#(you cannot tell me they aren't both on the bi+ spectrum)

[frogofalltime]

What do you think gay men are attracted to in men that they can’t be attracted to in women?

It can’t be anything about femininity or masculinity obviously. That’s both sexist, and cultural so can’t be what drives men-only attraction.

It can’t be anything about stated identity because someone could lie just as easily as they could tell the truth in such a statement, and it makes no sense because homosexuality and heterosexuality exists in other species with no stated identities. It’s not like other animals without gender are all pan.

Saying idk it’s the vibes or some indescribable trait men have that women can’t but “I can’t explain” is a nonanswer.

Soooooooo what is it? Or do you think any sexuality but bi/pan is just cultural performance or an identity rather than an inborn orientation?

- [ ]

i'm aroace and not a gay man, so i'm not really the best person to ask about this. i haven't experienced sexual or romantic attraction myself. but i do feel some sort of attraction and love, idk what kind, i guess platonic ? and i am a biology student who has studied sexual diversity a lot at university, though i am absolutely not an expert. so here's what i think, but if anyone disagrees with me and has a better way to explain it (especially if you're someone who has an exclusively homosexual orientation) please do because you know more about this than me for sure !!

my understanding is that a lot of humans — like most sexually-reproducing animals — are attracted to phenotypical traits. for example they might find certain people attractive because they have specific body parts, or they only want to have sex with someone who has certain genitals because that suits their needs more.

in species that exhibit sexual dimorphism, it makes sense for a lot of individuals to have this form of attraction towards the opposite sex. this is because many (but certainly not all !!) individuals will have a set of features that, when combined, may indicate they are a viable mate that can produce offspring. and a species needs at least some of its members to successfully reproduce, otherwise the species will not survive or evolve.

i guess for people who are attracted strictly to people of the same sex (or same gender presentation) as themselves, they might have this same form of attraction but flipped around. so they could be attracted to all the features that in general make members of that sex attractive to a potential mate, such as facial hair, body structure, etc, but they are not attracted to the opposite sex's characteristics. so a gay man might find beards and deep voices attractive, as these tend to indicate high testosterone levels, and a lesbian woman might like breasts and wide hips, as these are related to oestrogen levels. i don't know much about this at all because i mostly study reproduction (in all the diverse forms it appears in nature, many of which are very queer) rather than any type of sexuality that does not result in offspring. but i imagine it's the same hormonal response stimulated by the same cues but towards members of their own sex instead. (i haven't done actual scientific research on this so i may be completely wrong !!)

of course there are not only two categorical sexes in humans, and we cannot define them by picking out certain traits because, like you said, it's sexist and scientifically inaccurate. phenotypic traits don't necessarily make someone a man or a woman and they can can appear in anyone. sexual dimorphism is a bimodal distribution so there are many people who aren't quite in either category because they are more towards the middle of the spectrum. intersex people represent at least 1% of all humans — in fact, everyone's bodies produce the same chemicals, just in different amounts, which trigger certain characteristics to develop in certain ways.

and it can vary depending on many factors, such as race. for example i have south asian heritage. that makes me hairier than most white people who have female bodies; for example i have a pretty visible moustache despite not being on testosterone. some people have suggested i might have pcos, which can fall under the intersex umbrella. this could be the case because i have a lot of gender dysphoria regarding my body and i certainly don't "feel like a woman" (hence why i identify as trans — but if i did turn out to be intersex that would make a lot of sense too). also i have really painful and irregular periods, which is a symptom of pcos, so i'm going to ask the doctor about it.

however, most south asian cis women that i know have a lot of body hair and facial hair, but they fully feel like and identify as women, and many of them have normal menstrual cycles. maybe our bodies simply produce more testosterone than our white counterparts, so we appear more androgynous in comparison (of course there's a lot of racism involved in deciding which characteristics should be "the standard", because white bodies are overrepresented in biology, but there is so much variation out there that should be studied more. like you mentioned, what we see as "masculine" or "feminine" depends on the culture we are in, and it absolutely is not fixed).

