Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site sdcc3.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdcc3!valerie
From: valerie@sdcc3.UUCP (Valerie Polichar)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: Bisexuality Anyone?.......I'll pass.
Message-ID: <2969@sdcc3.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 19:18:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcc3.2969
Posted: Mon Aug 26 19:18:34 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 04:48:19 EDT
References: <78@decwrl.UUCP>
Reply-To: valerie@sdcc3.UUCP (Valerie Polichar)
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 21

[]

Why should bisexuality imply non-monogamousness?
It simply means that one is attracted to folk of both sexes.

A permanent partnership could just as easily be formed by a bisexual and a
person of either sex as between two heterosexual or two gay individuals.

The issue is the same, it seems to me: it shouldn't be any harder for a
bisexual to "give up [the sex not partnered with]" than it is, for
instance, for a woman to abstain from taking other female lovers in order
to maintain sexual loyalty to the woman she is partnered with.


-- 

-=< Valerie Polichar >=-		 ...sdcsvax!sdcc3!valerie

"And the Crimson Dynamo
 just couldn't cut it no more;
 you were the Law - "