Virtue SignalingThat's not how it works???

submitted by [deleted] from i.imgur.com

all 23 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]julesburm1891 26 insightful - 1 fun26 insightful - 0 fun27 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

If you’re in a heterosexual relationship it is literally a straight relationship, not “straight-passing.” Being in a heterosexual relationship doesn’t take anything away from a person being bi or make them less bi.

[–]ElectricSheepSuperBi 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm bi. The woman in this post is very stupid. She may not be straight, but her relationship is. This sort of thing is why I don't talk about myself.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Why call it a straight or heterosexual relationship? Why not just an opposite-sex relationship? Functioning like the term same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage. Same-sex relationship.(Unless you know they're both gay) Ditto for opposite-sex. Also, doesn't straight or heterosexual mean exclusively opposite-sex attracted? They're in an exclusively opposite-sex attracted relationship? Doesn't this usage corrupt the word heterosexual or straight? Especially if they're both bi? Sorry, this never made any sense to me.

[–]jiljol 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Why call it a straight or heterosexual relationship?

Because... it is? Gay/homosexual and straight/heterosexual don't just function as words that describe sexual orientation, which is why we have terms like "gay/homosexual sex" and "straight/heterosexual sex". A man and a woman, regardless of the sexual orientations involved, are in a straight/heterosexual/opposite-sex relationship.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'll admit that saying "opposite-sex sex" or "same-sex sex" is ridiculous and more elegant terms will be required, but the same can't be said for "opposite-sex/same-sex relationships/couples". So there's little reason to use gay/straight or heterosexual/homosexual in lieu of that unless the user already knows their orientations or is accepting of the obvious double meaning that can easily arise from it.

[–]reluctant_commenter 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I completely agree. I know "opposite-sex relationship" is a mouthful, but it's more accurate, and I think it also does a good job at dispelling the "Queer Theory"-speak by emphasizing that it's sex (biological sex, that is; formerly referred to with the euphemism "gender") that people are attracted to, not gender identity.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Perhaps there could be new(or old) brisk terms that describe both with less or no chance of double entendre. I mean, there are some that are specific to the sexes, but they're either acronyms that can't even be verbalized(MLM,WLW) and therefore limited in application, or they have been super appropriated(Sapphic) and must be reclaimed first. And a 'male relationship', or a 'female relationship' are too ambiguous.

And on that point, 'Sapphic' is a good example of how a label has to practically roll off the tongue to have any possibility of taking flight. The male counterpart, 'Achillean', is unwieldy in comparison. And thus will never be used by the masses. (maybe 'Phallic'? lol)

I read up on the etymology but still can't know all of the particulars of how 'gay' and 'straight' came about, but it was true lighting in a bottle. Hopefully something suitably catchy will emerge for the above uses too. I mean, the genderwoo shouldn't have a monopoly on "innovating" language nowadays, should they?

[–]reluctant_commenter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, I'm fine with the "sapphic relationship" to describe two women (who are bisexual or lesbian) in a relationship. Straight people would probably struggle with that, though, haha. I guess also some lesbian women don't like that as an equivalent to WLW; I've heard people here accuse TRAs of "stealing" it and that it was originally only for lesbian women. I have no strong opinions, lol. I just wish we had some convenient alternative. Til something better comes along, I will just stick with opposite-sex and same-sex (OS and SS? OSR and SSR?).

'Achillean', is unwieldy in comparison. And thus will never be used by the masses. (maybe 'Phallic'? lol)

Hahaha "phallic" would sure get people's attention! Yeah the problem is most of these terms are so loooooooooong. We need fewer syllables. I actually saw the term "other-sex" (and "same-sex") in an article I was reading earlier today! So that's one less syllable.

I read up on the etymology but still can't know all of the particulars of how 'gay' and 'straight' came about, but it was true lighting in a bottle.

It's funny, everyone seems fine with those terms although in a way they seem kinda fucked up because they're implying gay is "crooked" or something by comparison to "straight," lol. Yet they are so convenient to use, I wouldn't even think of that 99.99% of the time, haha. You know, I know people are used to seeing "homo" in an insulting or rude connotation, but honestly, it's kind of convenient as a shorter version of "homosexual"... ah, well. Language makes everyone angry, I guess.

Anyway. Point being, I do think this little bit of language can obscure bisexuality, and I think that in the long run that may be harmful for everyone. I stumbled on this other article today and I thought of our conversation! Thought you might be interested. It's all in the context of women, though, unfortunately; curious how this plays out with gay/bisexual men.

