|
Columns
Video
Currently Recapping
Popular People
|
Lesbians Are Bisexual Part II: The ExplanationWOW!!!!!!!!! 90 replies in less than 12 hours LOL. Damn!! Ok, so I've been called a gay man, a misogynist gay man, a straight man, a misogynist straight man, a homophobic bi woman, a homophobic straight woman, a troll and probably some other things too, but you are all wrong. I am a 28 year old lesbian. It's not because a woman is a lesbian that she has to accept what other lesbians do. The lesbian community is not immune to criticism just because we are a minority. Black people can criticise other black people. Women can criticise other women. Gay men can criticise other gay men etc. Now, I did not write this post to offend. I did not use abusive language, graphic language yes, but not abusive. I also didn't call anyone any names. The reason you are all so angry is because lesbians don't like to talk about this subject. It's very taboo. It makes us all very uncomfortable. It made me very uncomfortable for a loooonng time but now I'm just being honest. You can call me whatever you want, but I'm not a troll. I'm just telling the truth and you all know it's the truth even though you don't want to admit it. Many of you have said in your replies that I'm wrong and completely crazy for saying these things. Well here are a few links that might change your mind: http://www.lesbilicious.co.uk/community/why-do-lesbians-love-gay-man-porn/ http://www.afterelton.com/node/22359 (Well well well, the girls of afterellen are talking about gay porn? Hmmm...)
http://gracethespot.com/?p=336 http://gracethespot.com/?p=305 (That blog is funny and talks about the excuses lesbians make about their attraction to men)
http://www.afterellen.com/node/29429 (Interesting quote from Dr. Diamond: "Similarly, two thirds of the lesbian women in Study A reported experiencing periodic attractions to men". Wow, two thirds of lesbians??? That doesn't leave a lot real lesbians out there. http://nymag.com/nymetro/nightlife/sex/columns/nakedcity/n_8301/
Also read the book "The Female Brain" by Dr. Louann Brizendine. It's a very recent book like 2007 or 2008 and there's a section on lesbians where if I remember correctly, she says that atleast 50% of lesbians enjoy sleeping with men. There's also the book "The Lesbian Sex Book or Guide (not sure)" which talks about how many lesbians get more sexual gratification from sex with men and also fantasize about men. There's much more research out there and many more books on lesbians attraction to men and hasbians. But then again, all you have to do is open your eyes to see what's going on. When I was younger and just out of the closet, I felt the exact same way as many of you. It was all about denial. Everytime I heard about a lesbian leaving her girlfriend for a man or sleeping with a man, I would say "Ohh well she was just bisexual to begin or she's trying to be straight to please society etc." Or when I heard about Joann Loulan, Anne Heche, Sinead O'Connor and Julie Cypher all leaving their girlfriends for men, again, I didn't want to think about it. To me, they were all stupid straight girls who had used their lesbianism for popularity. But then as the years went by I realized like Dr. Lisa Diamond says in her research, that for lesbians, attraction to men is the norm, not the exception. The only difference is that it's all a big secret. Lesbians are ashamed of this and rightfully so, because it shows that they need a man even if it's only occasionally and they've spent their lives telling society that they don't need men. I understand the shame and the discomfort with this. I totally get it, but it's still the truth. The reason I mentioned gay men is that I do believe they are much more gay than lesbians are. They make much more sense to me (No, I promise, I am not a gay man!!!). They don't get turned on by lesbian sex because of the women in it. The female body does not turn them on. Dicks, balls, sperm, cock-sucking, men's bodies turn them on so they like gay porn. Makes perfect sense to me! I've also never met a gay man who fantasizes about sex with women. I'm sure they exist but it's not common like it is for lesbians to fantasize about sex with men. I just don't understand lesbians for the most part and that's why I'm being honest about my feelings.
Submitted by sweetvanilla (12 posts) on February 11, 2009 - 10:10am. |
Recent blog posts
New forum topicsActive TopicsNew Comments
|
Welcome to AfterEllen.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Lesbian and Bisexual women in Entertainment and the Media
Hey!
I'm a Libra.
And I owned two pairs of converse.....well...some time ago.
And I'm completely obsessed with XWP!
Did I qualify? Can I have my toaster now? Please?
Please?
No?
Still a bad lesbian?
ok :(
*sniff*
Stop calling her a troll
Neg base. Cannot comply.
What's the point in giving respect to someone who is obviously unwilling to give respect to others? There's simply no profit in that.
"Si vis pacem, para bellum."
Repressed heterosexual feelings?
"repressed heterosexual feelings"? Can somebody shed a light on this? Why would anybody want to repress their heterosexual feelings?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I believe that I will be with one person for the rest of my life, but that person will be a woman." Luce-Imagine Me&You
Well....
Well that's easy... because you're a better person than they are. If someone broke my favorite stuffed animal just to get a rise out of me, no one could really blame me for lashing back and breaking something of theirs. I'm only human, after all. But it shows true maturity when you can treat someone with respect who does not have the decency to do the same for you, and shows that you are truly the better person. Not that anyone can blame you for not doing so, of course. ;)
Just because sweetvanilla may have posted this to get a rise out of us doesn't mean we have to respond by treating her nastily; instead, I think perhaps in between all the angry comments a genuinely thoughtful and meaningful discussion MAY have started to take place here. Just because something was started with bad intentions doesn't mean you have to continue to allow it to be so. It's all up to us where we lead this discussion, regardless of the OP's intention, and I for one think it's kind of interesting getting to see the internal turmoil within the lesbian community over issues of authenticity and bisexuality. It might not be pretty but certainly deserves to be addressed.
Proving you're the better person...
...will not help you much if you allow yourself to become a victim. There are simply some people out there who care a fuck if you're the better person or not. They will laugh in your face and kick you, no matter what.
If you allow someone to slap you without retaliating for it, you invite them to do it again. And the next time it will most probably be worse. Again, where's the profit in that?
And methinks some people did have thought- and meaningful discussions here, didn't they?
For the last time: People did not respond because they felt a need to validate the authenticity of their sexuality, but because someone invaded their space and offended them. Sometimes a spoon is just that, a spoon.
---------------------------------------------------------
"Reason obeys itself. Ignorance submits to what is dictated to it." - Thomas Paine
Enough hating!
Enough hating, here's a kitten to cheer you up!
---------
Stay warm this winter. Date a swede.
Q: What is the name of the angel in my avatar?
I applaud whoever you are
I applaud whoever you are for writing this post because its good that people are talking about the 'un talked' about and I don't think people should take it as an attack but I do think your tendency to write as if this is a question of black and white 'fact' is a bit irritating. I haven't read all the comments cause there are so many but this is my two cents.
There seems to be a lot of focus on sex here. Obviously sexual attraction is a big part of sexuality but I think its the fact that sexuality is multi-faceted which creates the differences of opinion that arise in a discussion like this. To me there are social, emotional, political and sexual facets of sexuality. "Do you have to left cold by men sexually to be 100% gay?" No "If you're turned on by gay male or straight porn does that mean your bi?" I don't think so because politically, emotionally, socially you may be turned right off men. "Does that mean that you choose to be a lesbian whilst those that are disgusted sexually by men don't choose? I don't think so because the social, emotional, political facets of sexuality I'm sure are just as powerful a turn-off for some women.
Personally I was with a man for a long time before I came out as a lesbian and I am sexually, politically, socially and emotionally not attracted to men but if I felt I didn't tick all those boxes (which many lesbians probably don't) it wouldn't make me any less gay if that is how I identify. In other words, the whole premise of this post that lesbians are all bi because they are attracted to men is ridiculous because even if that was a fact, which its not, lots of us would still be as gay as ever.
The world is full of black and white, the gay community is supposed to be where all the colours are. I won't fight labels because they are a fact of life but there is no tick the boxes to prove you're a lesbian questionaire and I don't think we should create one.
...
Labels tend to confuse. There was, believe it or not, a period of time before the rather limiting terms of 'gay', 'lesbian', 'bisexual', 'LGBT', 'homosexual' and so on, were created. I really don't see the point in arguing about all this. We're practically all in the same boat fighting against rigid definitions of sexuality. Whether or not one is straight, lesbian, bisexual, gay...it doesn't really matter. What matters is one day the social system that has created these labels and attached a stigma to them will be transformed.
_______________________________________________
horny potter and the philosopher's daughter
My Identity, my label
Lesbians aren't bisexual. If I think a guy is attractive, I'm secure enough in my own sexuality to realize that doesn't make me not gay.
The amount or significance of attraction is the distinction between lesbian and bisexual. Whatever attraction I've felt towards men is neither frequent nor significant enough that I could have a fufilling romantic and sexual relationship with a man.
