Fake Bi Girl

[rowyn]

I am a couple of weeks late for Bisexual Visibility Week, but I'm gonna write about bisexuality anyway. I don't think the point of the week was to have us all re-cloak when it was over.

I don't think it's a secret that I am bisexual*. I mention it now and again.  I am, in some ways, perfectly comfortable with my sexuality.

But I noticed, during Bisexual Visibility Week, that I was not that comfortable about participating in it. For reasons that mostly boil down to "this is for Real Bisexual People, not you." It's weird to feel that way, after so long thinking I'd finally gotten over being defensive about my sexual orientation. But it bleeds into other things, too.

Ardent, the female protagonist of The Moon Etherium, is bisexual.  At the start of the book, she's not in a relationship.  Over the course of the book, she almost hooks up again with her ex-wife, and ultimately becomes romantically involved with the male protagonist.

Amazon asks for up to seven keywords for every book, and it's a good idea to use all seven because keywords are one of the main ways for readers to discover your book. One of the keywords for The Moon Etherium is "bisexual".  Amazon chose to put it in two LGBT subcategories (one for fantasy and one for romance) and the Romance > Multicultural subcategory.  I don't know what algorithm Amazon uses to figure out the subcategories to use; if I controlled it, I'd've listed it in three fantasy categories, not one fantasy and two romance.

Anyway, I find myself uncomfortable with having The Moon Etherium listed as an LGBT book.  Sure, it's got a bisexual protagonist and, for that matter, nonbinary supporting cast members.  But is that really what LGBT readers are looking for?  Aren't they looking for MM or FF pairings?  Perhaps MMF or MFF triads? Isn't that last the only way to be really bisexual?  Because everyone knows monogamous people can't really be bi.  They're actually hetero- or homosexual, depending on their partner's gender.

You don't need to tell me those last three sentences are BS.  I know perfectly well that's garbage.  I mean, intellectually, I know that.  Emotionally, part of me believes that sexual behavior dictates sexual preference. Unless you're straight, of course.  You can identify as straight without having dated anyone.  That's fine.  But if you identify as bi or gay, you have to prove that, by having sex with members of every gender you claim to be attracted to. No, no, just knowing that you're attracted to them isn't enough.  And it doesn't count if you've only had sex with that gender as part of a threesome with someone of another gender.  You might just like threesomes or something. And really, do one-night stands count?  Or a short term fling?  Honestly, if you were a real bisexual you'd have both male and female long-term partners. (We'll let you off the hook for finding nb ones. Maybe.)

For each "you" in that last paragraph, substitute "I", because I would never have the unmitigated gall to spew such hateful rubbish to anyone but myself.

I am so very tired of thinking these things about myself, but I do.  Among my past and current lovers are ciswomen, transwomen, cismen, and nonbinary people, and my mind still thinks "you're just faking it".  Really, brain? I'm 46. I realized I was bisexual over twenty years ago. Can we stop having this conversation yet? Can we at least not have it about my fictional characters? Can I at least classify Ardent as really bi even though she's not currently in a relationship with both a man and a woman?

No?

No.

I think part of why I wrote Ardent this way was, perhaps, to grapple with my internalized "fake bisexual girl" feelings.  "Here, she was married for decades to a woman and now she's seeing a man and her sexual interest is just not tied to gender and she doesn't have to prove this to anyone". Maybe I thought I could fight for her in the way that I have not been able to fight myself.

I don't know if I can.

But I haven't taken the "bisexual" label off the book yet.

* I like the word "pansexual" better than "bisexual", all things considered.  I am attracted to cis, trans, and nonbinary people of all genders, and I like the way the root "pan" suggests expansiveness.  But bisexual is the more widely recognized term and most people seem to understand it as inclusive.  I'm pretty happy to revisit using the label if people have arguments against it, though.

Comments

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

You might consider asking your mind what it thinks you would have to gain by "faking it." It's less true now than it was a few years ago, but I know plenty of people who, back in the era of the AIDS epidemic and arguing about whether or not orientation was a choice, said "Why would I choose an orientation that will make me a social pariah and quite possibly endanger my life if I act on it?"

Even now, while it's 5000% better than it was then, being "cishet" would still be a much more convenient way of life. So again, why would you fake it? It' seems to me the fact that it keeps coming up, in itself, means there must be something to it.