anyway i kind of went on a tangent; my point is you're completely right that there isn't anything concrete that you can point to in a body that makes everyone with that body part definitely a man or a woman. there are so many factors that make every human body unique. and some people find androgynous bodies attractive while others prefer bodies that fit a specific criteria of male or female attributes. i suppose it's up to the individual to determine whether that makes them gay, straight, bi, pan, etc.

i think social factors do have an impact, for example gender roles and gender presentation. a lot of animals have social behaviour that means they probably have an idea of gender (such as the way they select mates, or the division of labour such as nesting, hunting, parental care, etc). for example, many male birds have bright feathers while females have dull feathers. but in some species, a proportion of the males look exactly like the females. they act in a feminine way socially, and they are treated as female by the other males, perhaps they even try to mate with them based on the visual cues of femaleness. but they don't have female chromosomes or genitalia; they produce sperm, not eggs, and they can mate with females to produce offspring. there are many things like this in nature. it's a societal behaviour, but it happens because of genetic factors. so it's not just a performance, as you suggested, it is inborn too. so if a cis man is only attracted to other cis men, perhaps this could be biological as well as social.

that said, i don't think there is literally a "gay gene", and i believe that environmental factors (upbringing, cultural norms, trauma, the food we consume and chemicals we are exposed to, etc) can contribute a lot to our individual personalities and identities. but i would hypothesise that we are all born with variations that make us more or less predisposed to certain things, such as neurodivergence, sexuality, gender identity, etc, so i do not at all agree that these things are choices or something that we can change.

on the other hand, sexual selection is not always based on physical traits. some people are just attracted to the person, regardless of their body. so they find their body attractive because it's that person. and maybe in a different person they would find completely different physical traits attractive. for some people this can be bisexuality or pansexuality, as they are attracted to all genders / sexes indiscriminately, but not necessarily. some people might only feel attraction to people of a certain gender or sex, even though their appearance and genitals don't play a part. maybe it's because of the experiences they might share with someone of the same gender (or someone of the same sex even if their gender is different), like how a lot of people prefer to date within their cultural / racial / religious group, as they just connect better than they do with people from outside that group.

for instance, my partner is also transmasc, like me. we became close due to a lot of shared experiences and feelings surrounding our gender identity as well as other things like being neurodivergent and aroace. but we differ in some aspects too, for example i'm muslim and a person of colour, but my boyfriend is atheist and white. i think a lot of trans people prefer to date other trans people because we have a lot in common with each other and we understand gender and sexuality differently to cis people, which is really cool. i'm not attracted to my partner in a sexual or romantic way but i love it a lot. i enjoy his company, i think he's really handsome and cool, i like hugging them and holding their hand. we have a connection that makes us compatible even though we don't want or need physical intimacy.

this is my first ever relationship and we don't plan to break up, but if i was to have a relationship with anyone else, i would choose someone because we get on and have shared experiences and feelings, and it wouldn't necessarily matter what gender or sex they are. this may end up meaning i would be with, for example, another trans / nonbinary person, or an intersex person, or a muslim cis woman, or an asexual autistic cis man, etc, because we would have overlaps in at least some areas of our identity that could make us compatible. so i guess my orientation is towards people that i have things in common with.

again, i'm truly not an expert in any of this and i recommend asking someone who has more experience and knowledge. but thank you so much for the question, i ended up writing an entire essay because it's such an interesting topic to think about, and it would be cool to hear from other people about this too !

:)

[lotusofhope]

What do you think gay men are attracted to in men that they can’t be attracted to in women?

It can’t be anything about femininity or masculinity obviously. That’s both sexist, and cultural so can’t be what drives men-only attraction.

It can’t be anything about stated identity because someone could lie just as easily as they could tell the truth in such a statement, and it makes no sense because homosexuality and heterosexuality exists in other species with no stated identities. It’s not like other animals without gender are all pan.

