Getting that lesbian toaster oven

Other than the hypothetical person with whom I wish to have sex, where exactly is it that I have to declare my sexual preferences? (Assuming I already bought a toaster.)

Can I turn down a sexual offer just by saying No, I don’t want to have sex. Does it have to be because of my “orientation”? Does it mean that I have to be oriented, or can I just think you’re a twit with whom I don’t even want conversation, much less intercourse?

So I’m confused. How is the expectation of loyalty to a sexual choice acceptable, if the choice was once a counter culture, and opressive if it was once mainstream?

Tris

I think this is a vital point. In terms of progressive politics, I think a helluva lot of Americans (at the very least) have an ethnocentric view of human sexuality, believing that our current culture’s terms of definition are biological, rather than cultural, realities.

Yeah, they’re influenced by biology, no doubt. But culture plays into our sexual identities to a huge degree.

Daniel

Yeah. Like for instance, do LiCs/LUGs/whatever typically pair up with initiated stripe-wearing capital-L Lesbians, or do they just as often couple with one another? This would tell us a lot about the dynamic at work here.

Maybe here we can invoke the old truism (or stereotype?) about women: unlike men, for whom sex comes before everything else, with women, supposedly, everything else comes before sex.

To elaborate on the stereotype: a straight woman will feel sexually attracted to a man only after certain nonsexual imperatives (dominance, competitiveness, protectiveness, etc.) are fulfilled. Maybe in the case of a straight woman turned lesbian, she’ll only feel sexually attracted to another woman if she gives her what she’s looking for nonsexually: in this case, perhaps an outspoken political or cultural identity that the ex-straight woman can feel drawn to and fulfilled by.

Got it. I’m a passionate man and I’m afraid I find it hard at times to be dispassionate. I’m used to posting on boards that allow one to edit their submissions, but I understand my responsibilities here. But please note that I have taken your advice to leave the “Under God” debate for a couple of days, and dammit, I want credit for that! :smiley:

Yes, my post shows the enthusiasm of a recent convert. Yes, I do understand how annoying a recent convert can be. “…and (if you feel you must) witnessing.”

I personally do not believe in excluding anyone from a sexuality identity based on political or ideological tests. I go easy on other people, I like to trust people I meet at their word, but I’m tough on myself. My doubts were all self-directed. I wasn’t casting doubt on anyone else’s bona fides.

Maeglin, your criticism was well taken (especially your appreciation of Sappho). I’ve been thinking about this topic so much because I was accepted into a group of lesbian friends just as you described. It was a huge relief that they welcomed me in wholeheartedly without any reservations.

It had troubled me that transwomen have too often been rejected in the past with very hostile hate speech by certain radical separatist tendencies within the lesbian community. I knew that only some lesbians had this attitude, but not all of them. I was hoping to find those who were free of this ugly attitude. I found them, I’m very happy dealing with real individual living women instead of theoretical abstractions. I was just going over the fears that had troubled me, maybe still trying to convince myself I’m not dreaming, this group of beautiful, amazing women really did happen. Call it being a “wuss” if you must, I think of it as working through my insecurities.

Being a functioning member of the type of society I feel I belong in means I should have something to contribute, since I’m taking benefit from it. My doubts were whether I could contribute, and what a relief to find that I can. What I get out of it is exactly as tomndebb said, support from my peeps. I don’t feel strong enough to face up to the world as an isolated individual, not with my issues. I need that support from others at the same time as I contribute to the group whatever I can that’s of value to them. I don’t think there’s any shame in admitting that you need support from your fellow humans. It’s deeply engrained within human nature to form social support groups. I feel like this is the cure for my sense of alienation: a sense of belonging. To me it only makes sense that humans are social beings and therefore enter voluntarily into social support groups. It goes without saying that I only want the non-authoritarian sort of group that fosters the well-being of the individual to make her own decisions.

I apologize for being unclear about the exact point. There was sort of an enthymeme, an unstated premise: my fear that, being a transsexual, I would not succeed at womanhood. It’s by far the most difficult thing I’ve ever attempted. I didn’t come right out and say it because it’s a sore issue with me. I’m very glad now I got with my dyke peeps and my fears are put to rest by this success. The many transphobic horror stories I’d heard date from the 1970s, '80s, and '90s. In the present day, I seem to be finding that there are more compassionate, more inclusive, less ideological lesbian groups than before. I feel blessed and grateful. I still keep hoping that it isn’t too good to be true.

I would find nothing to disagree with if you had written “some of these LUGS”, but many? And it’s not the adultery that I find unlikely, it’s that the sexual preference of these LUGS hasn’t really changed.

In Chandler Burr’s A Separate Creation: How Biology Makes Us Gay, the author posits (with convincing evidence, IMO) that female homosexuality is fundamentally different from male homosexuality. One fundamental aspect of this difference is that while there is no good evidence that male homosexuals ever change their fundamental sexuality (although, of course, they may consciously alter their sexual behavior), there is quite a lot of evidence that females do change in this regard over time in a deep and fundamental way.

Although I don’t pretend to understand how, it doesn’t strike me as particularly unlikely that this fundamental change may well coincide with the emotional and intellectual changes that graduation brings about.

[Hijack]
A couple of decades ago, as a gay man in San Diego, I joined a group of gay men and women who formed a group to do something or protest something or other (obviously, I’ve forgotten). It was chaired by a gay, black Republican man. He was one of the greatest organizers I’ve ever seen and I (who was and remains a liberal Democrat) was thrilled to be led by such an effective person and I thought we were damned lucky to have him. But his gay black Republicanness so deeply rankled some of the other participants (of course in a secret, whispering way) that his effectiveness was eventually just bled away by their combined subversive reluctance. I argued passionately about this, but clearly I made no difference. I was so put off by this that, for the most part, I pretty much left the gay “community”. I hope, but don’t expect, this isn’t the case in other parts of the country.

[/hihack]

In males, the evidence that sexuality is primarily (even if only 51%, but I believe a far larger percentage approaching 99%) determined by biology and neo-natal development is, in my view, thoroughly compelling. In my life, the impact of culture was almost exclusively to make me ashamed of my sexuality in my youth without altering it in the least.

However, I wouldn’t be surprised if it were different for women, because the evidence that I’ve encountered makes it clear that male and female homosexualities are fundamentally different.

Nevertheless, I second DocCathode’s post (# 57).

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

(Emphasis added.) Pardon me, but I’m absolutely gobsmacked by the implications of the emphasized remark here. Are you seriously suggesting that in this day and age, heterosexual sexual relationships in college are considered to somehow “prejudice” or compromise a young woman’s future ability to have the marriage that she wants?

Are there really still substantial numbers of girls who believe that if they have premarital sex with a man, it will somehow hurt their chances of getting a good husband or having a traditional “white wedding”, etc.? So they have to limit their premarital relationships to chick-on-chick action because that somehow “doesn’t count”?

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: Dear Og on a pogo stick. As someone who reached adolescence during the “women’s liberation” movement of the 1970’s, I thought we got rid of all that hogwash!

Are you sure? I seem to recall some British writers commenting that there is, or at least used to be, a sort of tradition of homosexual experimentation in British all-male boarding schools, including among boys who never have (and apparently never want) any gay sex after graduation.

This may be true; I’m not familiar with the research you’re talking about. There’s a couple things that make me wonder, however:
-The first gay man with whom I had in-depth conversations about sexuality was very committed to being gay. It was a fairly important part of his identity. So when we got back in touch with each other after a few years, and he’d moved in with a woman, I was almost as surprised as he was.

Sure, it might be that he’d been bisexual all along, and had previously treated bisexuals with a contempt common to eighties-gay-pride circles only because that was the thing to do. But even if that’s the case, it’s an example of his inherent sexuality being shaped by his culture.

-The other thing that gets me wondering is the reported high levels of homosexual behavior in places like boarding schools and Spartan armies. These places allowed homosexual behavior at certain points in life and not at others, and treated same-sex relations very differently from how they’re treated in the modern US. Why is that?

I’m not in any way saying that you only like boys because the culture tells you to. I’m saying that I suspect there’s far more shades of sexuality than are commonly accepted in our culture (or in any one culture). And that people have their innate predelictions, and they look around their culture for the model that best fits them, and ease on into that model, often even if it’s not a perfect fit.

Daniel

I will not condemn LUGs for doing what they feel they need to do, as long as they do it in a way that doesn’t hurt others. I believe human sexuality is a very private and individual phenomenon that each person has to figure out for herself. It helps when she has peeps in a support group. I don’t believe it’s the role of the support group to dictate to her which sexuality is politically correct. I say this as a radical leftist feminist Goddess-worshiper and all that, but I believe that love and compassion between human hearts is all-important; ideology must not take precedence over simple human love and compassion.

If it turns out that the group she thought she belonged to isn’t really for her after all, I hope she will be honest with herself and others, and deal on the basis of compassionate honesty, and hopefully they will part as friends. I believe in the fundamental goodness of the human spirit, and I have seen things working out like this often enough to know that I’m not just trippin.

