married bisexuals & family
August 22, 2005 8:08 PM   Subscribe

Married bisexuals filter. Those of you who identify as bisexual, yet are (or have been) married to the opposite sex: in what ways do you assert your identity among family members (esp. in-laws)?

Reading today's post about gays in history and a recent question about outing someone in the workplace, I see that many of you find this need for identity as silly or unnecessary; but I swear, it's very important to me, for reasons even I don't wholly understand. It may seem a moot point for some--why does it matter if you're not actively bringing home same-sex partners to make the family uncomfortable, right? Well, this concern has come up for me a couple of times in casual contexts where I would like to dispell stereotypes, using myself as an example: "You guys know & love me, right? Well, would you *still* say gays shouldn't teach children?" etc. In less political contexts too, such as everyone talking about the attractiveness of a woman, me saying she's not that hot, one family member saying, "oh yeah? she wouldn't make you cross that line? (smirk, wink)". The bi identity thing is esp. awkward with people who see equate it with porn plotlines only, and I'd like to help dispel this kind of bullshit. But with in-laws, i.e. people I do not want to see me in any sexual way (sick!) is it my place? Do I leave it to the Anne Heche and Richard Chamberlain??? It may seem petty, but I really want to just be fully honest with my adopted in-law family, *without* appearing in your face or political. The spouse is aware of my identity and supports me fully, sees no reason why everyone shouldn't know, but like me doesn't want it to be a huge thing. I've hinted around, but people see what they want to see. Bottom line, I guess I'm looking to hear about your own experiences with family & bisexuality, not advice for my own particular situation. Thanks, you guys, it'll help a lot! AskMetafilter rocks the house.
posted by anonymous to Human Relations (33 answers total)
 
As someone who is totally open minded and liberal, don't freak everyone out by telling them your bisexual. The only reason it's weird is because your married, and telling everyone you're bisexual implies that you need something beside your wife to satisfy yourself. It's good that you're comfortable with it and all, but try to think of it as telling your in-laws about your fetish ("Hey guys I'm totally into bondage, and I'm not a freak"), I don't think they would want to know about your sex life.

Especially since it's your in-laws and they're parents of your son/daughter -- good way to confuse them. They'll immediately think "Why would he tell us he's bisexual? Does that mean he has relationships outside of marriage?" which, even if you swing and think that lifestyle is okay, 95% of in-laws will not.

I hope I'm making sense but if someone who was married told me they were bisexual I'd immediately think:

a) are they hitting on me?
b) they must have a need to fufill that a partner of just one sex can't provide and thus are having relationships outside of marriage, which many people condone who don't condone just homosexuality or bisexuality

So don't murk up the waters, but at least you're comfortable with yourself.
posted by geoff. at 8:24 PM on August 22, 2005


Why bring it up? Seems like an extreme example of "too much information".
posted by Carbolic at 8:33 PM on August 22, 2005


A better question: why not bring it up?

This sort of 'let's hide it in the interest of peace' thinking won't fly too far with your family. It can work in the office, the street, and other situations where the line between public and private is clear, but among family everything is private. Hiding it will, inevitably, just (1) force you to compromise yourself or even outright lie to them (2) hurt them when they eventually discover you've kept this big "secret" from them for so long (3) poison the well as you are forced to continually monitor yourself around these people and ensure you don't give off any "bi vibes." If you truly care enough about these people enough that you want them to know the "real you," then stick to your guns and don't be afraid to show them the real you. Either they will accept you, in which case, score, you're one of the family, or, they reject you in which case you're not much worse off than you are now but at least you know you don't want to associate too closely with these people. There's no reason to shout it from the rooftops (before 2am) but if you find yourself in the situations described above, by all means, tell them.
posted by nixerman at 9:00 PM on August 22, 2005


geoff.: I think anonymous is female. This doesn't change your advice, but might change others', so I thought I'd mention it. The clue is the in-laws saying to anon, "she wouldn't make you cross that line?"