I identify as gay, and that's my identity to define, not anyone else's. I know myself. When I realized I was gay, I knew it like a truth, a fact. And oddly enough, that realization came about because I realized I wasn't that attracted to men. But I always knew I was attracted to women.
contradiction
I am a 28 year old lesbian.
And this is why you completely refute your whole point of this discussion. After you said that, your arguement would have been fair ( true, *Some* Lesbians like gay porn, just like gay men enjoy cross dressing and generally feminine behavior. Not all of lesbians and gays enjoy it, ofcourse) But when you said That you're a Lesbian in your post, you completely contradict your statements. Hypocrite.
Reply to Proud 2B Bi.
I think I'm starting to see the problem.
As reference:
From Merriam-Webster Online (Sorry for the crappy formating, but TinyMCE is playing games again.)
You're talking a lot about relationships, 2B. Here's the point: Relationships don't have a sexuality, people have.
Heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, omnisexual, pansexual and whatever other terms are floating around out there, all these words end on -sexual, not on -emotional, -affectional, -romantical, -leaning, -loving or anything else like that. All these words are intended to describe the sexuality of a single human being, not the relationship status between partners. And if we are talking about sexuality, we are talking about a rather easy question: Who do you feel sexually attracted to/enjoy having sex with? The answer to this question determines which of the available labels fits your sexuality.
Two straight women can be in a relationship together, maybe even for nearly all their lives, without ever having sex with each other, because they don't sexually desire each other, they are not sexually attracted to each other. Call them soulmates, or simply friends, or whatever. And the feelings they have for each other are probably best described as a platonic love. Whatever reasons they might have to prefer their relationship over being in a relationship with a male partner, they are still heterosexual, not homosexual, and therefore they are neither lesbian, nor lesbians.
If someone is a 4 or 5 on the scale, this person is bisexual. Period. Not my definition, Kinsey's definition. And why should a person who is a clear cut 0 or 6 on the scale describe him-/herself as bisexual as a matter of principle? I would really be interested to see how many people are doing this. I'm going to quote a former AE member, because I think her post hits the nail on the head.
Actually, I spoke in haste! The kinsey scale in this thread really clarifies matters!
If we would use this scale and we go out from the presumption that all people in all categories are referring to sex they enjoy!
Then the original supposition of this thread is someone asking;
If I am a 0, 1, 2 ,3 ,4 or 5..can I still call myself a 6?
I think the answer immediately becomes very clear!
Damn, AkiestaMarina! Where were you 9 pages ago? :)
"call me old fashioned but I prefer feminism that leaves a little something to the imagination!"
If bisexual men and women continue to label themselves according to whom they are in a relationship with, they are doing themselves a disservice. This way they will never be able to fight the image of being sexual "flip-floppers" and people who are unable to decide where they want to "fit in".
I would ask Mrs. Cornwall if she was sexually attracted to her husband and enjoyed having sex with him, if it gave her sexual pleasure. If the answer would be "yes", I wold label her bisexual. If she explained that she is sexually attracted to and enjoys having sex with women only, but fell in love with and married her husband for reasons not related to sexual attraction and desire, I would not object to her calling herself a lesbian.
You're the porn expert here, so I will leave it to you to figure this out. I cannot answer why some women who identify as lesbians enjoy watching male gay porn because it doesn't do anything for me. And the few lesbians I know who do enjoy it were not able to explain to me why they enjoy it. I think they simply don't know it themselves.
Thx for the link. This is interesting. I wasn't aware people were using the word "lesbian" in this way already at that time. But I still wonder how far spread the usage of the word in this context was. And I don't really see how it changes the argument.
---------------------------------------------------------
"Reason obeys itself. Ignorance submits to what is dictated to it." - Thomas Paine
We need -emotional labels then!
But now look, see how many people are not satisfied with that? Why? Because sex is not all we as humans care about. I'd like to think we've moved beyond that to a degree. We care about connecting on an emotional level too, and our "emotional orientation," as you could put it, is something that should be able to be identifiable as well. It is why so many people mislabel themselves as lesbian and are not happy being labeled as bisexual, because they are only emotionally attracted to and want to DATE the same gender, even if they can imagine banging both. Soo.... if sexual orientation is going to refer exclusively to sex, why don't we just adopt new labels to append with our emotional preference as well? It'd solve a lot of identity problems, I think. -sexual could show who you are attracted to sexually, and -emotional could show who you are attracted to emotionally. Like so.... (I've divided it up into categories of "who this person is likely to date," assuming for most people (but obviously not everyone) having both an emotional and sexual connection is the best kind of relationship):
probably lead to heterosexual relationships:
heterosexual heteroemotional
heterosexual biemotional
bisexual heteroemotional
probably lead to homosexual relationships:
bisexual homoemotional
homosexual biemotional
homosexual homoemotional
ones that could go either way:
bisexual biemotional
poor suckers who have it the absolute hardest in our monogamous society:
heterosexual homoemotional
homosexual heteroemotional
Bisexual heteroemotional and bisexual homoemotional still give you the label of "bi," even though you probably will only really have serious relationships with one gender. That is why I think this term used exclusively by itself is misleading. And once you see how this leads to NINE possibilities, doesn't the mere 3 labels we have suddenly seem insufficient to describe sexual AND emotional attraction? Because this IS important to a lot of people. Not everyone wants to be labeled ENTIRELY on who they want to bang... they might care more about the emotional aspect, or weigh both equally. But in the current labeling system, they have no way to describe this.
I dunno, I think labels such as these could work for people who wish to adopt them and are not satisfied purely with "homosexual," "bisexual," and "heterosexual." In fact, people could JUST choose to label themselves on the -emotional label, if that's more important to them. Or just the -sexual label. Or use both. It'd give them the CHOICE. But maybe that's just me. I'm probably crazy anyway, right? ;)
Ditto
But now look, see how many people are not satisfied with that? Why? Because sex is not all we as humans care about. I'd like to think we've moved beyond that to a degree. We care about connecting on an emotional level too, and our "emotional orientation," as you could put it, is something that should be able to be identifiable as well. It is why so many people mislabel themselves as lesbian and are not happy being labeled as bisexual, because they are only emotionally attracted to and want to DATE the same gender, even if they can imagine banging both. Soo.... if sexual orientation is going to refer exclusively to sex, why don't we just adopt new labels to append with our emotional preference as well? It'd solve a lot of identity problems, I think. -sexual could show who you are attracted to sexually, and -emotional could show who you are attracted to emotionally. Like so.... (I've divided it up into categories of "who this person is likely to date," assuming for most people (but obviously not everyone) having both an emotional and sexual connection is the best kind of relationship):
probably lead to heterosexual relationships:
heterosexual heteroemotional
heterosexual biemotional
bisexual heteroemotional
probably lead to homosexual relationships:
bisexual homoemotional
homosexual biemotional
homosexual homoemotional
ones that could go either way:
bisexual biemotional
poor suckers who have it the absolute hardest in our monogamous society:
heterosexual homoemotional
homosexual heteroemotional
Bisexual heteroemotional and bisexual homoemotional still give you the label of "bi," even though you probably will only really have serious relationships with one gender. That is why I think this term used exclusively by itself is misleading. And once you see how this leads to NINE possibilities, doesn't the mere 3 labels we have suddenly seem insufficient to describe sexual AND emotional attraction? Because this IS important to a lot of people. Not everyone wants to be labeled ENTIRELY on who they want to bang... they might care more about the emotional aspect, or weigh both equally. But in the current labeling system, they have no way to describe this.
I dunno, I think labels such as these could work for people who wish to adopt them and are not satisfied purely with "homosexual," "bisexual," and "heterosexual." In fact, people could JUST choose to label themselves on the -emotional label, if that's more important to them. Or just the -sexual label. Or use both. It'd give them the CHOICE. But maybe that's just me. I'm probably crazy anyway, right? ;)
I've used these bi, homo, hetero emotional words on the AE forums fairly often in the past.
Bi-amorous, hetero-amorous , homo-amorous as well.
And I really don't see why a woman who enjoys sex with men sometimes who is bisexual homoemotional absolutely should not identify as lesbian - or as a bisexual lesbian. Sorry Tia I really do not.
You can enjoy sex with a vibrator - it doesn't mean you want to marry a vibrator.
Who ever said relationships are only about sex?
I definitely didn't.
The fact that the lables we are discussing about were never intended to describe anything else than the sexual orientation of individuals, not the emotional complexity of human relationships, is not my shortcoming. I'm just reminding people of this fact.
Personally I prefer people describing their relationships and the reasons why they are in a relationship with/in love with their partner(s), instead of introducing new labels which will only add to the confusion. But if people think additional labels are helpful for them, then more power to them. Just make sure the definitions are clear. And there are definitely more than 3 lables out there. Spend some time on Wikipedia's LGBT portal, and you will see there's an enormous multitude of labels available. And it seems at least one new label is added every week.
