BS: biphobia

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 05:38 PM

Well, he was always laughing, Ebbie ...

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 05:40 PM

hahaha That he was.

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: Janice in NJ
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 06:33 PM

At last someone, "Elmer Fudd" to be exact, is taking this issue seriously. I raised the question of biphobia -- which is what it is called within the LGBT communities -- on Mudcat because so many current folk musicians identify themselves as lesbians (e.g. Ani DiFranco, Pat Humphreys, Sonia Rutstein, Janis Ian, Melissa Ethridge, Cathy Fink). Yet it is from the lesbian community, but not necessarily from the folkies, that bisexual women get the most biphobic responses. They are either branded cowards like Joan Baez or traitors like Holly Near.

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: bobad
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 06:40 PM

That may be because they are trying to politicize sexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: Janice in NJ
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 06:57 PM

It wasn't lesbians, gays, bis, or trannies who politicized sexuality. It was straights, especial straight men, who have used to coercive power of the state to quash those forms of sexulaity they didn't approve of, or are scared to death of! I have an idea. Let's imprison people, or lock them up in mental hospitals, or physically mutilate them for engaging in voluntary penile-vaginal intercourse. Then when they organize and raise their voices in protesr, let's accuse them of politicizing sexuality. Hee-hee.

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: bobad
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 07:03 PM

I don't see much evidence of those forms of sexuality being quashed, in the western world anyway, these days, on the contrary I see them being publicly celebrated.

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 08:59 PM

Well, Janice...did you really think that gay people, of any particular disposition, are devoid of any prejudice by virtue of the fact that they aren't straight? It seems to me that a lesbian, whose sexual orientation is toward other women and doesn't relate to men in that manner, might tend to think of another woman who relates to both men and women as "different." For some people, the leap from differentness to prejudice is a very short one.

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: Peace
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 09:09 PM

Well said, Art.

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 09:31 PM

"Yet it is from the lesbian community, but not necessarily from the folkies, that bisexual women get the most biphobic responses.

"It was straights, especial straight men, who have used to coercive power of the state to quash those forms of sexulaity they didn't approve of, or are scared to death of! " Janice in NJ

One of the sad ironies of life seems to be that we tend to become like those who have oppressed or damaged us or otherwise impressed us. I don't know if it's because of imprinting or just a means of defense we take in with our milk.

It seems to me that what you are describing is some humans' actions or reactions. Education is about the only thing that has worked consistently against bigotted thought, slow though it be.

Surely in a smaller, fairly discrete populatoin like lesbians and gays, education should bear quicker fruit?

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 09:39 PM

I'm with bodad in being unable to understand why anyone would be particularly interested in someone's sexual preferences unless they are interested in that person sexually themselves, and want to know whether it might be reciprocated.

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 10:19 PM

Well, Kevin, all I can say is that I had no expectation that Flip Wilson would reciprocate my interest. :)

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: Peace
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 02:45 PM

I met Flip years back and spent an afternoon with him. Nice guy, very witty and very humble.

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 03:26 PM

from bobad:

I don't see much evidence of those forms of sexuality being quashed, in the western world anyway, these days,

In the last major national round of elections in the US, ELEVEN STATES passed ammendments to state constitutions denying same sex couples the CIVIL right to marry.

This is in addition to about the same number of states who had already decided that "only the right people have rights" by ammendments to state constitutions or in state laws.

The ammendment to the Kansas State Constitution that was passed was almost a verbatim transcription of the Nazi 1936 "Declaration on Racial Purity" which denied Jews the right to marry Germans, except that it goes the additional step of denying homosexuals and lesbians the right to marry anyone.

How quashed do you want them to be?

John

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: Elmer Fudd
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 03:41 PM

Janice Way up North, if you are not already familiar with her books and articles, Susie Bright is a very outspoken opponent of the PC mafia in the gay and lesbian communities and the women's liberation movement who are down on women, straight and gay, who also like to make love with or even, God forbid, be friends with men. She sometimes has a ready-shoot-aim way of shooting off her mouth, but more often her observations are rapier-sharp, funny, irreverent, and right on the money. Check out www.susiebright.com
Also, her books are widely available.

Elmer

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: bobad
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 03:54 PM

John in Kansas

I was referring to Janice's statement about people being locked up, put in mental hospitals or being mutilated for the expression of their sexuality.

Obviously as far as recogniton of their legal rights there is still a long way to go, more so in some jurisdictions than in others.

Coincidentally, I just this week filled out paperwork to start collecting my pension and was pleased to see that the definition of spouse, in the context of benificiary, included someone of either the same or opposite sex.

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 06:22 PM

bobad -

They're still debating here whether the new state constitution would make it illegal for a company to pay a pension based on defining a person of the same sex as a spouse to anyone living in the state. It almost certainly would make it illegal for any company headquartered here to do so.