And as a (female) bisexual in a committed opposite-sex relationship, it seems to me that neither of you (which, on preview, means Carbolic and geoff.; nixerman is spot on) are quite getting what anon is asking, though of course my interpretation of the question is undoubtedly flawed also. When people I am or want to be emotionally close to don't know about it, I feel like I'm pretending, or like they have an incomplete understanding of who I am -- which, in fact, they do. It's not about sex, it's about ... personhood? But the other half of my head says exactly what Carbolic says -- it's TMI. Why bring it up? Well ... because it's me. But why do they need to know? Because ... etc.

All of which is to say, anon, that I don't know. The only thing I have found to do is joke about it (not about actual sex, but about attractive celebrities, etc.), which only works with younger or quite open-minded folks, and which is, by its nature, of course, not taken seriously. I figure as long as I can at least try to make them question a completely solid pinpointing of me, even if it's just a fleeting "huh, I wonder," well, that's something.
I've never even attempted to come out as bi to anyone in even my own family other than cousins close to my age, and to my sister.
posted by librarina at 9:04 PM on August 22, 2005


Why would you discuss sex you had previous to or outside your marriage with your in-laws? They don't sound too laid-back, and if they don't talk about their sexual histories then neither should you; the fact that it was with a person of your own sex doesn't make bringing it up any less rude.
posted by nicwolff at 9:05 PM on August 22, 2005


Depends on how open you are (and they are) about other personal matters. The problem with being bisexual is that you're always going to be defined by the sexual more than the bi, so to speak.

You can hedge your bets and still get to express political opinions by putting forth by your attitude, comments, etc. that you're very openminded about attractiveness and gender and that you have a lot of familiarity with the gay community. But unfortunately, the above is true -- coming out as bi will likely just confuse them and make them think that you can't be monogamous.

Am I the only one who read the question as from a female, not a male?
posted by desuetude at 9:07 PM on August 22, 2005


Anonymous is female.
In less political contexts too, such as everyone talking about the attractiveness of a woman, me saying she's not that hot, one family member saying, "oh yeah? she wouldn't make you cross that line? (smirk, wink)".
posted by danb at 9:10 PM on August 22, 2005


Oh, OK, I see librarina's point - these are your family now, and you want them to know you well, and you feel that your bisexuality is a big component of who you are. Well, they also may have facets of their identities, sexual and otherwise, that they consider important but private; maybe it's better if you just accept that the previous generation wasn't so eager to be fully known, and politely reciprocate for harmony's sake.
posted by nicwolff at 9:13 PM on August 22, 2005


I recant previous positions and agree with nicwolff.
posted by geoff. at 9:39 PM on August 22, 2005


Think about whether you really want to present anything resembling identity politics.

IMHO, people can take their identity politics and shove them in the assholes and/or vaginas of their choosing/genetically-predestined-persuasion.

If it's about the person, and not their parts, why revert to it having anything to do with parts?
posted by blasdelf at 9:52 PM on August 22, 2005


If your sexuality is no one's business but yours and whatever partner you are with, in any other circumstance, why in the world is it the business of other relatives?

I honestly don't understand this silly need to tell everyone within hearing range what sexual preferences a person has. I could be a midget-loving crossdresser with a penchant for testicle weights (before someone says anything, I'm not), but really no one needs to know that except me and the midget who picks out my dress and attaches the kilos.
posted by Kickstart70 at 11:35 PM on August 22, 2005


Bisexuality is about the ability to fall in love with individuals regardless of gender. As such, it is part of a person's emotional makeup, and pretending it isn't there is misrepresentation.

She says "I see that many of you find this need for identity as silly or unnecessary; but I swear, it's very important to me, for reasons even I don't wholly understand. It may seem a moot point for some--why does it matter if you're not actively bringing home same-sex partners to make the family uncomfortable, right? Well, this concern has come up for me a couple of times" and she says she wants to hear about others' experiences. She does not want you to tell her that being bisexual isn't something that she shouldn't consider part of her identity. Why revert it to having anything to do with parts?, says blasdelf -- yes, exactly, why? Why can't she have it be part of her intellectual/personal/emotional identity without it being about the act of sex? Kickstart70's example is flawed because the situation described is sexual. Boarding school/prison/summer camp tell us that the act of sex can be about convenience and not about emotional connection, but that is not what bisexuality or gayness is.