2B, she should not call herself lesbian because lesbian is defined as homosexual woman (a 6 on the scale). If the woman in question is bisexual then this definition obviously doesn't fit her. If she chooses to identify as a bisexual and homoemotional/-romatic/-amorous/-phile/-loving or whatever woman, then I don't have a problem with it at all (but please, not bisexual lesbian, because that's an oxymoron again). But if she just uses the word lesbian, without further specification, then she is mislabeling herself in terms of sexuality. I can run around calling myself a person of colour, although I am obviously not one. I wonder what people of colour would think about it. They might get the impression I'm trying to mock them and their identity. And they might get pissed about it.
Yeah, I thought about marrying my vibrator. But I came to the conclusion it would be a pretty boring relationship in many aspects. And since I care a fuck about marriage anyway.....
---------------------------------------------------------
"Reason obeys itself. Ignorance submits to what is dictated to it." - Thomas Paine
Are you a perosn without colour then Tia?
Do you know that some "black" people call "white" people "reds" and/or "pinkies". Are you aware that many "black" people strongly object to being called coloureds and consider it racist precisely because every damned human on the planet has a skin colour?
Some black people will tell you they see white people as more coloured than black people because "whites" have a greater variation in hair and eye colour than they do.
And anyway the phrase "person of colour" is obviously inclusive of biracial and other obviously mixed race persons is it not?
If you want to demand that only women who are exclusively homosexual, or least have never remotely enjoyed the sexual experiences they have had with men, should identify as lesbian I hope you are ready to see the visible lesbian identified community reduced to a very tiny minority. Because if you insist on such a rigid and purist definition of what a lesbian woman is I'm pretty certain you will not only have to remove Patricia Cornwall from the list of famous lesbians, you will have to remove the likes of Martina Navratilova, Melissa Etheridge, and Ellen DeGeneres as well. To name but a few.
Am I a person without colour?
Not if you consider white a colour, my dear. :)
I'll leave it to you to discuss with people of colour if they find this term offensive or racist, and if they would consider me a person of colour.
So we have come full circle, haven't we? There's a reason I asked you if you want to jump on sweetvanilla's bandwagon. I think we have the answer to this question now. And again I'm asking you to provide the raw data to prove your assumption. But if you have the time and inclination to do so, feel free to conduct a survey here on AE and see what comes out of it.
And now I'm not going to waste any more time with running around in circles.
---------------------------------------------------------
"Reason obeys itself. Ignorance submits to what is dictated to it." - Thomas Paine
Ho hum
Not if you consider white a colour, my dear. :)
I put it to you that "white" is your racial identity Tia. It is not actually your skin colour.
Women who are 5's on the Kinsey scale like the lesbian celebrities I mentioned previously are unlikely to experience a life that is significantly bisexual as opposed to a life that is significantly lesbian. If a woman is mostly lesbian she has the right to identify as lesbian and still admit that she is bisexual to some degree - as I see it. But if she wants to identify as bi that's fine by me also.
OK. You lured me back.
Seems I'm unable not to respond to illogical arguments.
Completely besides my point. If I enter a group or community of people, whose ethnic background and skin colour are different from my own, and then declare myself one of them, they will simply not believe me and wonder what my intention is.
It appears so. Seems some people have a strong interest in declaring everyone bisexual. And since the meaning of "gay" has become rather blurry during the last two decades, they are now focusing on redefining "lesbian", the only cock-free bastion on this planet. And I find it interesting that there are two people who want to convince us that "most lesbians are bisexual", and both of them don't find it necessary to state their gender in their profile. It has a certain smell to it.
What assumption? How about this one: "So yes, a lot of lesbian identified women are in fact bisexual. Hence the need for the expression "Gold Star Lesbian"." - Proud 2B Bi
"Because if you insist on such a rigid and purist definition of what a lesbian woman is I'm pretty certain you will not only have to remove Patricia Cornwall from the list of famous lesbians, you will have to remove the likes of Martina Navratilova, Melissa Etheridge, and Ellen DeGeneres as well."
You call it rigid and purist, I call it logical.
You are pretty certain? Or are you certain? Or do you know it? Did you ever have an intimate conversation with any of these women in which they told you if they were ever sexually attracted to men, if they ever wanted to have sex with a man; and if they had sex with a man, why they had sex with him, and whether they really enjoyed having sex with him, or if they just thought they enjoyed it back then because they tried to trick themselves into thinking this, because they thought enjoying sex with a man is what is expected from them? Navratilova, Etheridge, DeGeneres, I don't remember any of them ever being in a commited relationship with a man, and I don't remember any of them ever describing themselves as a 5. If they did, then please quote them.
So now not only relationships have a sexuality, lifes have one, too? This is getting better and better.
There is no such thing as being partly or mostly lesbian. Again, lesbian: a homosexual woman. Not "predominantly homosexual and only incidently heterosexual", because this still means bisexual. Also not "a woman who's in a sexual and/or romantical relationship with another woman". You are either homosexual, meaning exclusively attracted to the same sex, or you are not. And this means you are either lesbian, or you are not.
---------------------------------------------------------
"Reason obeys itself. Ignorance submits to what is dictated to it." - Thomas Paine
Proud 2 B Bi
Proud wrote
If you want to demand that only women who are exclusively homosexual, or least have never remotely enjoyed the sexual experiences they have had with men, should identify as lesbian I hope you are ready to see the visible lesbian identified community reduced to a very tiny minority. Because if you insist on such a rigid and purist definition of what a lesbian woman is I'm pretty certain you will not only have to remove Patricia Cornwall from the list of famous lesbians, you will have to remove the likes of Martina Navratilova, Melissa Etheridge, and Ellen DeGeneres as well. To name but a few.
If we need to get that specific than go with the gold star label.
Don't we all have the right to decide what fits ourselves the best. I grew up where gender identified social constructs dictated that girls date boys grow up get married to a man and have children. Things are changing. Have I dated men in the past yes, will I ever be with a man no. I identify as a lesbian, and I sleep pretty well at night.
A try to clear this up a bit.
Gold Star Lesbian: A lesbian who never had sex with a man in her whole life so far.
Obviously most lesbians are not Gold Stars. But there is a difference. Some women needed some time to figure out their sexuality and accept it. And while they were on this journey of self discovery, they did what they had been taught do to, what their social environment expected them to do as women. But right from the beginning they always felt that it is wrong, and they never enjoyed it, probably thinking "What is wrong with me? Why do I not enjoy this as the other women around me do?". Once they realize, in their coming out process, that they are homosexual, hence lesbian, and are able to accept this fact and find the strength to not hide it from the world, they don't feel any urge and don't have any interest any longer to have sex with men. And if they thought they wanted to have sex with men in the past, they now realize that this "desire" was pushed onto them by the heteronormative society around them, that they were conditioned as children to think this way. Once they have found their true selves it is rather easy for them to break this conditioning.
But there are also women who call themselves "lesbians" while at the same time still being sexually attracted to men and interested, or at least not reluctant, to have sex with them. The presumption being thrown at us in this thread is that most women who identify as lesbian belong to the second group, but are not willing to admit it.
"Don't we all have the right to decide what fits ourselves the best."
What do you mean by that? That we all have the right to decide which sexuality fits us? This would mean that sexual orientation is a choice. Did you ever consciously choose who you are sexually attracted to? Or do you mean that we all have the right to label ourselves as we choose? Then let me remind you that no one of us has a copyright to these labels. Words have power. If you want to talk about something you have to give it a name first. If it doesn't have a name, you can't talk about it. If you can't talk about it, it will be invisible. If it's invisible, people won't care about it. But if you want to give something a name, you need to come up with a word and then define what it means. There has to be an authority which provides the commonly accepted definition of the word. The only authority I see is the dictionary. If anyone can define the meaning of a word by themselves, the meaning of the word will become arbitrary, making the word useless. And the dictionary definition of lesbian is clear cut: A homosexual woman. I'm sexually exclusively attracted to women. I only have sex with women. I only enjoy sex with women. But of course I can still call myself straight or bi if I want to. The question is: Does it make sense? When will the day come when any woman who ever ended up in a drunken make-out session with another woman and liked it will be allowed to call herself a lesbian?
Let me also remind you that the identities some people are so adamantly trying to deconstruct have been very useful during the last four decades in securing more freedom and rights for the members of the LGBT communities in many countries. I think it's dangerous to allow people to flush these identities down the toilet by proclaiming that "everyone is bisexual".
---------------------------------------------------------
"Reason obeys itself. Ignorance submits to what is dictated to it." - Thomas Paine
YOU'RE CRAZY!!! haha,
YOU'RE CRAZY!!! haha, no
That's actually a very smart, clever idea. Thanks!! I was actually just responding to the OP's way of thinking how she decides to label her(it?)self.
Reply to Tia
Is it a problem that words can have different shades of meaning? Is it a problem that language is flexible and organic and that a combination of words can be used to describe a person's complex characteristics. Is it a problem that words that contradict each other to a greater or lesser degree can be used very effectively in combination to convey a very clear meaning.
E.G. " Daffyd is the straightest gay I've ever met."
You're talking a lot about relationships, 2B. Here's the point: Relationships don't have a sexuality, people have.
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual; bisexual.
If 4's and 5's are bisexual as well:
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
then logically so are:
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
Bisexual
That is assuming that we are just talking about 1,2,3,4,5's who enjoy their homosexual and heterosexual activities.
Why shouldn't a person who is a 0 or 6 possibly describe him-/herself as bisexual as a matter of principle?
Sting (Gordon Sumner) has said "It's very simple. Everybody's bisexual." - I don't think that means he's ever had sex with a man. However his wife Trudie Styler has had sex with women.
I agree. However describing yourself as bi in a lesbian relationship (for example) is not labeling oneself according to whom you are in a relationship with. In fact it's doing the complete opposite. It's challenging the widely held assumption that women in same sex (sexual) relationships automatically identify as lesbians.
And what if she told you that she enjoyed most of the sex she had with her husband, but not nearly as much as most of the sex she has had with women since?
Presuming that you have had sex with several people haven't you found that it is more enjoyable with some partners than others? Is it inconceivable to you that there might just be one or two people in the world (even though they are not women) that you might possibly enjoy some sort of sex with - at least to some extent -Tia?
I see it this way. Ultimately a person's sexuality is their own. Sexuality is an individual thing not a corporate entity. People, including lesbians, are very diverse and multifaceted sexually. What turns one lesbian on will leave another cold.
Some people (even some male people apparently) are not turned on at all by any sort of porn. That doesn't mean they are asexual.
It may or may not change the argument. However it proves my point from my point of view.
*rolls up sleeves* (copyright by zee2)
" Daffyd is the straightest gay I've ever met."
His mannerism and lifestyle might very much resemble those of many straight men, but this doesn't change the fact that he's homosexual. Your little contradiction doesn't change the sexuality of this person. He cannot be heterosexual (exclusively attracted to the opposite sex) and homosexual (exclusively attracted to the same sex) at the same time.
The problem is that you try to force a sexuality label onto relationships. Let's put your system to the test. If a bisexual woman enters into a V relationship with a straight man and a lesbian, then how would you describe this relationship? Is it het, bi or homo? Or does it depend which partner you are talking to? What if the straight guy and the lesbian have an emotional/affectional/romatical relationship but not a sexual one? Let's change it into a triangle between two bi-women and a bi-man. Is it a bisexual relationship now because all partners involved are bisexual? Or is it heterosexual because there are two heterosexual connections, but only one homosexual one? Or is it homosexual because there are two partners of the same-sex, but only one of the opposite-sex? And what happens to the minority part of the relationship? Do we just sweep it under the carpet? What happens if we add additional partners and connections to the relationship, or if we bring in the good old let's-make-it-complicated-joker gender identity? Methinks your system is pretty limited.
Straight/bisexual/gay/lesbian culture? Such expressions don't describe anyone's sexuality. They're nothing more than semantic devices used by people to attach stereotypes to them.
If I remember correctly it was Kinsey who brought this idea into the world that most people (or maybe even all) are bisexual. I wonder how he could have come up with this presumption if he considered only those bisexual who identified as a 3 on his scale.
Why should I care what Sting says? I don't even like his music. I would be more interested to know if you agree with him. And good luck trying to find straights, gays and lesbians who are willing to describe themselves as bisexual as a matter of principle.
Hmm, aren't you the one who's trying to encourage them to identify as lesbians? I remember someone saying "a woman can be lesbian without being a lesbian". If they would simply identify as bisexual and in a same-sex relationship, it would be very easy to reach common ground here. Heck, I'm even willing to accept if they say they're in a "lesbian" relationship (although I will roll my eyes internally) as long as they don't call themselves lesbian.
I would ask her if she is interested in ever having sex with or entering into a relationship with a man again. If the answer would be "No", I would hand over her membership card. If the answer would be "Yes" or "I don't know.", sorry, no card and no lesbian label. I think that Cornwell was attracted to her husband primarily on an intellectual level. Seems she admired him, looked up to him in this respect. This might be the reason she married him, and it might also be the reason their marriage didn't last. But that's just speculation. Only she knows.
Sort of sex? The possibilities of how human beings can have sex with each other, or, more precisely, physically stimulate each other, are pretty limited. It's much more important who you have sex with, which is exactly what we're talking about, isn't it? And if it's only one or two people in the world, then the probability to actually meet them goes radically against zero. So why even bother? It's even easier for me. The probability for me to meet a man I would enjoy having sex with is simply plain zero.
Are you really sure this article proves your point? The only thing it proves is that the word "lesbian" was used in reference to female homosexuality earlier than the dating in dictionaries indicated for some time.
"In Western cultures, women-loving-women have been called ‘lesbians’ and sometimes ‘Sapphists’ for hundreds of years. These are generic terms for ‘female homosexual’ rather than for specific sexual acts or even sex/gender roles."
"But there are also many words, like lesbian and sapphist, that are linked to orientation and gender object choice (i.e. homosexual orientation)..."
---------------------------------------------------------
"Reason obeys itself. Ignorance submits to what is dictated to it." - Thomas Paine
Here we go again then ...
Actually this is the Daffyd to whom I was referring Tia :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4zx1ZX8GW4
& I haven't actually "met" him of course - just a few people he reminds me of.
Force?
I feel that I'm doing no such thing. Why imply that I am doing anything that is even remotely unusual?. Describing relationships as heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, gay etc. is a widespread practice and perfectly acceptable, and meaningful, to most people to the best of my knowledge - including most LGBT people.
A "V relationship"? I've not come across that expression before and neither it seems has google. However methinks I may have an inkling of what it is that you might mean.
Okay. "My" system is pretty limited is it?
A straight guy and a lesbian in a non-sexual romantical relationship? My mind boggles rather.
Anyway, the answer to your question is that this is a polyamorous relationship in which the bisexual woman is simultaneously in a heterosexual relationship with the man and a homosexual relationship with the lesbian, and that the lesbian and the straight guy have a very friendly relationship - and they'd sure need to be friends under these circumstances.
This is a polyamorous relationship as well - that is assuming that all concerned are agreed upon it and no one is cheating on anyone else.
There are all sorts of polyamorous relationships. Some have a bisexual dimension others do not. And just because all three people concerned in this polyamorous relationship are all bisexual it doesn't necessarily follow that they all have sex with each other. The sexual relationships and non-sexual relationships between these three people could still possibly be arranged exactly the same way as the polyamorous relationship between the bi woman, the straight guy and the lesbian in the previously mentioned polyamorous relationship.
Such expressions describe the culture of people who share a certain type, or types, of sexuality in common.
Well that's how it seems to me.
No he didn't actually. That was Sigmund Freud. Sort of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innate_bisexuality
He made no such presumption at all.
Kinsey first published his scale in his book " Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" in 1948. And then again in "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" in 1953.
Introducing his scale in "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" Kinsey wrote:
" Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.
While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history... An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life.... A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist."
So the scale indicates the varying degrees of bisexuality that lie between the exclusively heterosexual and the exclusively homosexual:
0 Exclusively heterosexual
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual; bisexual.
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual
Kinsey also had an additional grade, listed as "X" for asexual people who, as they were considered non-sexual, didn't fit in anywhere on the sexuality scale.
If the scale is applied only to sexual experience that is enjoyed then you still get many people who fit in somewhere along the continuum as well as at the two ends.
I believe that it is reasonable to expect people who are 2, 3 and 4's to identify as bisexual because they have enjoyed significant amounts of hetero and homo sexual experience and activity.
I also think that it is unreasonable to expect 1's and 5's to identify as bisexual if they do not feel that label adequately describes them. However it is not illogical for them to be described as bisexual to a certain degree.
I appreciate that Kinsey's scale may be close to anathema to you in its use of terminology because you seem to have serious issues with the notion that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not necessarily exclusive and that an individual person can be part homosexual and part heterosexual. What you seriously should consider however is, that while there is such a thing as exclusive heterosexuality and such a thing as exclusive homosexuality and that although some people may be reasonable described as entirely bisexual, there can be no such thing as exclusive bisexuality. Bisexuality is by its very nature inclusive.
And no I don't agree with him, but I do have some sympathy with his apparent principles.
Thanks for wishing me luck.But I'm not particularly interested in finding people who may possibly only identify as bisexual simply as a matter of principle. I'm content to believe they may exist
No, I'm not the one who's trying to encourage "them" to identify as lesbians. I did not say that a woman who is being lesbian necessarily identifies as a lesbian.That was my point - that being lesbian and being a lesbian are not quite the same thing.