It works out best when ideology does not interfere between human hearts. I believe in making the world better not through bolshie-style revolution, but by building up human warmth and mutual support starting in small groups that expand their love and inclusiveness to more and more people. Gandi says “Be the change you want to see in the world.” I’m describing how the feminist axiom “The personal is political” works for me. I’m applying a gentle hippie interpretation of it, because that’s just me.

Thanks for the interesting information about the gay science (with apologies to F. Nietzsche :wink: ), ambushed. I admit I personally cannot see how the hell a gay or black person could support the Republicans, given how badly they’re misbehaving and abusing power these days. But remember the Republicans once had liberals among them. It was within my lifetime. I can remember the phrase “liberal Republican” from my childhood in the 1960s and early '70s. Anyway, your experience with the gay black Republican gentleman is an example of what I meant, how it’s a human tragedy when ideology ruins the warm bond between people’s hearts who were working together for a good cause. {{{HUGS}}}

Sorry, I meant Gandhi.

Just a quick aside… Actually, it does (or at least did) in the single sex British public (private, for us Americans) school system and Universities as in Brideshead Revisted.

Of course, I will admit it’s possible that his sexuality was strongly influenced by culture, but why couldn’t it be that he was straight all along or gay all along and simply chose to consciously alter his behavior without ever changing his sexuality? My experience and what I’ve read strongly lead me to believe the latter. I’ve had sex with women several times and I’ve been in a romantic/sexual relationship with a women, but there wasn’t even an instant when my homosexuality or my self-identity changed in the slightest. (I was never a bisexual).

I’ll continue in a later post…

Boarding schools do not approve of sexual contact between the students. The Spartan Army did, of course, but I think the emphasis was on a strong emotional bonding between the soldiers in order to make the partners fight more strenuously to aid and defend their partners.

But in either case, what you have are a majority of heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts, not true homosexuality. For an extreme example with extremely definite time-spans, prison homosexuality is predominantly heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts because of the lack of alternative partners. I still strongly doubt males ever change their fundamental sexuality. (And during my few heterosexual encounters, my fantasies were exclusively homosexual. I just kept imagining that they were Christopher Atkins :wink: ).

Now that I mention it, that last may well be a result of my cultural experience. I’ve always preferred male partners that were blond and generally hairless and a bit “pretty”. As I think about it, that could well result from American culture’s standard of female beauty imposed on me through advertising and the media. The only thing that argues against that is that there are at least as many homosexuals who prefer almost aggressively macho partners.

Well, it would be foolish of me to be strident about this, since there is no question that cultural effects can be enormously powerful, and to say that it has no effect on a person’s sexuality would be quite idiotic. So although we don’t agree, we’re not all that far apart. I would just say that while culture can strongly affect one’s sexual behavior, I still honestly don’t think it has much affect (in males, at least) on one’s sexuality.

Johanna, I quite justifiably feel like a miserable asshole for ranting at you like I did, and I’m sorry. Your ability to overlook all that makes you a better person than I in my own opinion. You very much come across as a warm and highly enlightened individual, and it would be an honor to be among your friends.

Now I hope that you don’t find my gushing too treacly! Yech!

Gush away, honey, I’m lovin’ it. :slight_smile:

I don’t understand why you would think this is parallel at all. People in single-sex environments - probably guys in particular - tend to have sex with each other. That doesn’t make them “gay”. I mean, did they call themselves gay, and openly pair off? Nothing I’ve ever heard about boarding schools sounds even remotely like actually developing a gay identity - people just got sex where they could get it.

This reminds me of how often it’s said — while gay activities have been documented since ancient times, gay identity was only invented in the modern era. Maybe the Victorian period. Somehow I keep thinking of Oscar Wilde in this connection.

Lesbians, it seems, had to wait until the 1920s before their identity was acknowledged in print. Queen Victoria was on record as denying that lesbianism even existed.

The Renaissance literature on lesbianism discussed by Lillian Faderman in Surpassing the Love of Men was all written by men who assumed that woman-on-woman sex was mere foreplay to get the ladies ready to be dicked by a real man. :rolleyes: Faderman called this attitude “phallocentric.” The pattern still goes on in the present, with heterosexual guys seeking out the fantasy that lesbians exist for their male heterosexual titillation.

I guess it comes down to anecdotes, but falling in love with a woman shook him to his core, made him question his identity on a very basic level.

It seems very unlikely to me that he was a straight guy all along who decided to be gay for the fun of it; social condemnation aside, when I met him he was comforting his partner through the end-stages of AIDS. Not a lot of fun. And it seems equally unlikely he was a gay guy pretending to be straight: he was very comfortable in his gay identity, as near as I can tell, until the love-affair threw everything into chaos.

Daniel