People don't bring home people of the same gender (or of the opposite gender either?) to say "look who I'm fucking!" -- they bring them home to say "look who I am in love with."
posted by librarina at 12:24 AM on August 23, 2005


I think that what anonymous is asking is this: should I be an activist and an agent for change around my unenlightened family? Let’s acknowledge that this is a sad situation. Older generations were socialized with the understanding that any non-heterosexual orientation is wrong. As of 30 or so years ago, the mental health establishment says differently and now intelligent people know better.

As a person, anonymous, you’ll feel better for standing up for the validity of bisexuality because you will be standing up for the helpless child/adolescent you once were who couldn’t stand up for herself/himself at the time. You'll also be sending a message to your children and loved ones that needless suffering is bad. And that is important work that God needs good people to do.

The only problem is that it is sometimes annoying and it often takes a lot of courage when you’re dealing with physically intimidating types or nosy assholes.
posted by tommunation at 1:50 AM on August 23, 2005


try to think of it as telling your in-laws about your fetish ("Hey guys I'm totally into bondage, and I'm not a freak")

I am totally into bondage (and a lot more besides) and I am not a freak. Well.. not the bad kind, anyway. And I really wish I could tell my family this but I just don't have the kind of family that can handle it. I have plenty of kinky friends, though, who are that open with their parents. I was just writing an email to a play partner of mine, in fact, who lives next door to her parents on their land and - though they don't ask for explicit details - they know what and who she does. In fact, I'll go you one better: a few weeks ago, I attended a BDSM demonstration by a woman who's daughter was in the audience. She knew her mother did this sort of thing, but hadn't actually seen it before; the situation was a bit weird for her. And since the guy the demonstrator was using as her victim for this demo was the daughter's step-father, she did refrain from having him disrobe as that would have freaked the daughter out just a bit too much.

So in some cases, it is possible to share your not-quite-Ozzie-and-Harriet sex life with your family, if.
posted by Clay201 at 5:22 AM on August 23, 2005


Note to Kickstart70:

You'd best start out with something less than a kilo.
posted by Clay201 at 5:25 AM on August 23, 2005


tommunation has it. It's not about a sexual practice (or "fetish" as some people are characterizing it). It's about it being part of your identity, part of your cultural group, your political sympathies. When I was married, I was still queer, even when I was monogamous. I didn't want to lose that in the assumption of heterosexuality. I think part of the problem is that so many people still assume that bi-ness is kind of a sexual spice, like so many of the posters above. If there's a way you can say to your in-laws, "I love your son, we've chosen to be together for life, but the fact that I have something in common with gay people is still very important to me and I still want to fight for the human rights that they are fighting for", that would be the way to go. If your hubby is a totally pro-queer straight guy and is on board with being vocal about supporting the human rights issues as well, that's even better.

The drawback of your situation is you have to keep coming out, over and over and over again.
posted by matildaben at 6:15 AM on August 23, 2005


Well, I'm a bi woman who is now married to man. It honestly hadn't even crossed my mind to mention it to the in-laws, simply because I'd always thought of my bisexuality less in terms of identity politics and more in terms of falling in love with whoever felt right for me. Amongst friends, I've been known to say I'm "husband's-name-sexual."

I can see your point, and it's a tough call. Personally, it would feel a little too much like talking about my sex life with them, and would make me feel really uncomfortable. If they actually starting making homophobic remarks, which I don't they'd do, I probably would get my panties in a bunch enough to say something, though. Come to think of it, it didn't do much good when I pulled out my "hey, I'm bisexual and you don't think I'm that bad" talk with my horribly homophobic stepfather.
posted by banjo_and_the_pork at 6:16 AM on August 23, 2005


Sexuality cannot be equated with a fetish. "Murk up the waters"? Are you serious? Why should this person be identified by their marriage alone? She is a whole person, and that is part of human social life. We learn from our relationships with others, so concealing it is trying to bypass the system.
When people I am or want to be emotionally close to don't know about it, I feel like I'm pretending, or like they have an incomplete understanding of who I am -- which, in fact, they do. It's not about sex
Exactly. Anonymous is not talking about activism either, she is talking about a misunderstanding of who she is, feeling fake, concealing, being limited, which it seems some posters here also want to do. Anonymous has specifically said it's not about politics or porn, so how does she arrive at some measure of authenticity with people who are such big part of her life?