-The Gneech

[rowyn]

Oh, Gneech, you have no idea. v_v

There is a distinct backlash against "fake bi girls" as doing it "for attention". Like, y'know, we kiss girls because boys like that, or are only into it for a threesome, or say we're bi because it's "edgy", or to get LGBT cookies, or .... I don't even remember what else. it's a long list. It has all the charm and joy of the "fake geek girls" backlash. v_v

Bisexual men get a different kind of hate, mostly in the form of 'you're really gay', as opposed to the female 'you're really straight'. Blah.

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I did forget the whole "doing it to please boys" thing. Blugh. :P For boys any kind of queerness no matter the flavor all falls into the same homophobic hate bucket.

Ironically, nobody would ever accuse a boy of kissing other boys to please girls, because patriarchy. :P Our culture is messed up.

-The Gneech

[rowyn]

Even though girls are, in fact, ALL OVER boys kissing boys. :D

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

I know! That's part of what makes it all so ridiculous! Where did this "girls are supposed to please boys but not the other way around" thing come from, and more importantly, why does it stick?

But great-googily-moogily, I could rant on the "Girls! You outnumber us! Why do you put up with this shit???" theme for hours. ;)

-TG

[rowyn]

Internalized misogyny. It's a hard thing to shake, man. :/

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

You deserve better, and I think you've earned the right to whatever space you want to inhabit. All my comments are kind of a hamfisted way of getting around to that. ^.^'

-TG

[rowyn]

♥

I know #ownvoices is a big thing these days and for good reasons! But I always like it when people not-n-my-category speak up in support. Society is supposed to work like that: people support each other. :)

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

We share the bi space, for whatever it's worth. It's just the terrain looks different from this end of it. ;)

-TG

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

(Also please note, tongue firmly in cheek re: putting up with shit. I just wish it was that easy a thing to fix!)

-TG

[rowyn]

Don't we all. -_-

[gnibbles.livejournal.com]

*jumps into your lap* *kneads* *climbs onto your shoulder* *drapes self, purrs* comfort cat is here for you! <3

[rowyn]

*snuggles kitty*

*purrs back*

[gnibbles.livejournal.com]

<3 <3 <3 *grooms you* *purrs*

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

*so much sympathy*

I almost always date cismen, even though I am far more often attracted to ciswomen, transmen, and nb people than cismen.

It's frustrating and upsetting that this means that part of my brain is convinced that this means I'm not really bi.

[rowyn]

I knoooooow. >_<

I do not need any more relationships but sometimes I am tempted to do that thing where you get on OK Cupid and set your profile to women-only because I just want more women in my life. And bed. c_c

[aldersprig.livejournal.com]

I feel so much the same, with the added complication that all of my lovers have been cismen*. And yet, I am bi. ...

But I still felt a little weird submitting to Queers Destroy SciFi. Was I queer enough? I mean, I'm not straight... but my Bio reads "lives with her husband..."

* Not entirely certain about one of them, but the terminology did not exist at the time. Probbbbably genderqueer.

[rowyn]

Oh heavens, I feel that. And even having ciswomen/transwomen/enby lovers has not changed it. >_< NOT QUEER ENOUGH YET.

*sigh*

*hugs*

[danceswithlife]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. If one is celibate for whatever reason(s) and for whatever length of time it becomes even more complicated to describe yourself publicly. This seems even more true if you also claim to be polyamorus. If you aren't doing something with someone how can you claim any sexuality at all? Does it mean I've suddenly become asexual or aromantic? Then something will turn me on and I think, um. No. Add in being a BBW or a BHM and it adds complication again since many people assume no one will find you attractive anyway. Then add in involvement in BDSM...if you dare mention that at all.

I am leaning towards simply describing myself as queer. I think in my head that now equates to not being a monogamous cis female. If I get asked to describe what that means I can say to strangers, "I don't know you well enough yet to tell you that story." Friends would get it already since I'm usually not hesitant about talking about my past.

Plus at age almost-60 I can also play the age card with anyone who questions how I categorize myself: How dare you (mostly much younger than me) assume to question my sexuality? I've been living it for 45 years.

Damn it. I want all this to NOT MATTER to anyone.