It seems that "same-sex relationship" may be an acceptable and meaningful expression to you for describing a sexual relationship between two people. But what precisely do you think is the difference between a same-sex relationship and a homosexual relationship in practical terms? The expression same-sex relationship surely mainly serves the purpose of indicating the possibility or reality that one or both the people in a same-sex relationship may not identify as lesbian/gay or homosexual? I do not see how it indicates that the relationship itself is not a homosexual one.
Although of course you have your serious issue with describing relationships as homosexual, lesbian, gay, heterosexual etc. Tia.
I take it you don't have an issue with describing a relationship as sexual? You don't appear to have an issue with describing relationships as emotional, affectional, or romantical - so why not sexual?
And if sexual, why not heterosexual or homosexual or straight, gay or lesbian?
I appreciate that you as an exclusively homosexual person can embrace the concept of exclusive homosexuality and reject the notion of partial homosexuality mixed with partial heterosexuality if you wish. You could also deny the existence of bisexuality altogether as well if you really wish Denying the existence of things that interfere with our concepts is one way to deal with such things. But I appreciate that you do not deny bisexuality.
I can only ask you to appreciate that I as a bisexual person cannot embrace the concept of exclusive bisexuality. As far as I'm concerned I have heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Describing my sexual relationships as bisexual relationships because I'm bisexual serves little or no practical purpose on some very fundamental levels. My heterosexual and homosexual relationships share much in common but are also distinctly different in some crucial ways.
For example in a homosexual relationship I do not need to consider birth control - there is no possibility of getting pregnant other than deliberately resorting to some form of artificial insemination.
You issue lesbian club membership cards do you? :)
Oooo. Doubtless not a few bisexual women could find themselves consumed with the desire to possess such an exclusive card and go to any lengths and say anything to obtain one. Especially if she fancies you rotten and has been given the impression that joining the lesbian club is what she needs to do to get off with you. Or at least the impression that there's not that much chance of a serious relationship with you if she hasn't got her lesbian club card.
Yes, only she knows. And God knows why she would risk ridicule by identifying herself as a lesbian who not only married a man but honestly fell in love with him as well if she didn't honestly feel that's what happened.
Are "pretty limited"?
Er, well really I do not concur. Or to put it another way, people dress sex up in many different ways and enjoy certain types of sexual activity and certain methods of stimulation and not others.
Forgive me but I'm going to get fairly graphic now. & Please Note I AM NOT SAYING YOU MIGHT ENJOY THE THINGS THESE WOMEN DO
Example 1.
A young woman who identifies as gay but enjoys oral sex with men - especially giving. She does not enjoy vaginal intercourse with men at all - she has tried it and she found it very painful. And the same goes for vaginal penetration with anything bigger than a finger. This is not just a matter of her sexual responses and arousal patterns, it is a physical thing to do with how her vagina is made - it's very tight. She has no desire for another woman to penertrate her with a dildo, let alone a hand, either.
She identifies as gay because she has a girlfriend that she loves to pieces and wants to stay with forever. And she's never had a serious relationship, just some sexual encounters, with any males - she just has this thing for sucking cock. It's fun, gets her hot, and she can even cum when she does it sometimes. She sometimes says she's orally bi but otherwise is a total lezzer. Emotionally she really connects with females - and anyway she's never thought it would be fair on a guy to have a relationship with him if he she can't bear to have him inside her vagina.
You could say that she must be bisexual if she enjoys giving oral stimulation to a guy - but really why must she identify as bisexual just because she enjoys this particular type of sexual activity with males?
Anyway, I would say that she is fortunate that she likes girls so much that she can feel fulfilled in a same-sex relationship.
Example 2.
"My husband was a tram driver for PTL even though we were not Charismatic in our faith. Later he played Peter in the Passion Play for PTL. I left him for a woman I was spending a lot of time counseling on issues concerning her parents and their drinking. She was 24, single and butch. I was 27, sexually repressed with two kids and became obsessed with her. It was mutual, so I made a life change. It was a ten month affair that changed my life forever. I would never live straight nor Christian again."
This is from an interview with a woman who calls herself Mistress LunaSea
Source http://www.weirdcharlotte.com/mistresslunasea.html
She is active in the LGBT community and a co-founder of Charlotte Pride.
Mistress LunaSea is a fetish performer and a Professional and Lifestyle Dominatrix. She identifies as lesbian - as you can see on her MySpace
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=4308323
You can also see a brief video interview with her there where she says she's lesbian just before mentioning her two 24/7 male slaves.
She also has a female 24/7 slave called shannon who identifies as lesbian as well http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=447417755
I don't know precisely what sort of activities this lady engages in with her male slaves - but obviously it is sexualized activity. And I'm pretty certain that she enjoys it.
Is Mistress LunaSea really lesbian? Is that a dishonest label for her to use if she enjoys bdsm activities with males? Should she really ID as bisexual instead? Or maybe just queer and leave it at that?
Honestly I'm not sure.
What I do know is that she is by no means unique in being a lesbian identified lifestyle Domme who engages in bdsm activity with male submissive who will tell you it is not prostitution, not something done just do for money, and is activity she enjoys.
Well. If something can happen then it will sooner or later to someone.
Am I sure? Yes!
I think :)
Classic example of Psychobabble
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual; bisexual.
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual
Kinsey also had an additional grade, listed as "X" for asexual people who, as they Well. If something can happen then it will sooner or later to someone. [endquote]
******************************************************************
Wow! This has to break all records as the longest post on AE. Actually, I speed-read the topic because I couldn't figure out what were the points in your longwinded rebuttal to Tia. Sorry if I sound sarcastic but I just started a topic where I mention psychobabble and you nailed it.
Quote unquote
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual; bisexual.
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual
Kinsey also had an additional grade, listed as "X" for asexual people who, as they Well. If something can happen then it will sooner or later to someone. [endquote]
******************************************************************
Wow! This has to break all records as the longest post on AE. Actually, I speed-read the topic because I couldn't figure out what were the points in your longwinded rebuttal to Tia. Sorry if I sound sarcastic but I just started a topic where I mention psychobabble and you nailed it.
So the Kinsey Scale is an example of classic psychobabble is it Sunnyboi?
Well if it is perhaps you should consider this. That when Kinsey shocked America by publishing it in 1948 LGBT people were criminalized throughout the USA just for engaging in homosexual acts.
Kinsey Schmimzy
[/quote]
So the Kinsey Scale is an example of classic psychobabble is it Sunnyboi?
Well if it is perhaps you should consider this. That when Kinsey shocked America by publishing it in 1948 LGBT people were criminalized throughout the USA just for engaging in homosexual acts.
[/quote]
*******************************************************************
I was not just referring to Kinsey but to the length of your post. I didn't want to quote everything cuz that would have made my post as lengthy as yours.
BTW, LGBT people are still being criminalized in many ways and Kinsey has nuthin to do with it.
Kinsey psychobabble?
So the Kinsey Scale is an example of classic psychobabble is it Sunnyboi?
Well if it is perhaps you should consider this. That when Kinsey shocked America by publishing it in 1948 LGBT people were criminalized throughout the USA just for engaging in homosexual acts.
*******************************************************************
I was not just referring to Kinsey but to the length of your post. I didn't want to quote everything cuz that would have made my post as lengthy as yours.
So you do think the Kinsey scale is psychobabble. And you dismiss my whole post as "psychobabble" because it's "lengthy"? How intelligent.
Have you ever read a book boi? I mean read a book. Not just skimmed through one?
Like you have a clue.
I suggest you try reading the Kinsey hating psychobabble of these homophobes.
2,400 lawmakers warn of Kinsey influence Scholarly work shows sexual revolutionary's far-reaching damage
Fighting the Kinsey Fraud: Interview with Dr. Judith Reisman
Yawn
Have you ever read a book boi? I mean read a book. Not just skimmed through one?
Sure, I can read you like a book - from A2B. Sometimes a small book contains more heart and soul than a volume of psychobabble.
BTW, I believe Kinsey and Freud did harm to the women's movement and I can't seriously give credence to Dr. Kinsey who first studied the sex lives of wasps and then morphed into sexology of human beings.
Okay, I'm done.
Okay, I have a question...
Okay, Tia, I do have a question.... I understand why the label "homosexual" should mean only sexual desires, hence why I said... a term like... homoemotional could be useful. But why can't the label "gay" and "lesbian" be a label to refer to either the sexual aspect or the emotional aspect? So why can't all three of these girls be lesbians?
bisexual homoemotional
homosexual biemotional
homosexual homoemotional
Perhaps only the last two are homosexual, but can't lesbian mean being exclusively attracted to the same sex in one or more of these ways? If they are homosexual OR homoemotional, as long as the other term is bi-something, they will only really want to date the same gender. That homo-something is limiting them from acting out on the bi-something in the other part, at least in a relationship sort-of way. So what is wrong with having lesbian be a more general catch-all term for all three of these above orientations? Certainly, only 2 of the 3 are homosexual, but why can't they all be lesbian? I'm not arguing either way, I'm just wondering what's wrong with it being a catch-all term. "Homosexual" can clarify it up if you really need to be clear about it. In the end it all leads to the same thing after all... them dating only other women, and isn't that what we're all about?
dictionary.com at least seems to agree to some degree:
Now, Tia... you said...
The way you say this, it almost sounds... like you are saying their relationship cannot be taken seriously without that sexual element. "Call them soulmates, or simply friends": What if it is more than friends? What if they truly love each other romantically? Why does sex HAVE to be there for it to be just as powerful a relationship? I think sex should only be a side-manifestation of the love two people share, not a crucial part of the relationship. No, these two are not "homosexual," but if they really are homoemotional, why can't they be lesbian?
I guess what I just don't get is what is so wrong of using "gay" and "lesbian" as a more general term to include emotional desires as well and leaving the sexual desires only term be homosexual. Likewise, how just "bi" could be a catch-all term for those who want to identify, and doesn't have to specify the -sexual or -emotional aspect. I don't get what the harm is. But that's just me. Everyone has their own opinion. right? ^o^
I have some questions, too.
Short answer: Because lesbian is not defined as "a homoemotional woman" or "a woman who only dates other women but still likes to have sex with men".
Long answer: First question: Why should I, a lesbian, suddenly have to make things complicated for myself and start to identify as a homosexual and homoemotional lesbian, just so that other women out there who are bisexual and whateveremotional can call themselves lesbians, too?
What the problem with lesbian being a catch-all term is? How about it being a catch-all term? If a woman who identifies as bisexual has sex with a man, no one will wonder about it. But if a woman who identifies as lesbian has sex with a man, people will raise their eyebrows and ask "What? I thought she was a lesbian." Why do you think is this? If women call themselves lesbian, and by doing so give the impression they're sexually only attracted to women, but at the same time have sex with men every now and then, then this is exactly the kind of behaviour which brings the kind of bullshit over us sweetvanilla has put out here. Are you able to understand this? Are you able to understand why this annoys those of us who are real lesbians?
I already said that the word "gay" can have different meanings today. That's the reason I only seldomly refer to myself as gay. I sometimes use "gay" if I'm refering to homosexual people in general or to the whole LGBT community, because it's only three letters and therefore quick to type. Most gay men, at least the ones I know, don't have a problem with lesbians refering to themselves as gay or gay women, because it still means homosexual then. But go out and ask gay men what they think about bisexual men calling themselves gay.
Where did I ever invalidate the relationship of the women in my example. Maybe you missed the part where I said "And the feelings they have for each other are probably best described as a platonic love.". But love is a dangerous word which can have a multitude of meanings. You are talking about emotional relationships between people. If two women have a strong and deep running friendship, a strong and deep running emotional connection, you can as well say that they love each other. The perfect example for this are Lucy Lawless and Renee O'Connor. Both of them have said often enough that they love the other, and it is obvious how much chemistry they have on many levels. I'm sure they share things with each other they don't share with their male partners. But both of them are in commited, loving relationships with male partners. Do you think they would describe themselves as lesbians? And why not? Where do you draw the line? Could it have something to do with sexual attraction and sex?
What I see are women who want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to call themselves lesbians, but keep a backdoor open in case they want to have sex with a guy, or maybe even enter into a relationship with one. Sorry, no deal. To be a lesbian is not a pick and choose kind of deal. It's not a sexual identity you can adopt because it fits your purpose at this moment, and then drop it again later if you think you don't need it any longer. It's not a lifestyle choice, or a phase you go through during a certain time in your life. You remember your own post about the congressional hearing? You remember those people screaming "It's sexual PREFERENCE, lady, not sexual orientation!" Where does this come from? Is it so hard to understand that it's a wee bit annoying for lesbians to hear women shout out at the top of their lungs how lesbian they are, because they are in a relationship with another woman now, just to see them go srewing a guy or even ending up in a relationship with one later on, proving how "lesbian" they really are? And if you ask them about it they will say "Well, sexuality is fluid.". Yeah, sure, "sexuality is fluid" is just another way to say "I'm bisexual.". It's a good thing my personal airspace has remained pretty clear of such temporary lesbians so far.
We, the ones whose sexuality and romantical affections are clearly focused on one gender, are not the ones complicating matters. YOU are the one complicating matters. So here is my counter-question to you: What harm is done if a woman for whom these things are more complicated simply identifies as bisexual but only interested in commited relationships with women? Why are we lesbians expected to allow our label to be watered down and turned into a blurry catch-all term, or a temporary, relationship-based label?
---------------------------------------------------------
"Reason obeys itself. Ignorance submits to what is dictated to it." - Thomas Paine
Sorry if my questions seem rude, I'm just inquisitive
I think I'm a little confused on this one. You first say that "gay" can have different meanings today and then defend that gay should only mean homosexual. Which one is it? I'm just kind of confused. -_-;
Is it not true that by your personal definition of lesbian a woman could be either homosexual homoemotional, homosexual biemotional, or even homosexual heteroemotional and still be a lesbian? So similar to your example of the platonic love between two women, if a woman was only sexually attracted to women but didn't fall in love with them and wanted to date a man, she is still a lesbian, correct? So.. you said it's annoying to hear women shouting they are lesbian only to later end up in a relationship with one.. but according to your own definition a woman COULD date a man and still be a lesbian, as long as she's not sexually attracted to him and just doesn't/can't date women for some reason. Now this is all fine and valid, but do you think that a woman who would "rightfully" be a lesbian who is in love with a man telling people she is a lesbian would get any LESS of a "What? I thought she was a lesbian" reaction? Most people are not going to think into it too much. If she says she's in a relationship with a man, even if it's platonic, they are not going to think of her as a lesbian, or they will think of lesbians as just as wishy-washy as if she were just screwing a man but in a relationship with a woman. Even if this isn't right, it's true. Unless lesbian ONLY means homosexual homoemotional, these things cannot be fully avoided. So by your own definition, even some genuine lesbians can, to outsiders, make the label seem "wishy-washy."
Now, I'm sorry if I sound like I am complicating matters. Actually, my intent is quite different. I just like to think about things from different perspectives. I like to analyze things, maybe even overanalyze them, to get a better understanding of them instead of merely taking them for granted. I don't really mean any harm by it, it just stimulates me intellectually, I suppose you could say. I'm not on some crusade here to try to change the meaning of the word lesbian, nor am I trying to prove or disprove anyone. Rather, I just like to ask "Why not?" and hear what people think. If I only listen to opinions that agree with my own, I never get any depth on an issue, nor can I feel with conviction that I am right on how I feel. If I think something but after listening to other opinions find it to be a false idea, I change how I feel. Following something I know is wrong just to stick with the same thing is idiotic, in my opinion. I am still in this "pondering" stage with this issue, which is why I am asking you these questions. Mostly you because you seem to have the strongest opinion on the opposite side of what I had been thinking. You bring up many valid points and I am glad for you having brought them up, because it allows me and perhaps anyone else who is reading this to really get a multi-faceted view of it, something to think about. I too am thinking about the points you have brought up, in relation to my own ideas. If you don't mind, I would like to continue to ask questions until I feel I have a fully accurate view of the issue... this isn't an endless process, and I feel that I am getting close but am not quite there yet, which is why I continue to question you. I just want you to know that I don't mean any harm by it, but am rather just inquisitive and genuinely want to know how you think, for the very reason that I highly respect your opinion. I don't expect you to have your mind changed or think I want you to; I'm only asking you because I value your opinion. ^____^
Oh, just a confirmation... you would also consider a woman who calls herself a lesbian who isn't interested in sex at all but romantically falls in love with and wants to date women misuing the label of lesbian, right? So she's misrepresenting herself by saying she's a lesbian if she loves women but just doesn't have a sex drive at all, correct? You think she should just call herself asexual, right? I just want to make sure I'm getting all your opinions represented correctly and not missing anything here.
*s* thanks all, all this
*s* thanks all, all this has been a very interesting read. (except for the OP who must have missed the boat when it comes to sexuality being some of the time "fluid" rather than fixed 100% of the time)
sweet water, light laughter
Az
~What do you do when your shatterd, when the tales you have to tell are normally reserved for those who have traversed this world for thrice your span? All I have found as an answer is "Share"~
Some food for thought.
If sexuality is fluid then this means that a person's sexual orientation can change over time, right? If this is possible, it might also be possible to change your sexual orientation by a conscious effort, if you just want it enough. This means that if we really want it, we can all be heterosexual.
Have you ever heard this before? Do you remember what kind of people out there love this idea?
---------------------------------------------------------
"Reason obeys itself. Ignorance submits to what is dictated to it." - Thomas Paine
Here is a link!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/06/030613075252.htm
DEBATE!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I believe that I will be with one person for the rest of my life, but that person will be a woman." Luce-Imagine Me&You
*laughs to tears*
*laughs to tears*
""The fact that women's sexual arousal patterns are not all predicted by their sexual orientations suggests that men's and women's minds and brains are very different," Bailey said."
Ya Think!?
~What do you do when your shatterd, when the tales you have to tell are normally reserved for those who have traversed this world for thrice your span? All I have found as an answer is "Share"~
Hahahaha!
Well we gotta accept the fact that women's sexuality is not very linear like men's. Lots of straight women enjoy watching lesbian/bi porn! Anybody who thinks that a male brain and a female operates the same way must be living in cave somewhere isolated.
"That is, heterosexual women were just as sexually aroused by watching female stimuli as by watching male stimuli, even though they prefer having sex with men rather than women." There you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I believe that I will be with one person for the rest of my life, but that person will be a woman." Luce-Imagine Me&You
huh
No they don't! Many of them find it revolting. Many of them who do watch it do so because the bf likes it. This whole notion that women can just go back and forth, or are not "linear" thinkers is sexism in the extreme. It's all brought to you by pop culture. It suits straight men to think that most women enjoy both when most don't.
As for the op's post, um, I've kinda forgotten wht exactly the question was, but I think it had to do with lesbains watching gay male porn, and that making them bisexual. Well this lesbian doesn't watch it, in fact, I don't watch any porn. I like to have sex but watching it turns me off completely. I do think that they're bigirls who call themselves lesbians simply because they don't like the word bisexual. I can call myself the pope but that doesn't make me the pope. If your behaviour doesn't fit your label well you're not that.
Bailey's a fraud
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/06/030613075252.htm
DEBATE!
Can't you see how biphobic that article is?
I don't take the notoriously transphobic, biphobic and homophobic "research" of Professor J. Michael Bailey remotely seriously. He is a very poor scientist indeed.
Here are some more links:
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Reviews/Psychology%20Perverted%20-%20by%20Joan%20Roughgarden.htm
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/LynnsReviewOfBaileysBook.html
http://suegeorgewrites.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-michael-bailey-is-still-so-very.html
On the issue of do bisexual men really exist? I have news for prof. Bailey (who absurdly used some "gay" porn and some "lesbian" porn to try to prove they do not) which is quite simple really.
If bisexual men don't exist, bisexual porn wouldn't exist - not even if there was still a market for it. Because - duh - how would it be possible to produce it? The fact is that not only does bisexual porn exist, it sells very well.
Bisexual porn by the way is porn with bisexual men in it - typically focusing on threesome sex between two bisexual men and a woman.
Gay porn also has lots of bisexual men in it - and straight men as well. I guess in many cases that it might be more accurate to call it "all male" porn.
So what's more important?
Sex without love can certainly be enjoying, yes. But it's love that makes it never get old, or boring. This makes me think of a conversation I had with a friend quite a while ago that I have found and will quote:
Friend: well I wish I didn't. its kinda old after a while
Me: then why do married couples seem to like it again and again?
Friend: well, when you're in love, you do things more and enjoy it
Me: that was kind of my plan though, to be in love. i didn't just want sexy time. i wanted it with someone i loved.
Perhaps for some people sex without love would continue to be interesting, but I think, like my friend, after a while, without love, the novelty would much wear off.
Thus... many people DO want to place love over sex. Sex is merely an instinct.. like eating and breathing. It's something we desire. Lust, which is often mistaken for love, is related to this. But love itself in the sense that two people are mutually willing to work together and support each other and care about each other.. that takes a great deal of work. It's not merely something people instinctively crave.. although sex can be tiring, it's not something you have to, in a long term sense, work at. It's more of an instant gratification. Love takes time. Love takes work. And in the end, that love is what CAN make sex meaningful and more than just an act.
If you are given a plate of food, you might just eat it if you are hungry and that's the end of it. But what if you and your mother made that food together and it meant a lot to you? Woudldn't it suddenly have a lot more meaning than just being food? It could represent the bond that you and you and your mother share. But it doesn't HAVE to, just like sex doesn't HAVE to symbolize any kind of bond at all. They are not interdependent. BUT it can, and that is why it can make meaningful relationships more meaningful, by strengthening the love that is already there.
In my opinion, at least, that makes the love more important than the sex. The sex is merely a manifestation of that love. So why is the sex aspect the one that gets the labels and not the love aspect? To me at least, that is the one that is meaningful and can help define me as a person. I woudln't want to define myself by what kinds of foods I eat, so why would I want to define myself by the kinds of people I want to have sex with? They are both just carnal urges. I as a human being am glad that I can move beyond that level into something more, and I for one would prefer a label that would represent that.
Maybe some people don't. But I can't, I just CAN'T.. be the only one who feels this way. So I think... maybe I'd just like to identify as homemotional from now on. I can avoid people saying I am betraying the label of lesbian because I am techincally bisexual, but still feel like I am being more true to who I am by choosing to represent myself by who I love, not by who I want to bang.
I dont get why..
By the way
Generalization.....
While in my opinion your ideas are slightly warped, I'm not going to be agressive or unnecissarily rude in response to this.
My whole view is that maybe the majority of the population is bisexual on some level due to nature. I'm not saying that everyone likes dicks and vaginas, just that almost everyone can appreciate and be attracked to something of both sexes. Now, maybe its how we are nurtured that shapes how this progresses, then again maybe everything I just said is complete shit.
I think sexuality is wayy to personal, and dependant on the individuals involved to generalize it as you just did. Also, to almost blatently tell everyone on a lesbian and bisexual sight that every experince that they've gone through, and all the time they've spend exploring their sexuality is wrong, and that they really do like men just dont know it seems slightly imposing and almost nieve. Just because you have felt this way about men, does not mean that there are other lesbians that do, generalizing is a dangerous thing.
?
I'm turned on by yaoi. Gay porn is too real for me, I'm afraid. And I enjoy sex with clever, attractive and witty men, once in a blue moon.
But that's why I identify as bisexual. If I identified as lesbian and wanted men once in a while, why would I identify as lesbian?
I just can't see any sense in what this person is saying, I'm afraid.
Over the centuries, mankind has tried many ways of combating the forces of evil... prayer, fasting, good works and so on. Up until Doom, no one seemed to have thought about the double-barrelled shotgun. Terry Pratchett.
disagreeing
I'm not ashamed to admit I have slept with men
...and I might do in the future (if I need a convenient fuck and there are no women around). But in your desire to prove that gold-star lesbians are morally (or something) superior, you're using the most ridiculous arguments.
Also read the book "The Female Brain" by Dr. Louann Brizendine.
FAIL. This book has been so discredited so many times, it's not funny. Her statistics about how much women talk are false, and so every other "statistic" she quotes is completely questionable.
There's also the book "The Lesbian Sex Book or Guide (not sure)" which talks about how many lesbians get more sexual gratification from sex with men and also fantasize about men.
Tell me, where does this mysterious book say that lesbians get more satisfaction from sex with men? Come on, where's the quote? The evidence?
But then as the years went by I realized like Dr. Lisa Diamond says in her research, that for lesbians, attraction to men is the norm, not the exception.
Two things. One, where has this research been replicated? Two, what does it mean by "attraction"? Does it mean "OMG, I have to fuck this guy." Or does it mean "Oh, yeah, he's nice looking, attractive, whatever." I mean, I can see how people find Sarah Palin attractive, but would I want to fuck her? No. How many people are attracted by ideas that they would never carry out? How many women fantasise about rape? How many women actually want to be raped?
Lesbians are ashamed of this and rightfully so, because it shows that they need a man even if it's only occasionally and they've spent their lives telling society that they don't need men. I understand the shame and the discomfort with this. I totally get it, but it's still the truth.
LOL! Fuck, you're a crack-up. I'm not ashamed of sometimes having screwed men. As for needing a man, honey, if they all dropped dead tomorrow, would I miss one of them, or "need" one? Nope. What would I need a man for? Seriously? What planet are you on? I don't know how you define "truth", but it ain't the same way as anyone else does.
Attraction is natural but doesn't mean sex
I think that a person can be attracted to a man as well even though you identify as a lesbian, why because you might find their personality attractive but that doesn't mean that you will end up sleeping with them. People are attracted to art, culture and so on because it draws us to them. I see a good looking and I am attracted to him because I see him as art, it's as if someone painted a picture and I'm staring at it. My ex never got that when I say I think he's attractive didn't mean I think I want to hump him. But this doesn't make us bisexual, or lesbian or straight, it makes us human and sexaul beings. There are straight women who find women attractive and men that I know who are straight and will admit it when they see a good looking man or so and this is confused as them being bisexual.