I am a bi woman who has been in a relationship with a man for 3 years. Most of our friends are gay and they call us the "straight couple." These friends are so close to me, I love them, and I accept their identity. I am offended when they comment about the straight thing, and I feel if I speak up I somehow will have to prove myself, how exactly do I love women, that they won't accept it outright. I feel that it is personal, but there is a measure of intimacy in these relationships, and she has said that it does come up. It doesn't matter if the family is conservative, they are limiting her identity and it feels wrong.

I say wait for the right time. Don't lie, always be honest, and I think the right opportunity will present itself. Try to deal with your fear, and just be open to whenever the issue comes up.
posted by scazza at 6:58 AM on August 23, 2005


Anonymous is female.

Are you sure? It's possible to read the quoted part in the opposite way. The context is that in some conversations anonymous wants his/her sexuality to be known, but it is not, ie: anonymous is presumed to be heterosexual.

In less political contexts too, such as everyone talking about the attractiveness of a woman, me saying she's not that hot, one family member saying, "oh yeah? she wouldn't make you cross that line? (smirk, wink)".

That conversation could only take place in a presumed heterosexual context with a man (surely). Or do you know something I don't?
posted by grahamwell at 8:23 AM on August 23, 2005


"Sexuality cannot be equated with a fetish."

Who says? Is there an ISO standard list of what range constitutes 'normal' sexual preferences? I thought a lot of this thread was trying to get away from that.

In other words, sexuality is not a straight line with the dots on it marked bisexual, homosexual and heterosexual. It's at worst, a plane, and at the most open-minded a three or four dimensional space where people are where they happen to be.

However, that's well past my point. I'm all for people doing whatever makes them happy and pleased emotionally, spiritually and physically. That doesn't mean that they have to tell everyone about it.
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:40 AM on August 23, 2005


Kickstart70, except your concern is irrelevant because the asker doesn't want to tell "everyone" she wants to tell her adopted family.

Honestly, I must admit I'm pretty disappointed with this thread. The equating of somebody's sexual identity and BDSM was particularly disgusting.
posted by nixerman at 11:07 AM on August 23, 2005


A more serious analogy: a woman who had a child that died usually still thinks of herself as a mother, and will want some people to know that she considers being a mother an inextricable part of her person... even if she doesn't plan on having any more children. She identifies herself with mothers, not with childless people.

If I think about Anonymous' situation more like this analogy and less like a private sexual situation, I can understand more how it could be handled in conversation so as to mention it tactfully, but not embarrass everyone who doesn't know.
posted by xo at 11:17 AM on August 23, 2005


Man, a lot of my family (extended, mostly) is super religious conservative, and we don't talk about politics at all. They have no idea that I'm a goddamn leftist areligious Democrat, even though I know exactly what their political affiliations are. When I want to make my points about tolerance or about economics or whatever, I argue from a position of neutrality, not identity.
And that's the way that I feel about this thread. I guess I just don't understand why you'd really want to make a thing out of your sexuality. Like anything else that's part of your identity, I wouldn't hide it, but I wouldn't go out of my way to inform people when I know that it's just gonna lead to strife.
I understand that a lot of the commenters have found it very empowering to be out and proud with their families, but it just seems like so much thirst for drama to me. I dunno. That may be because all of my homophobic and regressive relatives are giant assholes, so I don't really ever feel like talking to them all that much anyway, thus sidestepping any sticky questions of how much to reveal to them.
posted by klangklangston at 11:30 AM on August 23, 2005


"The equating of somebody's sexual identity and BDSM was particularly disgusting."

Well, thanks for your opinion.

However, telling people who have preferences that are sexual in nature that those preferences are not part of their sexual identity, I find particularly disgusting.