Saying idk it’s the vibes or some indescribable trait men have that women can’t but “I can’t explain” is a nonanswer.

Soooooooo what is it? Or do you think any sexuality but bi/pan is just cultural performance or an identity rather than an inborn orientation?

Obviously gay people exist. If "everyone was a bit bi" the idea of someone being married in a hetero relationship for 20 years and then realizing they were denying their true, gay, self wouldn't make sense. And gay people have fought for generations to be able to marry someone of their own gender.

But uh, asking me to explain history of gender and sexual attraction in an ask box is a bit much...

Here's my theory, though I recommend you read works by more experienced gay activists and academics.

We do not have pink and blue, or even penis and vagina. At least not strictly. (Note, I will not bring intersex people into this, intersex arguments are far too tired but if you're interested they are out there.)

There is no "perfectly blue" person, there is no trait a person MUST have to be blue or pink - and there is no one trait that a person MUST be attracted to to be gay.

(Picture kinda related, it's about bimodal distribution of galaxies)

You see how there are blue and red dots everywhere, but they "generally" fall in a specific space?

Gender can be similar, except there are also purple dots and colorless dots.

For example, if we took a beautiful woman, and just attached a penis to her surgically (imagine, for the argument that it is indistinguishable from a cis male penis - not something that I think is necessary but is often a sticking point for people who argue for same sex attraction) - do you really think most gay men would suddenly find her attractive?

What is it that makes men hot to gay men? Is it being over 6 ft? There are more men who are that tall then there are women, but even if that was a sticking point, there are cis women who are really tall, even 7 ft. I doubt gay men are pining in her inbox.

What gay attraction means is individual to each gay person - some even have a "type"; you wouldn't say "twinks aren't real men because many gay men say no twinks"

Yet you do say "trans men aren't real men because many gay men wouldn't date them" - in which case *many* marginalized groups lose they so-called "man card"; I would even posit most "super gay" or "super straight" people are that way because of societal transphobia than actual attraction issues.

So what are gay men attracted to? There is no necessary or sufficient answer. You cannot cover all gay men with any list of traits without excluding other gay men.

Just, in general, they tend to be traits found on the blue side of the spectrum.

Hope this helps.

[iztopher]

the "if you ask me, te'ijal and galahad are both aromantic" post

happy pride to ME (and to @snowsheba who encouraged me to write this >:3c)

one of my favorite and most foundational headcanons is that both te'ijal and galahad are somewhere on the aromantic spectrum. (fwiw i like aroace galahad and very squiggly aro bi te'ijal)

and i could put each of those thoughts in separate posts, but frankly there's gonna be so much overlap - because their relationship with each other is such a big part of it - it makes more sense to put it together

warning: this post is SO LONG (1039 words under the cut) i'm so sorry i have so many thoughts on this topic. also, aveyond 3 and aveyond 4 spoilers!

i'm gonna start loosely with galahad because that headcanon came first, in 2013. my best friend came into my ask box like "arospec galahad who conceptualizes this fairytale ideal of romance and does not fit into At All" and they were SO RIGHT

galahad is such a rigid person. he internalizes rules about how the world works and refuses to adjust his perspective ever, at all. it makes so much sense for amato/heteronormativity to be one of those, for him to decide his feelings aren't actually decided by how he feels but how other people in his situation would feel, how he thinks he should feel.