ETD: Oh, and I read your books because they are great bisexual and poly stories. So I hope you leave the label on them.

[rowyn]

Oh goodness, the poly is a whole 'nother lightning rod. >_<

I know some people are super-offended if you compare polyamory to a sexual orientation, but the truth is, being polyamorous is a more important component of my identity than being bi is. I was poly when I was last single, I was poly when my partner and I weren't seeing anyone but each other, I am poly now.

I do understand how other people can feel like it's a relationship status: "I was poly with X & Y, but I am monogamous now with just Y." And I am fine with that. But that is not how I feel about it. I have pretended to be monogamous before because I thought I could make it work. I can't, and I don't want to, and I am done trying. It may happen that I end up single again some day and not in any relationships, but I am still gonna be poly because those will be the only kinds of relationships I want.

I did this with The Moon Etherium, too: it's an MF relationship but the characters explicitly talk about being open to other relationships as well. Even though they don't have any others right now.

[danceswithlife]

*nods* While I might make agreements about outside relationships with other partners with someone I've involved with I'm poly, and make no bones about it. It's a societal choice as well as an individual choice in my mind. I'm happy some people have long-term happy monogamous relationships. Yay! But so many people don't and it screws up their lives in part because they are expected to have them.

I posted an ad on a poly site recently basically saying I was looking for family and that sex was optional. I don't expect to get many responses, but put it there in hopes that the right connection would happen.

[rowyn]

Trying to fit in the wrong box is exhausting, especially when the society around you says "this is the only possible kind of box and you have to live in it." v_v

I hope the ad works out for you! I am so glad there are poly-positive sites these days. I was in my 20s before I met anyone who was poly. I remember even in my teens I felt like poly was what I wanted, the perfect and yet impossible solution, because i thought no one else agreed. :/

[benalene.livejournal.com]

I think it is pretty clear from your post that you should leave the category as 'bisexual'. If nothing else but to bring more light to the fact that there are, in fact, bisexual people in opposite sex relationships. Bisexual people in opposite sex relationships need this book, they need the affirmation that yes, they are still bi, even though they are in a passing het relationship. By labeling your book this way, you are affirming that. That you are not defined by only your present relationship.

[rowyn]

Categories in fiction are even weirder than labels on people, because there's not only "what does this label mean?" but "what do readers searching for this label want?" Even if The Moon Etherium meets the requirements for the meaning of the label, it may still not not be what readers are looking for in that category.

OTOH, I don't have a better keyword to use in its place, so. Charge! :)

[benalene.livejournal.com]

I have so many words. About life and society in general. But I'll just say this. I am sure that there are bisexual people in 'straight' relationships searching for books about bisexuals in 'straight' relationships :). I am also sure that there are people that would be upset that you put a bisexual label on a book that is about a het relationship, but I would just tell those people off. Bisexuals come in all shapes and sizes and so should books about them, because if there are people like that then there are people searching for books like that.

[rowyn]

♥

[benalene.livejournal.com]

[telnar.livejournal.com]

Agreed. The transition between the 4th and 5th paragraphs seemed odd to me when I read it because you switched from an empirical question ("what to people who search for this category want to read?") to an identity question ("do I have the right to call myself X?")

I'll join the 100% of commenters who think that you get to call yourself whatever you want.

Having done no market research whatsoever, I'll stay quiet on the empirical question.

[rowyn]

Category labels in books are not prescriptivist any more than any other part of language, so it's not as simple as "what's in there already?" What publishers choose to put in there influences the latter just as much as what readers want, if not more so. One way or another.

[innerslytherin]

Speaking as a cis straight allo aro woman with a couple of bisexual friends in "straight" relationships, I can tell you there are so many times I've heard my bisexual friends complain about how invisible they are in the LGBT spectrum, and how they often feel caught in the middle, especially because they are in "straight" relationships.

I personally would appreciate having the bisexual tag on the book, because, having read it, to me Ardent definitely reads as "really" bisexual. Since I'm not bisexual, I don't have the right, if you will, to tell you to leave it that way, but it looks like you've got a lot of more qualified people who agree that it should stay on the book. :)

[rowyn]

I think you're allowed to say it should stay! That you are part of the 100% majority in commenters on this post does make me agree with you on it, I admit. :)

[alinsa.livejournal.com]

I find it amusing/depressing/ironic that you felt out of place saying anything during bi visibility week because you felt fake, when part of the whole purpose of bi visibility week is to combat that feeling. It's not just about "hey look at me, I'm bi!", it's also about supporting other people who identify the same way. Much the same way gay pride is partially about making it easier for gay people to feel ok about being gay, bi visibility week is much the same.