It appears that some hope it will prohibit both.

John

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: bobad
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 06:47 PM

The U.S. appears to be falling behind many progressive western countries in regards to social legislation. I think there is a correlation with this and the ascendancy of the religious right in political power. Hopefully one day those in power in the U.S. will adopt the principal of separation of church and state.

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: Tannywheeler
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 08:25 PM

So, Janice in NJ, are you the one who prefers rubber duckies? Should there be a classification of misorubberduckiphile? Getaway attendees, help me out here. I am interested in the correctness of language.
And, Big Pink Lad, he (Flip Wilson) was always making ME laugh. What does that make me? A Flipophile? Should I be talking to a shrink about this stuff???
Thank you, Rapaire, for clearing stuff up.
Peace, I keep telling the Bartender there ought to be a registrar, degrees conferred, maybe tuition charged. This place is toooooo educational.
How does anyone have time to be nasty, exclusionary, frightened, hateful, when there's soooooooooooo much fun and laughter and love to be engaged in????????????????         Tw

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 02:21 AM

bobad -

The original drafters of the US Constitution neglected to incorporate separation of church and state in the original document. This was a primary reason why only a few of the states ratified it immediately.

At least six states, when they ultimately did ratify the original Constitution, made their ratification conditional on addition of an absolute ban on the establishment of any "official religion" - or they'd take their toys and go back home.

The FIRST AMENDMENT to the US Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is the stated goal of a certain significant segment of the "born agains" to eventually repeal the the religion clause of the First Amendment. Until then, they will settle for "we're not restricting your right to worship any god you want to - as long as it's ours." Note that they do NOT consider not worshiping any god an option.

A lesser but vocal segment appear to have advocated in formal internal policy documents that have circulated publicly, albeit sparsely, that the 19th Amendment should be repealed:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Acquaintance with Kansans makes this latter claim entirely credible, although illiterate Kansans seem not to be unique in the country.

John

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: Janice in NJ
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 05:39 PM

Of course I am familiar with the writings of Susie Bright, one of the great contemporary erotic authors of either sex and of any orientation. Her works, whether essays, anthologies, or fiction, have been both celebrated and condemned within the LGBT communities, sometimes by the same people who at one time praised Susie for her very frank and playful lesbo-eroticism and who later denounced her as a pornographer. If nothing else, Susie gave us the quintessential eroto-feminist battle cry: Clits up!

When I made reference to people being imprisoned, locked up in mental hospitals, and physically mutilated for expressing their sexuality, I wasn't limiting myself to the USA, the UK, and Canada, the homelands of most Mudcatters. But please don't deceive yourself into thinking that all is sweetness and light in those countries. The state laws of Kansas provide just one example.

And no, I am not the rubber duckie lady.

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: Peace
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 05:41 PM

Have you taken these issues up with the gay, lesbien, bi, tri, etc., communities?

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: Janice in NJ
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 06:03 PM

Q: Have you taken these issues up with the gay, lesbien, bi, tri, etc., communities?

A: Yes, but I don't have to. They are widely discussed issues, and there are organizations such as Transcending Boundaries that raise them all the time.

Comment: The T in LGBT does not stand for tri. It stands for transgender. I haven't heard of a trisexual, although I would love to hear more. Three more terms that you may or may not alread know are intersex, pansexual, and polyamorous. I'll let you search Google if you are currently unfamiliar with them.

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: Peace
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 06:06 PM

Mostly, Janice, I don't give a shit about them. No offense.

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: GUEST,Slim Eric
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 06:08 PM

There are two ways of looking at this. Obviously! But don't get in a state about it peeple

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: Peace
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 06:24 PM

"Three more terms that you may or may not alread know are intersex, pansexual, and polyamorous."

PS I am familiar with the terms and their meanings. Mostly, I don't give a shit about them.

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 07:42 PM

That last one would involve parrots, I imagine?

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 08:31 PM

Peace - If you REALLY didn't give a shit about these issues you wouldn't be posting in this thread. Repeatedly.

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: Peace
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 10:13 AM

"If you REALLY didn't give a shit about these issues you wouldn't be posting in this thread."

Wrong, SD. I read to learn. When I learn something from the thread I will be somewhat more enlightened. So far that ain't happened. AND, you have yet to become the one who tells me where I may or may not post. Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: open mike
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 10:29 AM

so who is (or was) Joan Baez's girl friend?

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: Tannywheeler
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 02:11 PM

Who cares??? Why does it matter to anyone except Joan and(if) the woman involved???                        Tw

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: greg stephens
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 02:38 PM

It's not exactly a secret which someone has unfairly revealed to the world: you'll find a detailed account in "And a Voice to Sing With" by Joan Baez.

Subject: RE: BS: biphobia
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 05:35 PM

Fear of the number 2?
Fear of things in pairs?
Fear of twins?
Things you say to the dentist?

uhhh... pass!