Amazing how people can be bigoted while they espouse how unbigoted they are.
posted by Kickstart70 at 11:38 AM on August 23, 2005


If sexuality is no big deal, than there's no reason not to bring your prior romantic (not necessarily sexual) experiences and viewpoints in conversation. But I think sexuality is a very big deal, when we live in a society that still doesn't provide the same rights to non-heterosexuals as to heterosexuals. If we lived in happy la-la acceptance land, then there'd be no problem, but I think it's needed for "normal" folks who happen to also be GLBT to assert their identity in order for society and the laws to change.
posted by lychee at 11:53 AM on August 23, 2005


I find this a very interesting question which I grappled with myself. As a bi female, I wasn't comfortable that everyone assumed I was straight when I was married to a man. But I have to say, I never did find a tasteful way to let the in-laws & family know. I might have if they had ever said anything homophobic, but we were all pretty polite and it would have been waaay TMI. Most of our friends knew, though.

Now that I'm married to a woman, I find myself in the other boat of not being comfortable that everyone assumes I'm gay. I have to say, though, that it's a lot easier to mention bisexuality when you're already out as gay...

Sexuality is a big part of our personalities. For those of you who are wondering why anonymous needs to let others know, it's because it feels like a) you're not being honest, and b) your family/friends don't really know who you are - and sometimes make certain assumptions about you that are incorrect.
posted by widdershins at 1:10 PM on August 23, 2005


Response by poster: I dunno, I also read anonymous as female.

See, here's the problem about being the "activist" or the "gay one" in your family/group of friends. If you're persistent enough about it, that's all you'll ever be. If every discussion about gay marriage has to involve how if you were dating someone of the same sex you couldn't marry them, if every discussion of discrimination in the workplace has to involve if you're out in the workplace you could suffer from it, look, not only will you come off as a shrill single-focused annoyance (and this is all too easy to do around the prejudiced), but they're never going to see you outside the context of your sexuality even if they do accept you. And this sucks.

Here's how I handle it. I defend gay rights, I argue against stereotypes--I'd do these things even if I wasn't homo. Among people I'm not "out" around but wouldn't mind it if I was, if there's a conversation about hot chicks or something I'll join in (like it looks like you have). But the days of my official whiz-bang throw-open-the-door HAYHAYLOOKITMAHBIGGAYSELF "out" are over--it's not any more necessary for people to know then for someone to come out that they're quarter Native American or have Italian ancestry. If someone starts saying "All Native Americans steal" or "All Italians are in the Mafia" or "All gays molest children"--then hell yes, I'm going to be like "Interesting, I don't remember molesting a kid." But this business about "Oh, you're against gay marriage? WELL WHAT ABOUT MEEEEE?" I dunno. Saying you don't want gays to get married because they molest children is a reason to say "Dude, I'm totally not into toddlers." Saying you don't want gays to get married because God hates them--that's not going to change if you announce you're bi, so playing the bi card there seems kinda cheap.

Erm, I don't know if I'm explaining this properly. Basically, if you don't care whether you're out participate in conversations as you would with people you're out with, but there's no need to announce anything, just answer truthfully if they ask. If they're spouting off specific prejudices about bis, go ahead and say those don't apply to you. But if the issue is just gay/bi rights in general, argue it from the standpoint of a human being, not somebody playing the straw man homo card to pull some heartstrings to your side.
posted by Anonymous at 2:41 PM on August 23, 2005


I like xo's analogy about mothers with dead children. A lot. Thanks, xo, I'd been looking for a good one.

grahamwell, I'm really confused about your confusion:

In less political contexts too, such as everyone talking about the attractiveness of a woman, me saying she's not that hot, one family member saying, "oh yeah? she wouldn't make you cross that line? (smirk, wink)".

That conversation could only take place in a presumed heterosexual context with a man (surely). Or do you know something I don't?


This how I see it:
Anon's in-law: "Don't you think Paris Hilton is hot?"
Anon (female): "No, ew."
Anon's in-law: "Oh yeah? She wouldn't make you cross that line? smirk, wink." (assumption of anon's heterosexuality)
Anon (female): thinks "No, ew, but Maura Tierney, hoo boy!" but says nothing.

I don't even understand how you envision it going.
I also don't know if it matters, though I think bi women and bi men are perceived as having different agendas or motivations or something, so maybe it does.
posted by librarina at 3:40 PM on August 23, 2005


Here's the problem I see. You want your in-laws to know and respect your identity as a person who can have a loving and romantic relationship with anyone. You want them to admire that capacity in you.

