Bisexual Privilege?

I'm against the current trend of the words use. To be more specific. It's like a game of who's the most oppressed.

1.) I would argue that it's a mix of different things. The lowest income bracket of white people are treated just as bad as any minority because universally poor people get crapped on in society. I do think that in the beginning of my country ( The United States ) that white people were heavily advantaged over black people and over time we've widdled and chipped away at that system. I don't think we're quite to equal yet, but we've clearly made some significant strides in that department and while I understand the importance of the "we're not there yet" message I feel like the "We've come so far from where we've been" message has been boxed up and placed in the attic and it makes it feel more and more like a hopeless cause when in reality we've clearly made a great deal of progress.

Now past my ramblings.

It depends on the situation and the location more than anything. Deep south United States the answer is YES THAT EXISTS. Go somewhere more liberal and left leaning and I would argue that it's very much non existent ( or so uncommon it might as well be ).


2.) The nature of opression is one of the many aspects of human nature. People in a position of power will take advantage of those who aren't. People are capable of self reflection and many of them ( if I had to guess I'm in no way a professional on this ) feel inferior in some manner or another and those feelings drive them to want to make other people inferior to them so they in turn can feel more important. White people just happened to be the ones who had the advantage at the critical time. I'd say any human being of any color would have done the same in that time period in those shoes.

3.) ( I'm answering the if's just so ya know I like hypotheticals. I don't really necessarily have a preference on my answer between 1 and 2. I can see things from both sides ) Why? Because it's unproductive. If you're message is "White people are oppressors" than you're wasting time energy and resources throwing around blame and needless hate when you're message could easily be "This is a problem and it needs fixed" The people responsible for the mess of oppression died hundreds of years ago and society has ever since been picking up the peices and trying to set things right. Yeah we suck at it and we take forever because people like to stick to "old ways" of thinking, but instead of throwing around blame why don't we talk about viable solutions instead? saying "White people did it" is a waste of time why not try "Here's the problem, now who has ideas on how to fix it?"

4.) The english language has a lot of words. You take any random combination of them that fit the subject matter and string them together into a coherent thought which doesn't end in throwing around blame or trying to produce feelings of guilt, and instead re-purpose them to be about solving the problem and finding solutions.


Does that answer your questions?

 

For a long time, I was banking on this very fact.

But then I met my current crush. Months of hot lesbian sex fantasies later, to the exclusion of even a single errant thought of a guy, I realized that wasn't going to work. :icon_sad:

If a bisexual person is basically 50/50 in preference or prefers the opposite sex, they could probably get away with it. I sometimes wish I was that way because I'm a coward.

 

I still feel like we're not quite on the same page, and I'm wondering what I need to do to communicate more clearly.

My question was whether or not oppression occurs between groups and when that happens, whether one group is more culpable than another. I did not ask the question "how much progress have we made?", or "what groups still face oppression and too what degree?", or "who is oppressing them currently?" This purpose of my question is to establish the fact that oppression is by definition an asymmetry of power, and one side abuses it to hurt the other.

That was not my question. I asked, if (1) is an incorrect understanding of oppression (i.e. one side is not more culpable than the other), then what is the correct understanding of oppression (i.e. if it's not systematic abuse of an asymmetric power structure, what is oppression then?) Simply put, I'm asking what is oppression? Not what causes it, and not what human nature is.

I can agree with you that saying "white people are oppressors" is unproductive, and I agree that "this is a problem and needs to be fixed" is a much better approach. It's the one I take. However, it still meets a defensive response, because people still feel blamed. Think about it, part of why the right wing hates us claiming that denying same-sex marriage is discrimination (and it is) is that, by making the argument, we are saying they are discriminators. When we say that we need to equalize marriage because that's fair, we're saying the people who don't support it are unfair. These may not be the words coming out of our mouths, but they are very natural logical conclusions to draw from what we are saying. Our very politics as people who advocate for marriage equality makes our opponents feel blamed, irrespective of how polite and non-confrontational we want to be.

Please see above. People are going to feel blamed no matter what. Let's say I take a more constructive approach. (At least, I think it's constructive. If you don't think so, please let me know what I'm doing wrong.) In my view, back in the day where people made privilege-based arguments in an intellectually sound way, the arguments looked different, right? People weren't saying "I'm a woman, and you're a man, so you have nothing valuable to say." What they were saying was, "I'm a woman talking about my experience, and some men don't listen to me, and they try to deny my lived experience. They are more likely listen to you. So if a man interrupts me and tries to take over, please step up and protect my right to speak."

