Lysis, you couldn't have this more backward.
First off.... what is with this weird perception people have that if you're a guy who has sex with men and women, you're really gay, why does the homosexual experience always overrule the hetrosexual experience instead of the reverse.
And second off.... of course people should try and work out who they are, and that's exactly WHY labels are BAD.
When you try to label yourself, you take on other connotations the label bring instead of listening to your heart.
The words should be our servants but they become out masters... we follow them instead of using them to describe us.
You consider yourself straight and suddenly you become increasingly hostile to the idea that you might be gay... for ANY gay experience suddenly makes you gay and not straight. In reality, you've deprived yourself of truly coming to know who YOU are because you're trying to conform to the meaning of the labels, instead of using the labels to explain what you as a person are.
Be who you are, like I said, labels are for the benefit of other people, in this case you. They only make it harder to understand who we are, not easier.
This is completely right on, in my view.
The reality of a particular sexual orientation AS A LABEL is entirely a socio-political/cultural construct. This does not, in any way, detract from the essential truth that SOME people (although, I believe, not MOST people) will only ever be attracted to one sex (either same or opposite) throughout their lives, and can therefore be regarded as exclusively and entirely hetero or homosexual.
But, what it does emphasize is the fact that sexuality is, more often than not, relatively fluid and flexible. Sexual orientation--or, more specifically, sexuality--isn't something that we ARE as much as it is something we DO. It is society, and our contemporary culture that encourages us--nay, demands us--to self-identify and to be categorized as a type (or "species") of person (race, nation, religion, gender, sexual orientation, clique, style, scene, etc.) for the purposes of social sorting, political expediency, division of labor, targeted advertising, market efficiency, and the excercise of state power.
We are encouraged to label ourselves (or be labeled anyway, by others) as "something" preconceived and easily identifiable precisely because it makes us more governable by conventional norms and mores; and, when we do, it also makes us more willing to police our behaviors and emotions, and to reinforce our self-image and personal boundaries--and even limit our willingness to explore ourselves in different ways--based on the categorical limits implied by such labels.
Plus, I've got to ask, WTF is up with this incredibly hostile and prejudicial framing of bisexuals as either secretly closeted gays and/or commitment-phobic, promiscuous, sleazy, two-timing players? Just because some of us are perfectly willing and able to share sexual intimacy and/or form deeply involved relationships with people of either sex doesn't mean that we aren't just as capable of being and remaining commited to ONE person for the duration of the relationship. To assume otherwise speaks far more about that individual's judgements and hang ups than it does about the lived experiences, sensibilities, and ethical commitments of "most" bisexually identified people.
Also, just wanted to say that I think MGS's suggestion is totally right on. IF you feel the need for a label, go with the one he suggests. Or, my personally favored version of that label, which is "sexually ambivalent" (someone else I know suggested "sexually diversified" as an alternative, as well).
Regardless, have fun loving all different kinds of people, and the more you can enjoy yourself as you are, the more you can share that enjoyment with others.
Cheers!
