This article in Details is a bit of a head scratcher: What If You Only Thought You Were Gay? Perhaps the author has recently arrived from the nineteenth century. The early nineteenth century. Or an alternate universe. The concept of bisexuality (not to mention polymorphous perversity) seems to have passed her by.
Or perhaps bisexuals have availed themselves of the latest invisibility technology. (For a truly interesting conversation about invisibility, visit Kelley’s blog, and do read the comments.)
Nicola Griffith 
Bisexuals are a figment of their own imagination!I don’t understand that Details article. It doesn’t even make any sense to me. I think this is a perfect example of why I don’t read much about sexuality in the media. There are so many subtleties, not to mention identity politics, that a brief article can’t do a topic like this justice.
I know. Totally head-scratching. I don’t see the point of this at all. I wonder if it was a longer article that got hacked to bits by the editor? (I’ve seen that happen.)Like you, I don’t usually bother with such things but for some reason this one really struck me.
I think that’s a fair assumption, although it does make me wonder what the author’s original intent was.
Who can tell? Perhaps <>Details<> are trying to create some kind of media niche: reverse polarity gays. I dunno.
I think this article is just a hoot and a half. It’s been a while since I read anything so dunderheaded *and* so… I dunno, culturally dated. It’s masquerading as all 21st-century hip with its talk of hooking up and gay sex, but it’s straight out of the 50’s. A binary take on a full-spectrum world. I just want to take the writer out for a glass of wine and bring her up to date….
Make sure she pays…