In an article I read today from the Journal of Bisexuality (my opinion of which is an entirely different issue) the author posed the following question:
“What does it mean to be bi – when you’re minus the sexual?”
- Moss Stern
This got me thinking… obviously… hence the reason for this note. Heterosexuals are rarely ever referred to as such except in academia. Likewise, homosexuals are rarely ever referred to by so full a title. There exist many alternative terms by which to refer to an individual who is monosexual respectively. Granted, many of these terms are slang or offensive, but that is the way that our society functions and it plays a crucial role in the way people interact with each other. Consider for a moment that these terms that go beyond the academic labels of hetero- and homo-sexual are less an indication of sexual orientation and identity, and rather are indicative of one’s social orientation and identity.
With that thought firmly in mind allow me to pose Stern’s question again. What does it mean to be bi- when you’re minus the sexual? There is no other term to refer to someone who is bisexual beyond that or simply as “bi” … or if there is it is not widely known or accepted and I admit to being completely unaware of it. There is undoubtedly a social recognition of a bisexual identity. Unfortunately, it is a primarily negative one based on ill-conceived stereotypes, but nonetheless shouldn’t there exist words in our language to account for this? Shouldn’t we be capable of referring to a social group or culture beyond their mere sexual preference? Sexual preference or orientation cannot wholly define any group or individual.
PS: If anyone mentions how symbolic interactionism could apply here I will kick you!
