Comments on: The Peter Discovers Bisexuals

By: Max the Communist

Max the Communist — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:14:19 +0000

I feel badly. I blogged the bi health summit and, unfortunately, was twist-quoted by Pete about HOW SICK WE WERE–obviously because of our perverse bisexual lifestyle. Usually, we bis just get ignored–until people talk about guys on the down-low or Tila Tequila makes it into the news.

By: GreenEyedLilo

GreenEyedLilo — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:26:05 +0000

@ Hunter: I’m not at all surprised by either one myself. It’s like, if someone told him “I have some apples, bananas, and oranges, and half the fruit I have is oranges,” he’s concluding that half of all fruit is oranges. I am not sure whether he is actually that dense or just counting on his potential donors being that dense, and if so, which would be worse. There’s a lot of malice either way.

@ Tavdy: I always appreciate tips like that. ;-)

By: Hunter

Hunter — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:04:52 +0000

In LaBarbera’s defense, he can’t be expect to discern the difference between “homosexual” and “GLB,” which is what the article he referenced actually said. He’s just not intellectually equipped for that sort of subtlety.

The CFP article is not great — CFP seems to have adopted the corporate media’s habit of letting assertion stand for fact — but LaBarbera’s not reporting what they actually said.

Why am I not surprised on either count?

By: tavdy79

tavdy79 — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:09:28 +0000

GreenEyedLilo: Bill Guerin’s biceps? try Sean Lamont’s glutes!

By: GreenEyedLilo

GreenEyedLilo — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 00:22:22 +0000

Good lookin’ out, Burr and Christopher. Lots of people who act bisexual (or have had a bisexual history) do identify as straight. I’m guessing Peter thinks this means he can say the ex-gay stuff wouldn’t hurt after all, that gays and lesbians do too have heterosexual “potential,” that there’s “hope” for us. As a same-sex married bisexual woman who is happy to make her own decisions regarding her sexuality, I’d have to say his definition of hope and mine are different.

And that’s one of the more charitable possibilities I came up with. I don’t actually want to get too far inside Porno Pete’s head. It’s a scary place.

Tavdy79, I’m thinking just this bit of bi visibility that I wrote in a hockey fangirl blog earlier this week, about Penguins right wing Bill Guerin, might induce a migraine in Porno Pete: “I’ll behave myself if we meet him, honest! I’ll only touch his bicep a little bit. It’s not like I’m gonna propose that we both ditch our wives for the night and go find a motel room.”

Seriously, the Bi Health Summit was a good idea, and I am very glad that there are concerned professionals, bisexual and otherwise, who are finally working to address our community and its needs. Here’s to people like Cheryl Dobinson and Stewart Landers who offer real, true help. And here’s to talking about real things, thereby making it really, excruciatingly difficult and confusing for Peter LaBarbera to do his job. :-)

By: tavdy79

tavdy79 — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:21:35 +0000

Here’s one that’ll really screw with The Peter’s noggin: What about genderqueers? If you’ve got a person who doesn’t identify as purely male or purely female, how can they be straight? After all, you’re straight if you’re only attracted to the opposite gender, you’re gay if you’re only attracted to the same gender, and you’re bisexual if you’re attracted to both.

But what’s the opposite gender of a person who is genderless (agender, neutrois) third-gender (exogender, autogender) both male and female (hermaphrodite) somewhere between the two (androgyne, ambigender) or whose gender isn’t fixed (bigender, genderfluid)? When you leave the gender binary, definitions of gay, straight or bisexual aren’t so clear-cut.

By: Burr

Burr — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:13:31 +0000

Okay.. what difference does it make even IF half of us were actually bisexual?

It doesn’t change the fact that we should still be allowed to choose a partner of the same sex and have all the same rights as those who choose the opposite sex.

Pointless thing to point out even if true, which it’s not.

By: Zeke

Zeke — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:24:20 +0000

I don’t know which is more ridiculous, LaBarbara’s article or the one he references.

“Half of all homosexuals are bisexual”?

By definition NO HOMOsexuals are BIsexual and NO BIsexuals are HOMOsexual.

I don’t even believe that half of “self-identified homosexuals” are actually bisexual unless one considers anyone who’s ever had sex with a person of each sex bisexual. That would make me bisexual and I’m absolutely positive that I’m not. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. :)

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:26:14 +0000

Dang, I thought I was ok leaving my irony meter on when I visit this site. Now I go and zap another one thanks to Pete.

I guess the stupid goes all the way down on him.

By: Christopher Waldrop

Christopher Waldrop — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:52:20 +0000

Peter’s headline contains a serious typo. It was supposed to say, “Half of all heterosexuals are bisexual”.