Freedom to Love PEOPLE, in EVERY way

Let's dispose of, or at least analyze, a few myths.

"Gay men are having fantasies about dominating me as I have fantasies about dominating women." Approximately half the gay men, half the time, must fantasize playing female roles, both physically and psychologically. Gay men tend to see each other, and women also, more as equals. They learn the pleasure of giving as well as receiving. Fear of being dominated results from a lack of self-confidence, which will influence all kinds of relationships.

"Homosexuality is unnatural." But so is most modern, human hetrosexuality. Sex was first developed for making babies. Anything we do to prevent this, to use sex instead for making love, is "unnatural". A main characteristic of humans, as opposed to animals, is that they are creative and "unnatural". They invent new ways to fulfill their needs and new ways to use their environment, including their bodies.

Look around you at the room you're probably sitting in. What in it would you say is natural? (To me, natural means unchanged in any way by humans.) Does being unnatural make it evil? Natural is for animals. Humans are animals but we go beyond that.

Some might say, "But sex is part of our animal nature. It's an instinct and not under our rational control. Therefore we should keep it as natural and traditional as possible." And love is part of our human nature. Some of us feel lower drives can and should be used in the service of higher drives.

"Homosexuals are sick." Perhaps even as sick as hetrosexuals. I'm defining "sickness" as any internal condition or attitude which prevents us from enjoying life as fully as we might otherwise. To me, any one who sets, or tries to set, a prior restrictions on themselves or others, or blindly accepts instinctive or cultural restrictions, on how and to whom they can express their love, is sick. (And how much sicker then is the restriction of some kinds of expression of love to only one person?)

"A bisexual man is one who will let either a man or a woman suck his cock." In any group there will be a few who always want the receiving role. When having sex with a woman I have to take the male role, for most activities. Therefore when I'm with a man, I enjoy being able to, part of the time, be the female. I don't dominate or submit. I just participate and enjoy.

"Bisexuality is just an excuse for screwing around." Personally I don't need any excuse! I don't have any guilt feelings about it (or much of anything else for that matter).

Some gays say bisexuality is "flexible intimacy". When being gay is risky they can always go with the crowd. So what's wrong with flexibility? Gay is good, bi is better.

One possible factor in the development of the stigma on homosexuality was that a reproductive relationship was once a highly valued "possession". Any other kind was considered a consolation for second-class citizens who were unable to compete. Today reproductive relationships have less value, compared to love relationships.

I think the increasing power and number of gay and lesbian separatist groups, and men's and women's groups in general, is a possible path back to increasing patriarchy. I can imagine individual feelings of male superiority, which many of both sexes still retain, turning into feelings of male society superiority.

Bisexuality and "poly-intimacy" go well together. One can't possibly be _actively_ bisexual without also being somewhat poly-intimate. Many say they're bisexual "in spirit" but monogamous, in spirit or otherwise I guess. In spirit I can have any kinds of contradictions I want. This is a case where action speaks louder than words. People concerned about AIDS transmission to straights for instance don't care much about "in spirit" bisexuals.

Freedom in one area often leads to a desire for freedom in others. Most of our lives are a compromise between our real needs and the traditions of "civilization".

Fantasized conversation:

Him: Are you queer?

Me: How often do you masturbate?

Him: None of your business.

Me: I know, the subject of sex is often avoided because many people still give lip service to a set of mostly obsolete sexual mores, but few of us live by them and we are embarrassed by the conflict. On the other hand, everything any person does affects everyone else in some way. So what we do is other people's business. So if you will prove that you are seriously concerned by answering my question, then I'll answer yours.

Him: Okay. About once a month.

Me: Let it be noted that this gentleman makes love with himself, which is beautiful, but obviously a homosexual act. Yes, virtually everybody, including me is gay to some degree (especially including those who are most afraid of it). For want of a better common word, I consider myself bisexual, meaning that I feel free to love whomever I choose.

Suppose we were all created in one category of sexual anatomy, that we each had penis, vagina, testicles (and/or ovaries) and anus. (Hopefully, since you're reading about bisexuality, this won't repulse you too much.) What would our culture be like then, when the only anatomical differences are in degree, not in kind? Would it be impossible to create such a culture in spite of the differences?

This brings up some interesting clinical questions .

Send me your thoughts.
Dan Robinson,, Eugene, Oregon
My home page: