get anywhere near the bedroom stage. Shadowfyre’s list of rules is pretty close to what we’ve got going on-- any initial contact is a threesome, and if there is further one-on-one stuff going on after that, it’s negotiated and discussed between all parties well beforehand. Needless to say, threesomes don’t happen much, and breaking off for random pairings afterward is even rarer. Though I find a wide variety of people attractive and sexually interesting, it’s rare that I want anything more than to exercise the results of any reaction I get from seeing a sexually interesting person on my husband. A big part of that is being so comfortable with the relationship that I have with him that I’m not interested in experimenting 98% of the time, and after seven years, I’m closer to him than I am to the vast majority of people I know and value that more than a bit of “sporting sex” with a random person, regardless of whether we share them or not. Besides, it’s healthy to have the occasional fantasy for when one has to take care of one’s needs solo…