However, to refer to relationships as ‘heterosexual’ or ‘lesbian’ rather than as ‘other-sex’ or ‘same-sex’ perpetuates bisexual invisibility because it overlooks the possibility that the relationship involves a bisexual person (Barker, Richards, Jones, Bowes-Catton, Plowman, Yockney & Morgan, 2012).

Haven't read that other study they're citing.

edit: Wow, forgot to finish a couple of my sentences. Clearly not winning at multitasking today, lol.

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

Yeah, I'm fine with the "sapphic relationship" to describe two women (who are bisexual or lesbian) in a relationship.

Oh, good! I wasn't quite sure about that one at all.

It's funny, everyone seems fine with those terms although in a way they seem kinda fucked up because they're implying gay is "crooked" or something by comparison to "straight," lol. Yet they are so convenient to use, I wouldn't even think of that 99.99% of the time, haha.

I guess convenience trumps everything else sometimes. I mean, 'Truscum' is supposed to be derogatory, but it's actually used by transmeds 🤷‍♂️

You know, I know people are used to seeing "homo" in an insulting or rude connotation, but honestly, it's kind of convenient as a shorter version of "homosexual"... ah, well. Language makes everyone angry, I guess.

I suppose if there is a better sounding synonym for it without the negative history then people will naturally gravitate toward that.

Anyway. Point being, I do think this little bit of language can obscure bisexuality, and I think that in the long run that may be harmful for everyone. I stumbled on this other article today and I thought of our conversation! Thought you might be interested. It's all in the context of women, though, unfortunately; curious how this plays out with gay/bisexual men.

I'd like to think of it as not just a bi concern. Thanks a lot for the article. It's pretty interesting. Especially the part about polyamory somehow being one of the few ways to signal one's bisexuality without outright saying so or wearing the flag or something. But, so few people can be polyamorous(and for good reason). And I think it goes against human nature to some extent.

This part in particular caught my eye(p.20):

This mirrors the notion that bisexuality represents the mid-point on a continuum of sexuality between homosexuality and heterosexuality

Or perhaps 'Zero Point', as I noted here. This is a popular view, and the issue I have with it is that almost implies that each of our attractions are at half-strength or something. I mean, for some people it is, but it's not zero-sum game. And it kinda feeds into the whole "they'll will leave you for someone else because their feelings for you are not strong enough" idea.

Anyhow, a way to avoid this implication is to use dual scales instead of Kinsey. I'll quickly use the volume and brightness sliders from my desktop to illustrate.

The main thing missing here of course is the sex of the person themselves, which is important as well. I have something a lot more polished that shows that though with the associated orientations, but as of now it's not public or a good fit to demonstrate this particular concept. Pm me if you're interested though.

[–]Horror-SwordfishI don't get how flairs work 25 insightful - 1 fun25 insightful - 0 fun26 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I mean... on one hand, this woman is allowed to be bisexual and be in a "straight" marriage, because that's sort of how bisexuality works. But at the same time, it's a little tone-deaf to post a picture of an ostensibly straight couple wrapped in a pride flag and call yourself "queer" because of it.

[–]TransspeciesUnicornI sexually identify as a mythical sparkly equine 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It ain't "biphobia" to point out how fucking tacky it is for you and your husband to celebrate your straight marriage with a pic of you both draped in a rainbow flag. How lacking in self-awareness do you have to be to post this shit? The idea that the mere presence of a bi person in a straight relationship somehow makes the relationship super special and "queer" (whatever that even means these days) is just obnoxious. Like this kind of shit is exactly why a lot of lesbians can't stand bi chicks, just sayin'...

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The presence of a bisexual person in a relationship does not define the relationship as being non-straight, the presence of either two men or two women is what defines a non-straight relationship, regardless of them being gay or bi.

[–]dilsencySame-sex community 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Opposite-sex relationships don't need us to highlight them. They're doing quite fine at the moment.

[–]lunarstrain 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know why she couldn't have done a photo with only her draped in the flag. Her husband could be in the photo, too, with his arm wrapped around her. This would both assert her bisexuality for that sweet social media attention and show that he loves and supports her.

Edit: Not to say that bisexual people can't talk about being bisexual if they're in a straight relationship. It just feels weird and attention grabbing to post something like this to social media.