(this also, not going to lie, ties into my headcanon that he's autistic, because in my experience as an autistic person you tend to not really understand how a lot of social constructs (which romance definitely is!) work and try to reference other people for them)

which is to say: arguably the most aromantic thing galahad does in canon, to me, is switching on a dime and suddenly acting like he's in love with te'ijal the moment they're human. it has Never read as genuine to me, even when i was like, 11 years old playing the game for the first time. i've always read that as him thinking "okay, I'm human, I'm married, my wife is human, clearly this adds up to me being in love with her. it has to, because that's how the world works"

and it's not, and I love that! 1) because there's a lot of potential to dig into for how it impacts their relationship and both of them individually, and 2) because I'm so used to the trope of romance being the Proof that someone is human and complete and I love the idea of someone operating under that logic and it explodes in their face

on the flip side, te'ijal's response to that being disinterest and disappointment says a lot about her, too, and while part is she's a vampire and perceives relationships differently, i like to read into that as her being aro, too. it's a fairly common aro experience to be "crushing" on someone and then they return your feelings and suddenly you lose interest or become actively uncomfortable with the whole ordeal

not to mention te'ijal canonically, blatantly misunderstands romance. in the promotional interviews for aveyond 3, te'ijal recounts how she tricked galahad into marrying her and tops it off with "it's a romantic story, don't you think?". she thinks of insults as flirting, and when she is genuinely flirted with, it goes over her head and/or she doesn't acknowledge it.

shopkeepers flirt with her fairly often and she makes no more to recognize it

galahad calls her "my love" and all she can think about is that it isn't "spawn of evil"

the one exception to this is john, who asks her to kiss him, and she responds "you don't value your life, do you, uplander?" genuinely i cannot tell if this is her expressing disinterest or trying to flirt back. who knows with te'ijal.

but by any means her relationship with, well, relationships, is clearly her own. it's very easy to take that a step forward and decide that part of what makes it so unique is that she doesn't experience the feelings a lot of other people do that makes them easier to sort or interpret.

i would also go ahead and argue that marrying someone who hates you, partly because you think the fact that he hates you is endearing, works very well for an aro read on te'ijal. te'ijal is canonically not interested in a conventional romantic relationship! if she was, she would not have picked galahad!

te'ijal wants "romance" and a "relationship", but with a misunderstanding on what those actually entail, and without any of the usual connotations of either of those things.

...and while i'm reading too deeply into canon, i'm going to swing back to point out that galahad never gives indication of wanting a genuine relationship, either. galahad complains all the time about how much te'ijal ruined his life, in all the different ways, and he deserves to, she did, but he treats the wedding as one step in the middle of many and never points out that she, theoretically, stopped him from pursuing any other relationships. that is not on the list of things that galahad minds about being married to te'ijal.

this is skewing long and also kind of negative, so i want to wrap up on a more positive note, which is why these two mean a lot to me as reading as aro, which is:

i would argue that ultimately, te'ijal and galahad's relationship does not seem canonically romantic, especially after aveyond 4. i mean, arguably their healthiest, most "that's actually kind of sweet" moment is when galahad breaks up with her. but even before that, their relationship never had anything that firmly set it as romantic. the things that normally would - being married, te'ijal calling galahad's behavior "flirting" - was clearly not, or at least more complicated, in context. which isn't to say it can't be, but like - we don't know. canon definitely doesn't seem interested in giving a long term answer to that question.

the only people who know exactly what is going on between te'ijal and galahad are, well, te'ijal and galahad. and that idea of "my relationship is my own and my partner's and nobody else's to quantify or understand" resonates so strongly with me as an aromantic person and makes this relationship, despite being chaotic always and awful frequently, probably the one i relate to most personally out of all of fiction. i mean, where else am i gonna find a guy calling a woman he isn't in love with and isn't even technically legally married to his wife every time he talks to her?

i just really, really love te'ijal and galahad each with their own relationships to relationships that somehow helps them stumble into something that works for the both of them by throwing any idea of convention out the window and just kind of trying to make it through eternity together in the way that makes sense to them.

[gettin-bi-bi-bi]

So I’ve always considered myself to be a bisexual because I’m equally excited at the prospect of having a male, female or nb partner but recently I’ve been wondering if I’m actually an asexual instead. In general, I find it weird to fantasise about having sex with real people (people I know or celebs) because it feels wrong to use real people’s bodies like that, and makes me feel like I’m sexually harassing the person and makes me feel really guilty. When I masturbate, I usually tend to think of fictional characters because it just feels easier, because they aren’t real and don’t have lives or feelings of their own. Recently, I read that only being able to think of fictional people in a sexual capacity is potentially a sign of asexuality because you’re thinking of something unattainable so it’s not real. (Sort of in a comphet way where lesbians may find themselves attracted to a male character). I was comfortable identifying as a bisexual despite being a virgin because the idea of being with any gender excited me, but now I’m kinda worried that it was just compulsory-allosexuality and I’m being dishonest by identifying as a bisexual. Do you have any advice on how to come to terms with this issue?

I don't wanna dismiss the possibility that you could be in the ace spectrum. That's totally an option and doesn't mean you cannot also be bi. Like... just take our mod Tiger for example who is aro/ace and bi all at once. It's possible.

But since the reasons you mention for not being comfortable imagining sex with "real" people are all along the lines of sexual same and guilt it might also be that you are very much allosexual but "just" have internalised a lot of sex negativity and sexual guilt. I've seen this (ice cold) discourse take on Tumblr before that masturbating to the thought of another person would "violate consent" but that's bullshit. You aren't even "using their body" or "harassing them", as you've said it. Harassment is actually physically or verbally assaulting someone, like rude comments or touching a person without permission. But it's totally normal and common to have sexual fantasies about real people and by doing so you are not harming anyone. They cannot read your thoughts. You thinking of someone while masturbating has zero consequences and unless you tell them about it they will be none the wiser. Fantasies are a healthy and very much morally acceptable way to explore your sexuality. Most people have sexual fantasies and I'd guess the majority of those people at least sometimes fantasize about someone they know or a celebrity. It doesn't hurt anyone because it's all just in your head and you do not need to get consent for having a thought. Even a sexual thought. Sexual thoughts are not inherently anything worse or more powerful or harmful or whatever than any other thing you might think about during the day.

So... are you ace spec? Or is it bottled up sexual shame? Or maybe both? I don't know but I would definitly recommend exploring both directions, maybe get some asexual input but also try a more sex-positive approach and read up on that - even if you end up identifying as asexual, it can't hurt to also try and lessen that guilty feeling you have surrounding masturbation and fantasies. Of course it's fine to just imagine fictional characters if you like that but if you would actually like thinking of a real person sometimes and/or your mind just wanders there, then you should be able to enjoy that and be cool with it without feeling guilt or shame, because there isn't anything wrong or bad about it.

Maddie

[moomuffns-blog]