But the word is "bisexual", not "biloving" or "biromantic". To anyone who hasn't already known bi and gay people, bisexuality is sexual. And in the end, there is no way to tell your in-laws that you are bisexual without them picturing you eating pussy. Which, as you said: sick!

So, let it alone. Or, introduce them to some fantastic gay friends of yours, and once they are family favorites use them as examples instead... (Yes, I just stereotyped gay people as irrepressibly charming. Live with it.)
posted by nicwolff at 4:26 PM on August 23, 2005


nixerman

The equating of somebody's sexual identity and BDSM was particularly disgusting.

Perhaps you haven't spent much time around BDSM-oriented people, but I promise you, it's just as much a sexual orientation and/or identity as anything else to which those labels has been applied. I've been the way I am since at least the age of four or five, even though I didn't have a name for it back then. And if you conducted a poll at a meeting of your local BDSM group, you'd find that nearly everyone felt the same.

I once suggested to a my then-gf that the BDSM community should celebrate National Coming Out Day since we, like gays, lesbians, etc. had coming out (as well as staying in) stories to tell. The thing is, the gf in question was a ftm transsexual/dyke and had spent some time hanging around the LGBT community. She reacted to my suggestion by sort of wincing. She said that all coming out stories were basically the same, even though each teller, of course, felt that his or hers was unique. So at meetings and gatherings and particularly on Coming Out Day, she'd had to listen to the same story over and over and she didn't look forward to repeating the experience in the BDSM community.

The point is: Kinky people, bi people, gay people, transgendered people, and so forth, we all know something about being in the closet (and, if we're lucky, coming out). So I think that "equating" the experiences of Anonymous with my own and those of my friends is perfectly legitimate.
posted by Clay201 at 5:00 PM on August 23, 2005


librarina (with apologies to everyone else for the derail)

It's a good example of how, when you see something one way, it's very different to change your point of view. I can't really do it, no matter how hard I try.

It comes down to 'crossing the line (nudge wink)'. What is that referring to? I take it that on your reading it means crossing from heterosexuality to something else. So the in-law is suggesting to female anonymous (presumed heterosexual) that a particularly hot looking woman would tempt anonymous into gayness. In which case the battle is half-won, no? Surely the whole post states that this is absolutely not the situation. Anyhow, heterosexuals don't think like that, do they? Certainly male heterosexuals don't, the presumption that a pretty boy could tempt x into tehgay would be considered offensive.

My reading is that this is a conversation between "blokes" and 'crossing the line' is to infidelity (remember that anonymous is married and that's the context of this discussion). Can you see where I'm coming from? It seems to me to make a lot more sense and fit better in context.

If 'crossing the line' is a well understood euphemism then fair enough, but I don't think it is.

We'll probably never know and it may well not matter one bit, I'm not sure though. I can imagine anonymous shouting at the screen. Not the first anonymous poster to do so I'm sure.

Now back to the programme.
posted by grahamwell at 2:00 AM on August 24, 2005


You're being obtuse. The poster is a woman.

Certainly male heterosexuals don't, the presumption that a pretty boy could tempt x into tehgay would be considered offensive.

Right - but the idea that every woman is only a stray impulse away from taking a strap-on to her best friend is a staple of male-oriented porn, which is what anonymous is talking about:

..."oh yeah? she wouldn't make you cross that line? (smirk, wink)". The bi identity thing is esp. awkward with people who see equate it with porn plotlines only,...
posted by nicwolff at 8:53 AM on August 24, 2005


I'm a bisexual woman married to a man. I "out" myself only when the conversation is appropriate (defending GLBT rights, etc.). I don't feel I'm hiding anything - I wouldn't announce myself a hetero, would I? In any case, I highly doubt that I'll ever have the opportunity (in my mind) to out myself to my in-laws, but I have no fear of doing so.

I'd say the poster is a woman.
posted by deborah at 12:47 AM on August 25, 2005


« Older How can I transfer pictures to my computer without...   |   Little baby headspin Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.