“I believe that Jim McGreevey is bisexual.” – Golan Cipel
It is a “he said, he said” situation, that’s for certain. Cipel says there was no encounter and McGreevey says there was over a period of time.
I have been reading McGreevey’s book and if he is lying, he is good at it.
What do you think? Cipel or McGreevey?
Timothy, I’ve no idea how you could know what Golan Cipel’s motivations are. Your suggestion that his comments on McGreveey’s sexuality are a reflection on himself is gratuitous.
Perhaps. But I do think it’s strange that he’s arguing about whether McGreevey is bisexual or gay. That’s just odd.
And I do think it seems more about him than McGreevey. Feel free to disagree.
As for the claim that bisexual men are usually just gay men who are lying to themselves, might I suggest that this view reflects the hostility of some gay men to any men not completely on their team, as it were?
Well I am sensing hostility but it isn’t from me. 🙂
Actually the joke is based on personal experience. Most gay men my age were “bisexual” (though never remotely attracted to the opposite sex) on the way to acknowleging their attractions. The social risk was lower.
I understand that’s not so much the case anymore. And I suspect that the percentage of “bisexual” men who are really bisexual has increased.
Timothy, I’ve no idea how you could know what Golan Cipel’s motivations are. Your suggestion that his comments on McGreveey’s sexuality are a reflection on himself is gratuitous.
As for the claim that bisexual men are usually just gay men who are lying to themselves, might I suggest that this view reflects the hostility of some gay men to any men not completely on their team, as it were?
Gee. Now I feel compelled to comment… and maybe six or seven times.
I don’t think either man is particularly truthful. The point that supports McGreevey over Cipel is that Cipel is going around arguing about his sexuality rather than about the fact that he has been accused of the crime of extortion. The man seems to have skewed priorities.
As to McGreevey’s orientation, it’s pretty clear that he is either wholely or significantly attracted to the same sex. And this distinction appears to be important to no one other than Cipel. Cipel seems insistent that the ex-gov be bisexual rather than gay, a distinction that he’s not qualified to make, and one that seems motivated by a reflection on himself rather than McGreevey.
The book talks at length about the McGreevey’s sexual liasons with women and of his own motivations. There is no doubt about his sexual activity with women. As to his motives, considering his record with dishonesty, I neither believe nor disbelieve his claims.
But I do think it interesting that Cipel is insistent. He could has simply said, “I didn’t know Jim was gay and I certainly never was involved with him in any sexual way”. But he seems to think McGreevey’s orientation is a reflection on him and feels that he needs to downplay McGreevey’s same-sex activities and promote his opposite sex ones.
It is this insistence that makes me suspect that Cipel is lying. It sounds too much like those who cannot admit to themselves that they are gay and so they say they are bisexual – or in this case that McGreevey is.
It reminds me of the old joke that the definition of a bisexual is a gay man on his way out of the closet. And while I don’t argue that bisexuality doesn’t exist, there is some truth to the joke.
Reframing is a beautiful thing.
Well, now see? There ya go. That’s why you’re the counsellor and I’m the humorless advocate. 🙂
Jim: Well, true but the many comments allows you to stay ahead of Kincaid in the comment standings. Just looking at the bright side…
Ya know, I come across much dumber without a “preview” button for these comments. 😉
Ah, I see. I guess I was reading the post a little too literally. But in generally, that has been my reaction to the whole McGreevel/Cipel affair (no pun intended).
I think in the end, the only person who could be qualified to comment on McGreevey’s sexuality is McGreevey. The reason I say “could be qualified” is that its fair to question exactly where McGreevey is in his self-awareness at this stage.
Don’t mean to engage in gossip, mainly looking for thoughts about the issues raised (such as you addressed re: bisexuality, and Steve and CK raised in theirs).
Cipel says “I believe that Jim McGreevy is bisexual” based largely on Greevy’s comments and actions while still trying to present a heterosexual image. Not very convincing, IMO.
I’ll leave the whole he said/he said up to them. In the end, it winds up being a little too close to idle gossip for my tastes.
With all of the dimensions of attraction (intellectual, affectional, erotic, etc.) and flavors of sexual and affectional expression, I think the only person who can identify orientation is the self. So, it’s McGreevey who has had to figure out, to whatever extent that Cipel’s claims about him hiring female sex workers are true, whether they grew from baseline desires, untreated sexual compulsion, or something else.
It wouldn’t surprise me, either, if evidence one day identifies serial bisexuality as prevalent in some men (like me) who transition from straight to gay sexual expression.
The issue of which person speaks more closely to the truth about the relationship between them is trickier. They both seem to be emerging from deeply closeted, self-shaming places. If speaking in hyperbole was also common in their earlier environments, it can be tempting to continue but with new themes.
Did McGreevey have something to gain by creating a story of an intimate relationship where none existed? Does Cipel have something to gain by denying the existence of a past physical relationship? Could truth lie in between, with both of them still working toward more integrated healing? I don’t want to guess, and it’s not mine to judge.