Cishet aces aren't LGBT don't listen to that account you sent an ask to

Fucker. I don't give a DAMN about cis het or not. Ace is ace. And ace belongs in lgbtA THATS WHY ITS FUCKING THERE!!! Say it with me now! The A in lgbta+ stands for ACE. The A in lbgta+ stands for ACE.THE A IN LBGTA​ STANDS FOR FUCKING ACEEEEEMiss me with that gatekeeping bullshit ho. The only ones who DON'T belong are cis, heterosexual, heteromantic, perfectly straight men and women. Ace is not heterosexual nor heteromantic. Ace is the lack of sexual attract or romantic attraction. But seriously, fuck off with your "not gay enough" ideology. There are plenty of strait trans men and women. There are plenty of cis bi, lesbian, and gay men and women. They are all valid members of the lbgt+ community, so tell me the absolute frickty frackity God damned bullshit reason a cis het person who happens to fit SOMEWHERE on the ace spectrum can't also be welcomed into this community??Unless you were talking about ace lesbians, cause then you done fucked up that ask from the very beginning and I won't even go into that mess.OR BETTER YET!!!!!LET PEOPLE IDENTIFY THEMSELVES IN WHATEVER WEIRD ASS FUCKING WAY THEY PLEASE BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE HOW THEY FEEL!! YOU DONT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE OR AREN'T ATTRACTED TO! Sexuality is a complex, messy thing. It can change. It can be completely absent. You don't NEED to label your sexuality at all. And most fucking importantly, YOU don't get to say who can or cannot feel a certain way or be welcomed into a community that is literally about being anything EXCEPT straight. Ace is not heterosexual. Ace is not heteromantic. Ace is the lack of any sexual/ romantic interest. If it were literally anyone other than a cis person you'd have been fine. There are cis lesbians. There are cis homosexual men. There are cis bisexual men and women. So WHY can't there be cis ace people as well? And the only reason I'm not including trans, gender fluid, non binary and androgynous people is because your ask said specifically CIS people. So again, cis heterosexual but aceromantic people are valid and exist. Cis asexual but heteromantic people are valid and exist. You can not gatekeep and say who is allowed in or not. You. Do. Not. Have. That. Power. Over. Other. Fucking. People. And. Their. Sexuality. And you never will. It is not your choice. It is theirs. It is those people who while attracted in a very hetero way, do not find any form of sex or sexual acts appealing. It is those who find hetero sex appealing, are not romantically inclined to anyone.You don't get to say "no, you don't exist." Or "no, you're too straight." The only people who shouldn't be allowed to proclaim themselves part of the lbgt+ community AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN ALLIES are cis heterosexual AND heteromantic people you need both. You can be cis het asexual. You can be cis het aceromantic. Both fall on the ace spectrum. Basically, everyone has a place in this community (or allianced with as allies) except transphobes, homophobes, pedos ( though they don't belong anywhere except prison or at the bad end of a lethal injection imo, but let's stay focused) or otherwise antilbgt+ groups. And unless they fall into the ^^^^ (above) categories, you don't get to decide who can be a part of it.

[realignbyredvox]

first off I'd like to say thank you for gracing me, a lowly shitbag-mimicking individual, with your eloquent response. you put your post in a discourse tag, don't come back with a sarcastic, rude response when someone engages with it. plus it seems like you don't even want an actual discussion since it seems like you've already decided what I'm going to say. so I suppose I must say thanks again, wondrous psychic, for making my argument for me.

now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's try to have an actual discussion. I'll address that point you tried to make for me. you say that cishet means cisgender heterosexual which aces cannot be considering they are asexual. I'll agree with you on part of that. Cishet probably did originally mean cisgender heterosexual depending on when it was coined (idk off the top of my head and idc to look it up rn). however,

A. language evolves. non-asexual people didn't invent the split attraction model and come up with romantic attraction. but now that it does exist, the term cishet evolved along with it. now when we refer to cishet asexuals, we are generally referring to cisgender, heteromantic asexuals.

B. you also say that asexual is the lack of sexuality. I probably don't have to tell you that there are asexuals that disagree with you on that definition.

next you say that I conflate heteromantic and heterosexual. I don't see why I shouldn't and would genuinely like some kind of explanation here. the majority of people experience them as the same thing and saying they shouldn't be conflated kind of makes it sounds like you're saying that heteromantic asexuals aren't straight. if that is what you're saying, then I'd like you to address that as well as another point I've never seen an inclusionist address- if being asexual makes heteromantic aces not straight, then being asexual makes lesbian aces, bi aces, and gay aces not lesbian/bi/gay. If you aren't saying heteromantic aces aren't straight, I'd like you to elaborate on this point because I genuinely do not understand it.

now the crux of your issue is that I'm judging the experience of asexual people. that I'm assuming they "aren't trustworthy navigators of their own experience". First I'm kind of wondering where you got that out of my reply. The only thing I said that even comes close is saying that the shitbag I would imagine is a conservative Christian that would probably encourage asexuality, but that's not assuming the experience of aces. What I think you're doing here, and please correct me of I'm wrong, is trying to make my argument for me again. I haven't said anything about the experience of aces, although as someone who by some definitions would fall on the "ace-spectrum", I am far within my right to. So I could say that you are judging my experience just as much as you think I'm judging the experience of aces.

now putting aside whether or not I actually believe the experience of cisgender heteromantic asexuals is the same as cisgender heterosexuals- they still wouldn't be lgbt. As many people have said, the focus of the lgbt community is to combat transphobia and homophobia. while both have unique aspects, they overlap greatly to the point where they are often misdirected towards the other group. cisgender, heteromantic asexuals do not experience homophobia or transphobia, and therefore would not benefit from the resources of the lgbt community past visibility. while myself and many exclusionists feel that aces do face discrimination, they can't expect that the lgbt community will alter its focus to suit their needs.

80% of my opinions on Tumblr discourse are driven by one principle. I call it the Hateful Shitbag test. Imagine a hateful shitbag, the kind of person who has a Blue Lives Matter flag and thinks Fox News is mostly good but not as insightful as Breitbart. The Hateful Shitbag test is to ask yourself whether that person, qua hateful shitbag, would like your opinions on a group in question. If they wouldn’t, it passes. If they would, it doesn’t mean you’re a hateful shitbag yourself, but it might mean you’ve internalized some of the narratives they spread, and it certainly means you’re giving them comfort.  For instance, take TERFs. They claim to be radical, but would a hateful shitbag approve of the way they talk about trans women? Hell yeah, they’d love it. In fact, a lot of them do love it and try to make friends. It fails the Hateful Shitbag test.  Would a hateful shitbag agree with how transmeds talk about non-binary people? How about how exclusionists talk about ace people? Or whoever the heck it is who goes on about MOGAI people? I really like the hateful shitbag test; it’s a good way to catch yourself when you start internalizing things.  tldr don’t act like hateful shitbags even if you want to 

[gettin-bi-bi-bi]

Hello! I recently found your blog and its great! If my question isn't relevant, feel free to ignore. Umm how do I start? I just realized I'm bi leaning to sapphic (not out yet), I feel as if I finally answered something in me but now I don't know what to do? Like..jump to try to have a date? Read/educate myself?

Funny how it was more like a "Everybody could tell except for you" situation when I spoke to a dear friend + soul searching

So..what would be the next step? I have so many questions and this world seems so amazing and new at the same time

Sorry if I went overboard

Have a great day/night

Welcome to the bi club!

There really is nothing that you have to do now. There are no rules and no agendas that you have to follow. Every bi person is different with different personalities and needs - and of course also with different circumstances. Some of us live in big cities with an easy-to-find queer community, others don't have that luxury.

What your next step is really depends on what you want to do/know/try. Do you want to learn more about the bi community and bisexual history? Or queer history in general? Then yes, educate yourself, get in touch with other queers and bisexuals to talk about it. Maybe there's a group in your area that you can get in touch with offline, maybe you'll find resources online. Since you say you have many questions, maybe it would be a good idea to find some answers (that can also help you learn more about yourself). And keep in mind that queer people aren't a monolith, you'll get different answers to the same question because we all have different experiences.

Do you want to date? Then find someone to date. But note that you do not have to prove anything. You can be 100% bisexual without having to date anyone. So I'd say if you weren't looking for a partner at the moment anyway then maybe that's not the top priority for you right now? But really, only you can know that. Also... dating and educating yourself doesn't have to be mutually exclusive 😅 you can do both.

I also just want to mention that there is no such thing as being more or less sapphic. If you're a bi woman with a preference for women then you are not more sapphic than a bi woman who has a preference for men. I'm mentioning this because you say you are "bi leaning to sapphic" and I just want to make sure there is no misconception about what "sapphic" means. There's not a spectrum where "sapphic" falls in the middle of "bi woman" and "lesbian". It's a term meant to refer to every woman attracted to women and nobody can be "more sapphic" than someone else. There is no hierarchy in that word, it's like... you cannot be a little bit pregnant. You either are or you are not.

Maddie