[–]reluctant_commenter 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It is not "queer" or weird for a bisexual woman to be in a relationship with a man. That is natural, just as it would be natural if she were in a relationship with a woman. Normalize bisexuality! (God, I can't believe this has to be said in 2022, lol.)

I really wish people just called these relationships "opposite-sex relationships" instead of "straight relationships." I get that people don't like saying longer words, but there is a difference in meaning here. "Straight" implies the sexual orientation of the couple, which can lead to bisexual erasure. And as silly as this post is, bisexual erasure is still is a real issue-- one that impacts those of us who are homosexual a lot, not just bisexuals. If people tell bisexuals "pick a side" and they "decide" that they're gay or straight, then that leads to misinformation about what "gay" or "straight" actually means-- and then we end up with assholes telling us, "There's no such thing as homosexual! Everyone's at least a little attracted to the opposite sex! See, that 'straight' woman is into women and that 'gay' man is into women!"

edit: typo lol

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks so much for saying this! <3

Yeah, while it may look like quibbling over words, the use of "opposite-sex relationship" rather than "straight relationship" (or "same-sex relationship" rather than "gay relationship") really is important to bisexuals. Because our core problem-- the ultimate source of biphobia-- comes down to this: not recognizing bisexuality as a sexual orientation at all. Meaning that we're seen as either gay or straight... or as (somehow) switching back and forth between gay and straight. Typically based on the sex of our current partner.

As you observe, this results in bisexual erasure: our identity is entirely dependent on someone else-- we are nothing in our own right. And, of course, giving any credence to the notion that one can "switch" between gay and straight is VERY dangerous for homosexuals.

[–]reluctant_commenter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No problem!! :) It kinda amazes me that it needs to be said. I can see several different types of pressure working against OSR and SSR as terms, though. For one thing, I think a lot of straight people who barely wrapped their heads around homosexuality now don't want to deal acknowledging bisexuality... to which I can only say, it exists lol, they're gonna have to get used to it. For another thing, saying "same sex" or "opposite sex" acknowledges that there are 2 sexes, which certain science-denying dogma lovers would rather avoid.

As you observe, this results in bisexual erasure: our identity is entirely dependent on someone else-- we are nothing in our own right. And, of course, giving any credence to the notion that one can "switch" between gay and straight is VERY dangerous for homosexuals.

Yeah honestly that would piss me off. I'm sorry that you guys have to deal with that, it sounds frustrating as hell. Bisexual erasure seems like such a testament to the common human fallacy of black-and-white thinking... The men on r/actualtransbians enrage me but at least they are open about their homophobia; I feel like it's so much harder to describe to another person the harms of couching all descriptions of same-sex relationships in the language of "gay and straight" only.

I wish that people didn't have such an aversion to the term "same-sex attracted"... I honestly prefer it. I guess many people have bad connotations with it because it was used to deny the existence of homosexuality by many religious conservatives, but it is objectively accurate, and is therefore necessarily also more bisexual-friendly than "gay relationship" or "straight relationship."

[–]automoderatorHuman-Exclusionary Radical Overlord[M] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Click to view and/or archive snapshots:

If this comment is being added for websites which cannot be usefully archived - for example, video hosts or an existing archive site - please let the subreddit Moderators know by sending ModMail. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this sub if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]reluctant_commenter 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

u/TumbleweedFireflies I checked the two links out of curiosity and I don't think either of them archived properly, FYI. (Haven't seen this bot before so maybe you're already aware, but just thought I'd mention it.)

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Neither of them archived because no one clicked "save/archive" after they went to the sites.

For now, users do have to click-through, and also click the button/links to save or search.

This is basically V1, a reminder that archiving does exist and we can all utilize it - we just have to actually do so.

I'm still figuring out how to make it automated, and that will be V2.

[–]reluctant_commenter 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Oh, gotcha. Thanks! That is certainly a better system than we had before.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I fixed it RC! Yay!

The links may break in the future, since the archiving sites do change their URLs every now and again. But AutoMod is doing the best it can now.

Users can click the links and either be immediately brought to an existing archive, or if an archive doesn't exist, it will automatically save and refresh to give them the archive.

[–]reluctant_commenter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Awesome!!! Thanks so much, that's amazing! Know that some people (maybe even yourself in the future!) will be thanking you, a nameless person they don't know, for having caused these pages to be archived. :) At least, I think that constantly when I find deleted pages saved.