...amusingly, a nontrivial number of people thought I was gay because I had a same-sex partner for 15 years, despite me being more attracted to the opposite sex (in general). So, yeah, invisible. :/

[rowyn]

I like that there's a Bi Visibility week, but sometimes it just works better for me if other people speak for me than if I try to myself. :/

[alinsa.livejournal.com]

*tries that*

"Hi, I'm Rowyn, I'm bisexual, and I think Alinsa is the most lovely wuff in the history of forever."

...eh. Doesn't work. It's just not believable! ;)

[rowyn]

PRETTIEST WUFF ALINSA! *hugs*

[archangelbeth]

...I repeat what just about everyone up there said in support. (My brains, they are low. O:> )

[rowyn]

♥

[liralen.livejournal.com]

Yes. That. xD

Being bi and having been married to a man for 29 years. That, in spades, even with the two girlfriends in secondary relationships during... *shrugs* Seems part of the definition and how I disappear every time people think I'm just a happily married mom with a kid.

[rowyn]

YES. Passing may be a privilege in some respects, but it kinda sucks in others. -_-

[tagryn]

While as a cismale I don't have anything worthwhile to add on that regard, since its outside my experience, to take a somewhat different angle...when you say " Really, brain? I'm 46.": as a fellow 46 year old, I think a lot of us have an expectation to have 'figured it all out' by the middle of life. Obviously, that's not what happens. The psychological research on midlife that I've read seems to indicate that, far from having everything settled, oftentimes what happens is that old issues and debates with ourselves that had lain quiet for a while through our 20s and 30s sometimes come knocking on our door again, even though the landscape of our lives may have changed so much that they aren't immediately easy to recognize as such.

Don't know if that's relevant to your particular situation, just that having things that we're still wrestling with in our 40s is more the norm than not.

[rowyn]

I do seem to have the "haven't got life figured out" part down. :D

[level-head.livejournal.com]

Well, I am a heterosexual male, decades past the 40s, and I cannot say that I've "got life figured out."

The book labeling that Lady Rowyn describes seems to be appropriate for new books these days. I wonder if anyone has undertaken to go back and label Robert Heinlein's books. Several, for example, are quite distinctly polyamorous. But those Heinlein works appeal to readers who are not, and not looking for this, and who might have been put off by such a pre-categorization — because Heinlein simply wove this aspect into great stories.

Was he, in his life, polyamorous? There is no evidence I'm aware of to suggest this. But he wasn't female, either, and this didn't stop him from writing female characters of multiple orientations. His first sexual encounter in Time Enough for Love was between two people who, when they decided to do this, were wearing medical "isolation suits" that disguised voice and hid gender. They had no idea, but were each later surprised (pleasantly) when the suits came off. I would wager that few if any heterosexual readers put the book down at that point. And later, polyamory — or more explicitly many-person marriages — became important to the story. Again, I'd bet that few if any were put off by this.

Is the new book merely a vehicle for a bedtime story for a particular orientation? There are audiences looking for such, but in my experience the Lady Rowyn writes great stories. If only one could "opt out" of such categorizations, so that they are still there for those who want them.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

[rowyn]

I have a soft spot for Heinlein, I admit. His Number of the Beast may've been the first poly-positive story I read, and while I thought the book rather self-indulgent, I still liked that about it.

Having read your comment, I can't tell if you're suggesting that putting "bisexual" as a search keyword on a book means "it must not have anything else going on it" or otherwise renders it inaccessible to anyone except people who are looking specifically for books about bisexual people. Would you have been put off from Heinlein's books if they'd been labeled LGBT+ or poly?

[level-head.livejournal.com]

The tags are evidently part of the business these days. Hopefully you'll get some reviews that stress the quality of the story.

I would have read it anyway on the strength of the author, but the tags would have been a small negative factor. The implication would have been not just "included in the story" but "celebrated in the story" and likely the reason for the story's existence.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle