Talk:Bi-curious

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bi-curious article.
Article policies
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Miscellaneous

people of a single, traditional biological gender

->  people belonging to one gender

I was more specific because "belonging to a gender" is ambiguous. Do you mean biological gender or gender identity?

Someone born with ambiguous genitalia, someone who is transgendered, or who just does not feel like they fit in their biologically male or female body may consider themselves to be of a non-male, non-female third/alternative gender.

Attraction to such people is not usually considered a part of being bi-curious, it it? I was under the impression it almost always entails people who identify as hetero and who identify as either male or female only, due to being biologically male or female, becoming interested in people who identify as that same gender.


that person's notion or their peers' notions
-> that person or others notion

I'm pretty sure the former was grammatically correct with the possessive case, although I was unsure whether to use a singular 'notion' on both. I chose to say peers rather than others because it seems more likely that the person who is being labeled bi-curious is seen as defying the boundaries of some people's definition(s) of heterosexuality (or homosexuality) but not their own or certain other people's definition(s) of such.

I felt that just saying "others' notion(s)" would inappropriately include definitions of heterosexuality/homosexuality in which the same-gender interest is not seen as aberrant; there would be nothing to differentiate bi-curiosity in those situations. - mjb 19:59, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"An inaccurate usage for bi-curious describes a person who has a desire to be sexually intimate with the same sex,but hasn't acted upon it and a person becomes bisexual once one has had a sexual experience with the same sex and maybe even liked it."

As a linguistics student, I have to say that no informal word (like "bi-curious", which seems to be a recent word that I can't find in dictionaries) has an "incorrect usage", since there is no fixed, official definition of them. They tend rather to have many definitions within different social groups.

"Bisexual", however, does have an established meaning and I don't think this is it. What would you call someone who is strongly sexually attracted to both genders but has never had a sexual experience? As far as I can tell, terms for sexual orientation like "homosexual", "heterosexual" and "bisexual" do not make reference to one's sexual history but merely to the objects of their sexual interests. Livajo 19:28, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. People who keep editing the first half of this article keep trying to make their own definition canon, and it keeps getting worse. The list of "inaccurate usages" is idiotic and sounds like it was written by someone who desperately wants to retain their heterosexual identity while they are coming to terms with their own less-than-hetero desires. They want to stretch the definition of heterosexual to encompass everything short of actively pursuing homosexual intercourse, and they're putting arbitrary boundaries on bi-curious in the process. I'm holding off on editing it because I'd really just ditch the whole first section and put it back like I had it when I de-stubbed this article, the fruit of which is more or less preserved in the second section. I'm surprised all these anonymous contributors haven't gutted it yet. :| mjb 01:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"It is considered hot or hip for females to be bi-curious or bisexual,but not the other way around for males."

Where? By whom? This probably isn't the case in, say, Libya. Livajo 22:40, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed another POV sentence

Removed the following:

"Bi-curious just like the word bisexual applies more to females than males.It is considered hot or hip for females to be bi-curious or bisexual,but not the other way around for males."

-- The Anome 02:53, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think something from that could be reinserted, with proper context. What about something like:
In the United States in particular, media that appeals to younger males depicts female bisexuality or bicuriosity as hot or hip. Some version of these views are actually held by a large number of younger males. On the other hand, among this demographic, male bisexuality and bicuriosity do not carry the same appeal. Interestingly, neither does media targeting younger females present a chic view of male bisexuality.
Perhaps cite magazines like Maxim.
There is definitely some truth to this. I'm just not sure how pertinent it is to the article. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 06:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this issue would be a good addition to bisexuality or Social attitudes toward homosexuality (which would need to be expanded beyond its title). -- Beland 03:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removed because the lack of relevance to the article, it is not even a logical sentence. "People for centuries have had devoted relationships not based on sexual predestination, but rather the actual attraction to a particular person for reasons other than gratification, such as class & status holders,another observation is that curiousity is just to learn about yourself." -- Morbid_Lynx 2008 07 June

"To classify oneself as any predetermined sexuality is false, because it is inherent that we all communicate through sexual behavior for other reasons than procreation, such as self gratification, and also expression of one's self through a momentary passionate act." Who wrote this? It has NO arguments, NO citations, yet is making several assumptions of gendered behaviour. -- Morbid Lynx (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarity

Is it possible to clarify or remove the following statement? It is more akin to an anonymous diary entry than something fit for an encyclopedia.

"These are individuals who either openly or secretly are contemplating it, fantasizing about it, or have actually had an encounter or two and are still battling as to whether or not they liked it or would even do it again."

The elusive "it" is childish, and the entire passage doesn't serve to expound on the meaning or use of "Bi-Curious"

[edit] Rewrite and NPOV

So I read the two dueling articles on this page and reconciled them by essentially writing a new article from scratch. Though the ideas I have documented were largely already noted on the page, I hope I have been able to present them in a relatively neutral fashion. I have not replicated the POV tag. Please review the article, and if you find any inaccurate or non-neutral parts, please fix them or slap the appropriate tag on the page if need be. -- Beland 03:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

THANK YOU. I really appreciate your attention to detail, respect for the conflicting points of view, and the many concrete examples. I hope this new version has some longevity. I still feel there should be some mention of the pervasiveness of the term bi-curious in sexually explicit marketing and the role of that marketing in the word's popularity, but I'm not sure where such a mention belongs. It just seems to me that the term is rarely used in the media, except in advertisments for phone sex services featuring photographs of shirtless, muscular, bare-chested male couples (imagery every bit as unrealistic and narrow as is often found heterosexual-oriented marketing). - mjb 05:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. I added an example of how the term might be used in advertising. I'm not sure that such marketing drives the word's popularity; I seem to remember it appears a lot in personal ads, too. Of course it's difficult to say whether the word's appearance in a particular place is the reason people like using it, or if it's there because it's a well-liked term, etc. I wouldn't feel comfortable speculating, but it might be illuminating to do a literature search. -- Beland 04:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Awww, group hug ^_^

[edit] hedonism

from my point of view its completely possible that hedonists who are straight dont give a rats ass about sexual identity and gender. this article is completely vague, what about oppurtunists who are indifferent but definately find the opposite sex gets them boiling? Like a main course with a less interesting side dish. — Raddicks 07:03, 8 January 2006 MST

People who are "straight hedonists/opportunists" but actually are romantically and/or sexually interested in people other than members of the opposite sex projecting as the opposite sex? They can call themselves what they want, I guess, but I would perhaps want to call them pansexual (not perceiving any significant difference between sexes/genders), bisexual (open/drawn to two sexes/genders; doesn't matter to what degree IMHO), or bi-curious (interested in exploring bisexual behavior while not calling themselves bisexual). The article is not going to pick a label for them for you; the point is that such labels are ultimately a matter of personal identity and often say as much about the person doing the labeling…— mjb 18:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asexuality

After some recent changes, the intro became a little incoherent as to whether it was discussing three or four categories (homo, hetero, bi, and asexuality). I'm not sure asexuality is directly related to bi-curiosity, though it's certainly directly related to boundary-drawing problems relating to sexual orientation. I tweaked the lead to reflect a more indirect relationship, and point readers to fuller coverage of such complexities. -- Beland 04:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How on Earth...

If someone says they'e "bicurious" does that simply mean they're (at least) bisexual, but aren't fully willing to accept it? Maybe I'm grouping people together, but bicurious would not fall under its own orientation. It sounds like 1-2 on the Kinsey Scale kinda thing to me. Which would essentially make it fall under bisexuality right? You can't not know if you like a gender, at least if you're a guy, you and everyone nearby can see what you like... Eh, I just think it's a word used by bisexuals and gays (mostly nmen) who want to identify as heterosexual whilst still actively exploring their sexuality in search of the same sex...Zythe 17:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah, you are wrong. Say you are a male and you are straight. But then you start thinking about what it would be like to sleep or date a guy, but you don't have any attaction to guys, you don't "want" to date guys... but you are just curious to what it would be like. That would be much more bicurious rather than bisexual. Now if you want to sleep with guys, date guys and be kissed and cuddled by a guy ever night, but didn't ever do it because of social stigmas or fears onset by your family, that would be bisexual. Heck, with the latter, you could die at 85 and never even tasted the sort of relationship you want with another male and that would still be bisexual. JayKeaton 07:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Now if you want to sleep with guys, date guys and be kissed and cuddled by a guy ever night, but didn't ever do it because of social stigmas or fears onset by your family, that would be bisexual
That is what is meant by the word bi-curious. Simply being curious about bisexuality is not the same as being bi-curious. Bi-curious is a convenient and noncommittal way of expressing a bisexual or gay sexuality to which the person speaking has not had time or inclination to become accustomed.
Nuttyskin 09:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
You talk as if the term is one of self-denial, and it isn't. Unfortunately, I don't think it can be clearly defined, as the meaning is fluid and exclusive to the user of the term. 24.186.215.182 21:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queer or Questioning

Doesn't the "Q" in "LGBTQ" stand für "Queer" instead for "questioning"?

It can be either; in fact, sometimes QQ is used to represent both. Aleta 22:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No citations

There are no citations whatsoever in this article. Also, it sounds to me like an informal essay more than an encyclopedia article. Aleta 22:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be deleted along with the all of the rest alike. I have not ever heard of this nonsense before. No encyclopedia most people own would even have this.--Margrave1206 23:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
When you say "This article needs to be deleted along with the all of the rest alike.", what in particular about it were you referring to? CyntWorkStuff 07:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no one is born bisexual or homosexual. You are born normal until something happens to you making you hate the opposite sex. If you take this offensive, which someone always will, this is fact and you are trying to hide fact with lies. --66.218.12.100 21:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Except for the part where your hypothalamus matures during childhood and makes you responsive to either estrogen-byproducts or testosterone byproducts or both. Oh, and the part about hating is wrong. I mean, it can caouse some people to seek the sex they don't hate as an alternative and fetishize them enough to sexually function if that's not the gender their brain naturally responds too. Oh and I guess you can claim you're not born bisexual, homosexual, or heterosexual because that part of your brain isn't matured or "preset" to respond sexually to hormonal activation later on. But, it's a matter of timing on that.
So, except for the being born hetero, homo, or bi, the hating part, and possibly the lying part, you have a point. Deathbunny 04:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article over-pruning

I see that thanks to User:Frenchboi023, this article, after enjoying a long run of relative stability, has recently fallen victim to the relatively new fad where rulebook-throwing, Jimmy Wales-quoting editors are hell-bent on the unilateral, aggressive removal, from non-BLP articles, of uncited material that's not even controversial. Rather than expressing doubt about specific points made in the article and using the discussion page to call upon past curators to deal with attribution issues (many of which can be dealt with through more careful phrasing, if not explicit citations), they just delete and delete volumes of material, claiming "uncited" or "no original research" in their edit summaries.

Editors like this ignore the great deal of work and reasoning that went into building up the content that was there and why certain topics were being addressed, and then fail to accept responsibility for the aftermath: vandals and frequent, poorly written attempts to expand the article to address the points of view that are no longer represented.

Massive pruning of an article without discussion and without acknowledging its history and the concerns of past editors is irresponsible and destructive. If you are going to insist that people play by the rules, fulfill your obligation as well, and use the Talk page to raise concerns and see that they're dealt with in a manner more productive than instant deletion of large portions of content. —mjb 17:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South Park?

Do we really need the South Park reference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.57.165.224 (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Probably not... the article is a bit light to be getting out a "Bi-curiosity in Popular Culture" section. I've removed it... Rtucker 21:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Motivation

I removed this; 'It is often used by people who do not want to commit to the label of 'bisexual' because they feel it has negative connotations or they are still unsure.' from the start of the article, because not only is it uncited, I don't believe there is anything you could cite to back this up, it's merely an opinion on the motivation of people who choose to self-describe this way, a motivation that wouldn't be apparent or expressed by the very nature of them supposedly trying to pretend that this isn't the motivation, as though they would say 'oh yes, I say I'm bi-curious but I'm really actually bi-sexual, but I like to avoid the negative conotations of that, so I won't say I'm bi-sexual... er... except I just did. Bugger.', the second part of the sentence, ' or they are still unsure ' is redundant within the article.Number36 00:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm as bemused by your example as you presumably are by my edit. I'll accept that the second part is redundant but I don't think everything can be cited - I wasn't passing it off as factual information, just something to clarify/give a rounded view. But I'll accept your edit...I don't think my statement added to the article but it didn't devalue it either...I was just trying to bulk up what is a pretty lean item. Yohan euan o4 01:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Reference

The reference stated is obviously a lesbian source, but being bi-curious is not a female only thing. Could we also find a reference from a male oriented site?C. Pineda 06:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)