Personally, I think it's labelling gone biserk.
"Should one of you boys happen upon a girl who doesn't put out, do not jump to the conclusion you have found a lady. What you probably have is a lesbian" - Fran Lebowitz
You must be kidding me right?
OMG? Is someone using the black swan logic? It's like saying all swans are black but then opps! Comes along a white swan and the whole theory collapse like an atom bomb! (hmm, kinda rhymes)
Plus isn't this statement kinda oxymoronic to say lesbians are bi? Wouldn't they just be bi (no shame in that!)? So, er, someone enlighten me because I feel like I'm in crazy land! I'm almost beginning to think straight men are bi too 'cuz they must like watching the men in the straight porn! Now, I have to find a study that agrees with me....(Bwhwhahaha, smackerel!)
And hell no, did I just read an argumentative essay with, gasp, lack of substantial proof? Puleeze, my english teacher would put me in a headlock if I ever wrote something like this (not that I would mind, she's kinda hot :D). The only 'concrete' support in your essay is Dr.Brizedine or should I say Dr. Who? (an excellent sci-fi show. Fangirl here, hey~) Is it the same as Dr. Phil 'cuz they're not real doctors. Oh, and someone's opinion does not mean it is truth. It is what it is, an OPINION. Refrain from using someone's blog (though I agree with you that gracethespot.com is a funny and witty and boy, I think I have a crush on the blogger...hey is she single, anyone?) as actually evidence.
Lastly you, my fellow 'lesbian', make an interesting last paragraph that really is like the black swan logic. Would you be surprise if I tell you, yes, I know gay men who are turned on by lesbian porn? Or gay men who like watching the L Word because they think Shane is hot? OR, omg, lesbians turned on by lesbian porn!!!! By the way, what is it with you with porn? Likes seriously. Have you ever heard of a magnificent feeling known as L.O.V.E. I notice you don't even mention this or you are one of those people that think love is sex and vice-versa?
My point is you can't be making such a statement let alone trying to pass it off as truth with such silly evidences. You make George Bush credible with his 'weapons of mass destruction.' Or are you inclined to think your statement is true within +/- 5% error (snark, physics major here :D).
And another reply to 2B.
A comedy show? Sorry I don't know every single sitcom broadcasted in the UK. Why do I not feel guilty? Your Daffyd surely is a strange guy. The gay people I know are happy if they meet other gay people. Different in the UK? I don't think so. So, was there actually an argument you wanted to put forth? Or are you just trying to entertain us?
Perfectly acceptable? The problem is most people will simply assume that the sexuality of the partners involved is similar to the label being put on the relationship. An assumption which must fail the moment bisexuality comes into play. Which in turn is the reason why some people prefer to speak of opposite- or same-sex relationships, in an attempt to clear up at least some of the confusion.
So she's in a hetero- and a homosexual relationship at the same time? You asked me how I would define a bisexual relationship. Here you have your answer. Doesn't get any more bi than that. At least from the bi-woman's point of view. But I wouldn't call it a bisexual relationship, because it would mean to overlook its other important aspects. I would just call it a poly relationship, and that's it, because that's a label which is really intended to be used in regard to relationships.
You didn't answer my question. Is it a hetero-, bi- or homosexual relationship? Or is it simply a relationship? Maybe you should augment this method you're using by speaking about heterosexual, homosexual and mixed relationships. But since you think it's OK if partners in a relationship label their sexuality according to the label being put on the relationship itself, would this mean that all partners in a mixed relationship have a mixed sexuality?
And these cultures are made up of different sub-cultures which are different from each other, depending where you are and which scene you are travelling. But maybe you can provide us with a clear and comprehensive definition of what straight, bisexual, gay and lesbain culture is, without writing a dissertation about it?
Ah, Freud. I already forgot about him. Freud proposed the idea that bisexuality is the starting point for everyone in regard to sexual orientation, but that for most people their sexual orientation is being formed out and fixated during childhood and adolescence . He did speak of a latent bisexuality, though. Kinsey picked up on this idea, but he was the one who proposed that the sexual attractions and behaviour of most people vary over time, that they "move along the scale". It is this idea all this talk about "sexual fluidity" is based upon. From the article you linked:
"Many modern uses of the term innate bisexuality are more indicative of Alfred Kinsey's research than Freud's. In this sense, it is a suggestion that most or all human beings are functionally bisexual to some degree, but may not express that bisexuality as behavior. Both theories have a great deal of controversy surrounding them, so it is particularly important to be aware of which is being discussed."However, neither Freud nor Kinsey where able to prove their hypothesis.
Since you're so fond of describing the sexuality of individuals as a mix between hetero- and homosexual desires, I wonder if we really need the word "bisexual" any longer. We would end up with people who are exclusively hetero- or homosexual, who only experience sexual desire in regard to either the opposite or the same sex, and people who are "switching" between hetero- and homosexuality depending on whom they're focused on at a given point in time. Maybe we could call these people "switchers". But wait, didn't we just exchange one word with another? My take on it is simple: There are monosexual people and there are bisexual people. Period.
Bisexuality is inclusive? I think we can agree on this. "I'm predominantly attracted to one sex, but I don't mind shagging a member of the other sex every now and then." Yope, sounds pretty inclusive to me. In contradiction of course to us evil monosexuals. We're more limited in this respect. I know, I know, we're a pretty discriminatory bunch. But hey, we just can't help it. We're born this way.
OK, I will try to explain it again, although I'm pretty sure I'm wasting my time. Let's assume for a moment I'm willing to accept that a sexual relationship between women can be called a "lesbian" relationship, even if the women involved are not lesbians. I'm also willing to accept that a woman can act lesbian. Gosh, even Katy Perry is able to act lesbian if she wants to. I also accept that the adjective "lesbian" can be used in different ways, as for example in "lesbian club". But none of this makes a woman a lesbian. Being in a relationship with another woman does not make her a lesbian. Acting lesbian does not make her a lesbian. Going to a lesbian club does not make her a lesbian. The only way to be a lesbian is to be a homosexual woman. And if a woman is not a lesbian, she can also not be lesbian. Got it now?
No, I don't have a problem with describing a relationship as sexual. I also don't have a problem with bisexuality. For me bisexuality means that a person has the potential to be sexually attracted to members of both sexes/genders (or of all genders, for those who think there are more than two), no matter the grade of the attraction. I do have a problem, though, with women who are not homosexual women, i.e. straight and bisexual women, calling themselves lesbians or lesbian (no, it doesn't make a difference).
On the contrary. If she would identify as lesbian, and I later on find out she's not (which would only be a question of time), then she would have a problem, because she would have to explain to me why she was being dishonest. If she identified as bisexual right from the start, there would be no problem.
Example 1: This is your standard example, right? I remember reading this before. Well, this woman is in a commited relationship with another woman. At the same time she enjoys to have oral sex with men, it sexually arouses her and she can reach orgasm doing it. From your description it also sounds as if she is doing this regularly, albeit maybe with a low frequency. I can only speculate if she would also have intercourse with these men if the physical condition of her vagina would not keep her from doing so. You said that she tried it. But anyway, in my book she's bisexual.
Example 2: Mistress LunaSea? Not bad. I admit beautiful, dark haired femmes are my weak spot. Especially the Goth variant. But I'm not into this BDSM stuff. Pain is not sexy. But that's just me. From the part you quoted:
"I was 27, sexually repressed..."
"I would never live straight nor Christian again."
Here are some excerpts from another interview she gave:
"After that, it was very easy when I realized that I could get paid for just being Myself and treating men the way that I always had."
"I find it odd sometimes that I see so many handsome men, and yet it means nothing to Me since I am a lesbian. I definitely do not dislike men, though, or I could not do this business. I love what I do! I love the trust and exchange of power during My sessions."
"Yes, I have two 24/7 male slaves that are non-sexual. One has served Me for six years and the other has served for three. In My dating or personal relationships with women, I require that she be in the lifestyle or have a strong interest. I prefer a submissive/switch girlfriend that is very fit and into all forms of healthy living in body, mind, and soul. I prefer athletic women that have been in the lifestyle and can be submissive to Me both in public and private."
"I am single with a non-sexual poly household and looking for a female slave to serve Me 24/7 and travel with Me to photo shoots and fetish shows as well."
I think this answers the question. Suffice it to say I don't object to her calling herself a lesbian.
You think? Don't think you are...know you are.
---------------------------------------------------------
"Reason obeys itself. Ignorance submits to what is dictated to it." - Thomas Paine