Notice in my example I have not made men the problem. I've made men part of the solution. But I've also given them responsibility. Why is that fair? I mean, the same argument you just made for absolution in the face of systemic racism can just as easily be made in this instance: "the people who so subordinated women are dead and gone now for anywhere from decades to hundreds of years. Why make a modern egalitarian man take note of some of the struggles he doesn't have because of his sex and use that position to protect people who do have certain struggles because of theirs?"

I haven't blamed him for the problems that exist. But I have told him they exist, and I've asked him politely for his help. If he refuses to intervene, doesn't that mean I'm blaming him for not solving the problem if, for whatever reason he doesn't protect me?

 

I'd say the bisexuals are privileged to have me.

 

Rescent studies have shown that it's the exact opposite:
Bisexual people suffer more from mental anxiety and depression than hetero- or homosexual people. Largly due to not being accepted by members of either group, i.e. the whole bi-now-gay-later and just a phase/experimenting stereotypes and being assumed to be unfaithful nymphomaniacs.

I don't think being able to pretend to be something you're not or being treated as something you're not is a privilege.

 

I'm fine with being bi and identifying with both straights and gays. It's others who seem to have a hard time understanding it and think I must be confused and feeling aroused all of the time. Not.

 

This. Well put. Exactly.

 

I'm really tired right now.

Could you maybe send this back to me via a pm or something so I can address it later?


Work really wears me out sometimes and right now I don't think I have the brain power to handle this many words ^^"

 

Not at all. I've been referred to as the "gay guy" or "the straight guy" but never "the bisexual guy". Most people assume that you're either gay or straight as far as sexuality goes.

 

I don't think I agree with that conclusion and I don't think it's productive to try to prove who has it harder. For example, did you know that men are three times more likely than women to commit suicide? I wouldn't use that finding to make the argument that men have it worse than women, though.

 

Well I can only agree to an extent, because speaking as a bi person myself, we have preferences, and I clearly lean toward the gay end of the spectrum. So while the closet advantage does 'work' A good chunk of bisexual men will still lead toward men because they just have that preference.

Edit: I almost completely forgot about the stigmas inflicted upon bisexual people, which in certain situations can be compounded and made much worse for them. We're all nymphos and promiscuous of course, not to mention we can't seem to pick a side due to our sheer selfishness. (/sarcasm)

 

It has nothing to do with competition or your agreement.
It's a statistical fact that bisexual people, on average, suffer more often from mental issues.
That's not a claim that they have it worse than anyone else, all the time.
Just that they suffer more anxiety, acceptance etc. issues.
And these issues are based on non-acceptance by either community, meaning bisexual privilege in the sense of passing as straight, is not a privilege but a detriment.

Again, I did not make that claim.
I merely presented the fact that, when it comes to mental issues, due to social acceptance, bisexual people, on average, suffer more often from mental issues.

 

Bisexuals exist - privileged or not doesn't matter when it comes to my interaction with them. What I personally find distasteful is that there is a whole group of so-called heterosexual men who have sex with men but demean gays. We must be careful by not grouping them with bisexuals at large.

 

It's not a fact, it's some studies and it's your interpretation of the results. I've read a report that there is no statistical difference in the rates of depression between gays and bisexuals. I also know that these studies rely on self-identification of sexuality, which would mean that it would include all homosexuals who initially identify as bisexuals. This is particularly significant in youth studies because younger people who later come out as gay will often come out as bisexual first. And I would expect closeted gay people to experience higher rates of depression than those who accept the label early on.

Well, your intent is misleading then when you start your post off with trying to invoke studies to prove the opposite of bisexual privilege (i.e. privilege in the other direction).

 

Thank you!

It really has gotten to the point where you need a complex flow chart to figure out who's supposed to be more or less privileged than someone else.

 

It's multiple studies, all bearing out the same significant statistical difference between bisexual people and mono-sexual people.
This type of empty dismissal won't change that.

You have no idea what the studies I'm referring to are based on.

I started my post as statement that rather than enjoying some positive benefit to being bisexual, bisexuals actually experience alienation from both the straight and LGT communities.

 

Seems like you've made up your mind regardless of what I say.

I've searched them online, so I'm familiar with the ones that are popular on search engines. But go ahead and post the specific ones you're talking about and I'll have a look.

If you say so. Sounds an awful lot like backpedaling though.

 

Actually, that's how I read Linthras as well. I didn't really believe they were trying to make a claim about hierarchical oppression (i.e. bisexuals have it worse). I simply believed that the point of the post was to offer evidence that the bisexual privilege does not exist.