LGB ErasureA bi man and a bi woman in a relationship are more gay than a gay relationship.

submitted by artetolife from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

A relationship can only be bisexual if it’s a threesome or an orgy consisting of at least two members of the same sex and at least one member of the opposite sex. A relationship between two people is either straight or gay, regardless if neither, one or both of the partners or spouses are bisexual. If I were to marry a bisexual man, his bisexuality becomes moot because he’s permanently with another man and nobody else. He may still be attracted to women, but he won't be having sex with them, like how he won’t be having sex with men other than myself. So yeah, that bi woman is only having sex with a man, and her bi boyfriend is only having sex with a woman. Hence, a straight relationship.

Maybe she and her friends were taking the piss? You’d have to be brainless to think that an opposite sex relationship can be gayer than a same sex relationship.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Aside from the idiocy of these particular people, maybe the words Gay, Straight, and Bisexual just don't apply for these monogamous Bi relationships. They're either Same-Sex or Opposite-Sex. It's more unwieldy to say, but it's also more accurate and unambiguous, unlike Gay, Straight, or Bi. This is why marriage between 2 men or between 2 women is legally referred to as Same-Sex Marriage and not Gay Marriage(even though this is a very popular term because it's mostly gay people who have them).

There is also WLW or MLM, but these are even more of a mouthful outside of text. Still, even medicine utilizes the shorthand of MSM or WSW. When I think more about it, there are currently no better ways to label a same-sex relationship that has at least one Bi. So everyone just calls it Straight or Gay; It's no wonder we have bi's identifying as something they are not when widespread language like this reinforces it.

So while everyone's arguing about which of these 3 terms is allowed to be used(for most likely straight enbies), people are also missing the point that ALL of these terms are presumptuous and misleading when used in this context. I think only a relationship between gay males or between lesbians should be referred to as a Gay relationship. Others are perhaps Gay-Passing or Straight-Passing. Same-sex should be used when there is at least one Bi. Even calling it a Bi relationship when there 2 bisexuals is not descriptive enough. And ideally, bi's should cooperate to come up with and integrate a catchy synonym for Same-Sex to end this particular form of erasure once and for all.

[–]usehername 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

maybe the words Gay, Straight, and Bisexual just don't apply for these monogamous Bi relationships. They're either Same-Sex or Opposite-Sex

Agree.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Those are good points you’ve made. We could just call it a male relationship for two men, a female relationship for two women, and a co-ed or a mixed relationship for a man and a woman. That way you won’t have to say same sex relationship or opposite sex relationship which use up more syllables, and you also won’t have to say gay or straight when dealing with a relationship involving one or two bisexuals.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We could just call it a male relationship for two men, a female relationship for two women, and a co-ed or a mixed relationship for a man and a woman.

Those are good and ones I didn't even consider. They're unlikely to filter into the lexicon anytime soon, but I'll try to use them whenever I can when it applies.