Why Do Bisexuals Say "i Don't Believe In Labels"

[Charlie Fairview]

This is an observation of mine and I've noticed that people that, through their actions and statements imply that they're bisexual they never actually identify as such. Almost every person I've heard this from is bi.

Such people say they don't like being confined to labels,but isn't bi/pan/omnisexual the most free of them all?

Are you a bisexual who has said this yourself or heard it from others?

 

[shard38]

Yes, I don’t really see the point in labelling myself. But it’s obvious sometimes others need a label to make sense of my sexuality.

 

[halcyondays]

Such people say they don't like being confined to labels,but isn't bi/pan/omnisexual the most free of them all?

Yes. That's why bisexual/pan/omni defies labels. It's the most inclusive of all. Straight and gay are the exclusive labels.

If I am everything doesn't that make me no one thing?

 

[Pistol]

This is an observation of mine and I've noticed that people that, through their actions and statements imply that they're bisexual they never actually identify as such. Almost every person I've heard this from is bi.

Such people say they don't like being confined to labels,but isn't bi/pan/omnisexual the most free of them all?

Are you a bisexual who has said this yourself or heard it from others?

Not all bi people thinks this way. Bi people can be exclusive/exclusionary (we aren't sexually attracted to everyone, nor do we want to fuck everyone). Bi is a spectrum, and not all bi people are pan or omnisexual.

Maybe bi people are afraid to identify as bi because both straight people and gay people are very bi-phobic? A lot of gay people think bi is a "phase" on the way to gay. Many straight men see bi women as objects where they can live out their group fantasies. Many straight women think bi men want dick more than they want pussy; lots of them have dumped their bi boyfriends. Bi men face rejection from all sides when identifying as bi.

 

[Rsechs]

I don’t speak (that is, write) for anyone except myself, but one reason that I don’t like the label “bi” is that it carries too many negative connotations (i.e., prejudices) like: bi people are “confused,” or they are “really” gay, or that they are in “denial.” And this is from men and women on both ends of the spectrum.


No. Nope. Nyet. One great success of the pride movement has been to neutralize the “gay” label and render irrelevant how you might relate to friends, acquaintances, co-workers, etc. A man who who says that he is gay is no longer automatically assumed to be a “fairy,” a “fag,” a pederast or of being indiscriminately promiscuous. People who enjoy physical intimacy with both sexes, however, still have to contend with similar—though certainly not identical—assumptions.

One qualification: I live in NYC and run and work with a pretty diverse and tolerant crowd. Can’t say how this applies elsewhere. I have a very good female friend, however, who is also bi and it is nice to be able simply to sit and talk with someone for whom that is not an issue. We are candid about our pasts and our proclivities, but it doesn’t define or even categorize either of us.

For me, sex (whether consummated or not) is the natural progression of any intimate friendship. And that is why I don’t like labels.

 

[AHandfull]

I don’t speak (that is, write) for anyone except myself, but one reason that I don’t like the label “bi” is that it carries too many negative connotations (i.e., prejudices) like: bi people are “confused,” or they are “really” gay, or that they are in “denial.” And this is from men and women on both ends of the spectrum.


No. Nope. Nyet. One great success of the pride movement has been to neutralize the “gay” label and render irrelevant how you might relate to friends, acquaintances, co-workers, etc. A man who who says that he is gay is no longer automatically assumed to be a “fairy,” a “fag,” a pederast or of being indiscriminately promiscuous. People who enjoy physical intimacy with both sexes, however, still have to contend with similar—though certainly not identical—assumptions.

One qualification: I live in NYC and run and work with a pretty diverse and tolerant crowd. Can’t say how this applies elsewhere. I have a very good female friend, however, who is also bi and it is nice to be able simply to sit and talk with someone for whom that is not an issue. We are candid about our pasts and our proclivities, but it doesn’t define or even categorize either of us.

For me, sex (whether consummated or not) is the natural progression of any intimate friendship. And that is why I don’t like labels.

That is a fantastic quote. Sex is the natural progression of any intimate relationship. I can make love to a man or a woman, always felt that those of us in the middle of the spectrum (bi if someone has to label me, somewhere in between straight and gay at either end) are the ultimate unselfish lovers....true givers......

 

[bonerbrew]

I'd like to label myself human. Yes, online I refer to myself as bi. In my heart of hearts I can't call myself gay or straight because I'm attracted to both genders. At this point in my life I get off on guys more than women. Still, not entirely gay but definitely closer to that now than when much younger. Maybe I've been in denial and it's been a longer journey of self acceptance for me than some. Perhaps there should be a label "in denial."

 

[Acratopotes]

The first thing that comes to mind is that bi may be a bit of a vague label in the first place. Referring to The KInsey Scale, do you see bisexual as all of 1-5, i.e. even people who are mostly attracted to one sex but who acknowledge a even a small attraction to the other sex? If so it makes it a very broad label that doesn't really pin much down. But then if you don't define it that way and, for example, definite it as Kinsey 2-4 do you then call Kinsey 1 straight and Kinsey 5 gay? Or do people with those attractions not get a label at all? I think when you're aware of an attraction to more than one sex you quickly become aware of that complexity in a way that people who are exclusively attracted to one sex do not need to be.

Then there is a question of what purpose a label serves. I think these are possible uses for a label:

1. To set your own expectations of what the future will hold.
2. When searching for a potential partner, to focus your attention on where you should be looking.
3. To manage the expectations of others.

So someone who is gay needs to be honest with himself that the wife and two kids life that all children imagine they will have when we grow up isn't going to happen. Adopting the label "gay" will sufrely help with that will possibly help him focus on places where other gay men are to be found and also provides a way of having a conversation with friends, parents etc. to set their expectations. All things that are commonly described as "coming out".

But what about the bi man who has fallen in love with a woman. He knows he also has an attraction to men but, at least for the time being, his lifestyle is indistinuishable from a straight man. There is the issue of being honest with himself but he doesn't need to reset his own expectations in quite the same way the gay man does. And if other people continue to treat him as if he was completely straight will that cause any problem or distress? Perhaps the label isn't so useful here. That's the situation that applies to me - my wife knows and so do some friends, but I don't go round waving a flag.

Then take the situation for my half brother who had a relationship with a woman, then came out as bi and started a relationship with another man. Some of those around him say he must really be gay and the first relationship must have been a sham. Who are we to see inside his head and say that what he says is not true?

Finally, a gay friend of mine with whom I have mutually mastubated was bending my ear about "bloody bi guys" who he said were happy to have sex with him but would not become his boyfriend because they couldn't give up also havings sex with women.

So to summarise, a label has to be more useful than a liability for people to want to adopt it.

 

[Pistol]

That is a fantastic quote. Sex is the natural progression of any intimate relationship. I can make love to a man or a woman, always felt that those of us in the middle of the spectrum (bi if someone has to label me, somewhere in between straight and gay at either end) are the ultimate unselfish lovers....true givers......

We need to stop thinking bi people are all the same. Not all bi people "can make love to a man or a woman." Some bi people have sex with only one gender or are only interested in sex with only one gender. Some bi people consider themselves bi because of a romantic but non-sexual attachment. More generally, the bi spectrum includes some who are only takers, and (just like any sexuality) some who are selfish lovers.

 

[Pistol]

I don’t speak (that is, write) for anyone except myself, but one reason that I don’t like the label “bi” is that it carries too many negative connotations (i.e., prejudices) like: bi people are “confused,” or they are “really” gay, or that they are in “denial.” And this is from men and women on both ends of the spectrum.
* * *
For me, sex (whether consummated or not) is the natural progression of any intimate friendship. And that is why I don’t like labels.

I agree 100% that biphobia is the reason most bi people dislike the label. When I came out as bi (after being "gay" almost my whole life), many gay friends mocked and disbelieved me. We are made to defend our sexuality, it is questioned by everyone--male and female, straight and gay.

I don't agree that sex is the natural progression of any intimate friendship (or maybe I don't understand unconsummated sex is). There are many intimate friendships (in my life and other's) where sex is not a part and never was intended to be a part. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by your statement. But I also don't understand what it has to do with labels.

 

[Pistol]

The first thing that comes to mind is that bi may be a bit of a vague label in the first place. Referring to The KInsey Scale, do you see bisexual as all of 1-5, i.e. even people who are mostly attracted to one sex but who acknowledge a even a small attraction to the other sex? If so it makes it a very broad label that doesn't really pin much down. But then if you don't define it that way and, for example, definite it as Kinsey 2-4 do you then call Kinsey 1 straight and Kinsey 5 gay? Or do people with those attractions not get a label at all? I think when you're aware of an attraction to more than one sex you quickly become aware of that complexity in a way that people who are exclusively attracted to one sex do not need to be.

Then there is a question of what purpose a label serves. I think these are possible uses for a label:

1. To set your own expectations of what the future will hold.
2. When searching for a potential partner, to focus your attention on where you should be looking.
3. To manage the expectations of others.

So someone who is gay needs to be honest with himself that the wife and two kids life that all children imagine they will have when we grow up isn't going to happen. Adopting the label "gay" will sufrely help with that will possibly help him focus on places where other gay men are to be found and also provides a way of having a conversation with friends, parents etc. to set their expectations. All things that are commonly described as "coming out".

But what about the bi man who has fallen in love with a woman. He knows he also has an attraction to men but, at least for the time being, his lifestyle is indistinuishable from a straight man. There is the issue of being honest with himself but he doesn't need to reset his own expectations in quite the same way the gay man does. And if other people continue to treat him as if he was completely straight will that cause any problem or distress? Perhaps the label isn't so useful here. That's the situation that applies to me - my wife knows and so do some friends, but I don't go round waving a flag.

Then take the situation for my half brother who had a relationship with a woman, then came out as bi and started a relationship with another man. Some of those around him say he must really be gay and the first relationship must have been a sham. Who are we to see inside his head and say that what he says is not true?

Finally, a gay friend of mine with whom I have mutually mastubated was bending my ear about "bloody bi guys" who he said were happy to have sex with him but would not become his boyfriend because they couldn't give up also havings sex with women.

So to summarise, a label has to be more useful than a liability for people to want to adopt it.

Labels are useful so people can find internal centeredness ("who am I?") and external community ("where do I belong?") for those that need that sort of thing. I would say that's more important than "setting expectations of what the future will hold," especially since most expectations can be achieved regardless of sexual orientation. (Yes, even a spouse and kids.)

Labels are also useful for visibility and reducing bias. Another commenter above pointed out that "gay" no longer has negative implications associated with "deviant" or "pedophile" etc. -- but that's only because gay men everywhere came out to family and friends, thus adjusting everyone's expectations about who gay people are. I believe that bi men in straight relationships should be visibly bi so that people stop being biphobic (like in the biphobic examples in your comment).

Finally, your gay friend should stop shaming and judging bi guys who don't want to date him. That's biphobia.

 

[Pistol]

I don’t speak (that is, write) for anyone except myself, but one reason that I don’t like the label “bi” is that it carries too many negative connotations (i.e., prejudices) like: bi people are “confused,” or they are “really” gay, or that they are in “denial.” And this is from men and women on both ends of the spectrum.

No. Nope. Nyet. One great success of the pride movement has been to neutralize the “gay” label and render irrelevant how you might relate to friends, acquaintances, co-workers, etc. A man who who says that he is gay is no longer automatically assumed to be a “fairy,” a “fag,” a pederast or of being indiscriminately promiscuous. People who enjoy physical intimacy with both sexes, however, still have to contend with similar—though certainly not identical—assumptions.

Another thought. The more we bi people come out as an embrace the label "bi" -- in all its applications -- the quicker these negative connotations and prejudices will go away. That's the only reason gay people managed to have the success you describe: they came out, and people stopped thinking of them as "fairies," pederasts, and promiscuous.

When you reject the label "bi" or go by no label, you're rejecting the ability (I'm not going to call it an obligation, though I see it as one for me) to adjust people's expectations and biases about who you are and about the community you belong to (whether you like it or not). You are leaving it to other bi people to fight that fight for you, and presumably you will be comfortable adopting the label when other bi people win the fight for you. You say you live in a progressive city and run in a tolerant crowd. It would be remarkably easy for you to do this work in your circles, but you decline to do it.

 

[dickthrobbing]

Why Do Bisexuals Say "i Don't Believe In Labels"

Maybe because we have worked through what each label means (to us as an individual) and have found none fit and that we are comfortable having intimate contact or relationships with any gender or sexuality

 

[18wheeler]

I like sex. All things sex. I like pleasure. I like giving pleasure more. Giving pleasure turns me out. I don’t care to whom. I was created to give pleasure. So why label it why does it matter if they’re male or female?

 

[Pistol]

I like sex. All things sex. I like pleasure. I like giving pleasure more. Giving pleasure turns me out. I don’t care to whom. I was created to give pleasure. So why label it why does it matter if they’re male or female?

Possible reasons for "labeling it": Visibility matters, combats heteronormative assumptions, makes the world a better place for people who aren't privileged enough to avoid the judgmental gaze of a largely straight world. Yes, it's activism. Just like gay "coming out" is activism. "Labeling it" combats biphobia in the same way.

 

[Parts Guy]

Labels, who needs them. I enjoy intimacy and sensuality with men and women. Bi sexual is just a word used to isolate people into buckets like, Gay, Heterosexual, Lesbian, etc. Now it may not be for everyone, but that is their choice. I chose to enjoy women and men.

 

[RJ5on1]

Labels create judgment – for good, or for bad – according to one’s own intellect.

 

[Pistol]

Labels create judgment – for good, or for bad – according to one’s own intellect.

Counterpoint: Labels create community and belonging for those who are marginalized in a world that judges differences and failure to conform.

 

[Pistol]

Labels, who needs them. I enjoy intimacy and sensuality with men and women. Bi sexual is just a word used to isolate people into buckets like, Gay, Heterosexual, Lesbian, etc. Now it may not be for everyone, but that is their choice. I chose to enjoy women and men.

People isolate when they can't find others like them. Discarding labels facilitates that. My experience, and that of many others I've spoken to, is that embracing the label that defines you allows you to find community. Adopting a label doesn't mean you reject people of other labels or refuse to socialize with them.

 

[Rsechs]

The label question is a tough one. Some people find that labels affirm their identity; others find them limiting. I am a back-bench member of a couple of bi activist groups and this issue always elicits a lot of (friendly) controversy.

I am in the minority because I think that the question quickly becomes theological, with people trying to parse what “real” bisexuality is, who is a “true” bisexual, what are the boundaries, criteria, etc. Adding more labels (pansexual, omnisexual, SGL) doesn’t improve things.

My rule of thumb is that at some point any intimate relationship naturally progresses to a sexual one (in thought, if not in deed). Simply put, you come to desire the deeper connection that only physical intimacy can provide.

This is not the sex/romance distinction that is typically used. It also acknowledges that there can be intimacy without sex and sex without intimacy. The better term is eros (one of the six Greek words for love), and recognizes that you love even the people that you only shake hands with. (On this point, listen again to Louis Armstrong’s “Wonderful World.”)

If you can form an erotic relationship (of any degree) with another person and have shaken off the conditioning that it is somehow wrong to feel erotic attraction to someone of your own sex (whether and how you ultimately act on that feeling), then you are what you are and you don’t need a label other than ”human being.”