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

[gnibbles.livejournal.com]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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. :)

[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. :/

[archangelbeth]

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

[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.

[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.