Getting that lesbian toaster oven

Great Debates
81

If you have a lover and that lover breaks up with you and goes off with someone else, that’s a breakup and a heartache and something to get over. If the person your ex-lover goes off with is of a different gender than yours, is this in some way a greater betrayal than going off with another person who shares your gender? Or is it less so?

Does it make the personal breakup into something greater? Is it tempting then to say that the pain of losing a lover is more piercing if the person is also repudiating a lifestyle or a society by crossing a gender line? Does it make the breakup easier by subsuming the purely personal and faintly mundane heartbreak and loss of the breakup into the righteous anger of the betrayed group identity?

I’m a tad confused by the animus against LUGs expressed by some hardcore style lesbians–it seems to me that having a bunch of hot to trot chicks to rub up against is no bad thing, and whoever figures every single hookup will lead to a committed love relationship anyway? So what if she goes off with a guy after you, would it be any less painful a breakup if she took up with your best friend? I’d think losing your lover to the penis side would be less painful–it’s not that she found someone like you but better, she just wanted to go in a completely different direction, and that’s less a slap in the face in my book, anyway.

I just think women are less likely to be absolutists than men. I’m one of those darned fence sitting bisexual types myself, and for me it’s usually all about the person–if I want to have sex with someone I’m not too picky about what genitalia they have, is all. I didn’t realize that I HAD to get my toaster oven before I was allowed to enjoy a roast beef sandwich with sprouts…

Hmm, on rereading it seems I have about as much point as the OP had a declared debate, but these are some questions I’ve been mulling over for a while… Pardon the hijack, if such it is!

82

SmartAleq, I tend to agree with your point of view because it sounds commonsensical. My principle is that each individual is her own authority. Only she can determine for herself what identity she needs. Whether sexual orientation really does shift over time, that’s an interesting question and I would like to see more data, more science before making up my mind on it.

The bisexual hijack: One thing genderqueer praxis has opened my understanding to is how inadequate a binary gender system is for describing sexual orientations. One of my Witch friends who is well read in gender theory says “bisexual” doesn’t exactly cover where he’s at, but no term exists to describe him. He is attracted not to men+women in general, but to certain specific types: strong, masculine, flapper women or thin, feminine, graceful men. He explained: “I’m attracted to a blending and ‘confusion’.” Other friends have told me they have similar proclivities. One of my girlfriends says: “I don’t identify as gay or lesbian or straight or bisexual. I’m just queer, that’s all.” She likes FTM boiz for one thing. It gets futile trying to categorize sometimes. Why bother?

The inclusiveness of the queer women’s collective I helped found was specifically open to every imaginable variety of queer. So although everyone there with one exception (the “I’m just queer” lady) was lesbian-identified, the self-description of the group was “queer women” rather than “lesbian.” One Tgirl dropped into the queer women’s space for a while. Then she identified herself as not queer, but a straight transwoman. She left and did not participate afterward. People’s views differ on whether transgender is inherently queer. I’d always assumed it is. But this lady simply intended to stealth her way into conventional heterosexual womanhood, so she had no use for a queer identity.

83

I like to say that my first girlfriend left me for an older woman. At the time? That was painful. However, I can’t say whether it was more or less painful than had she left me for an older man. On the one hand, I guess I could excuse the breakup by saying it was biologically determined (I didn’t know that, many years later, she’d marry a man). On the other hand, I felt like an absolute schmuck for trying to deny her essential sexuality for so long.

Honestly, if I’d understood sexuality to be a fluid, changing thing then, it would have been much easier for me.

Daniel

84

I believe you are thinking of the Sacred Band, from Thebes, not Sparta.

85

Damned if I know. You’d best ask some LUGs.

86

Not a LUG- actually, a very hetero married guy here- but I’d definitely say I’d view it differently if my SO had told me she’d been with x number of girls vs. x number of guys. The former would likely be a turnon while the latter would be a turnoff. And yes, I know that’s small minded of me. But I wanted to back up the point being made, as I think I’m fairly representative.

87

See, the small-minded approach would be to say, “She’s been with twenty women, but how’s that going to improve her technique with men?” Maybe I’m not typical, but I can see only a (mild) benefit to having a lover with a lot of experience.

Daniel

88

Yeah, but the medium-sized mind figures “Twenty women? She must be hotter than a wasabi sandwich! And I get to teach her exactly what I like!”. :smiley:

89

Does anyone else enjoy the hypocracy of that statement?

90

I went back to page one and read the quote in context. I don’t get where you get the idea this was hypocritical. Is this another example of people using a word to mean something other then the actual meaning? I have seen this happen lately, in examples such as people using “literally” to mean “figuratively”, or calling Iraqi new photos “pr opaganda”.

91

Couple of months ago I was kicking it on the laptop at a local coffee shop when the comfy couch area was invaded by a fairly large group of young men and women who promptly began holding a meeting of what struck me for all the world as “The Kweer Klub.” As they went round introducing themselves, two of the items they used to present themselves were what they “identified as” and what pronouns they prefer to use in reference to themselves. They were all so very earnest and cute as a litter of cocker spaniel pups and I was reminded of my group of friends from high school. One major difference, though, between 1975 and 2005 is that there are so many LABELS now! Back in the day we were very sexual, very openminded about who we were sleeping with, there was no stigma against any part of the continuum of sexuality except for the inflexible and dogmatic on either side of the spectrum. We slept with persons of both genders and in various numbers of participants, seldom partnered up exclusively, and we constantly discussed gender identity and orientation (although the lexicon hadn’t been written yet–or at any rate it wasn’t part of pop culture) but we consciously eschewed labels, because labels were what the square people used to keep themselves from having to think too much.

It was a point of pride then NOT to identify with a clear cut group, we were all about identifying ourselves only in terms of ourselves. Group think was for football players and ROTC types, not for sensitive artistes such as ourselves… :stuck_out_tongue: Yeah, we were prats too, no doubt about it but still, when did the labels become so important? I think that was one thing we had right back then, and I’ve never had any reason to change my mind on this front. Labels suck, they limit people in the worst way–by causing them to censor themselves. “Oh, no, I can’t have sex with this girl who gets my motor going, because I’m a GAY MAN.” “I can’t be attracted to that guy, I am a STRAIGHT MAN.” “Mustn’t fantasize about penises (or in some circles even make use of penis shaped toys) because I’m a LESBIAN.” LUGs are just saying “Hey, right now I’m sleeping with her, then maybe a him or two, a couple more hers, who knows what I’ll be in the mood for next?” and that seems to be more essentially honest than the Procrustean self editing necessary to pigeonhole the gamut of polymorphous perversity humans are capable of into a “lifestyle.”

Sure, a lot of LUGs end up with men and kids, what of it? I don’t sleep with women any more, but that has more to do with having an exclusive relationship with my partner of almost twenty years–I don’t sleep with other men, either. I figured out that my tastes in general ran more toward “vive la difference” than the joys of similarity, then found the person I want to spend my life with. It wouldn’t have mattered a bit, though, had my SO been of the other gender–it’s the person, not the pudendum after all that’s important.

I think people would be much happier with fewer labels to live up to.

92

Cracks me up every time.

93

Is this really about LUGs? Or is the OP’s point more analogous to the concept of Oreos or Uncle Toms in the black community? People who aren’t acknowledged to be really black because of their behavior, friends, politics… I *think * Johanna that you were saying that to be accepted in the lesbian community you have to be a liberal activist. Do you still stand by that? You seem to have maybe backed off that somewhat.

94

God question. The Op wasn’t ansering, so I tried to guess what she meant, which lead to my “channeling” lesbian objections to LUGs. **Johanna **, can I please ask you to restate up the hijack that lead to this thread, in a diffrent way than you did in the OP?

95

I’ve been in poor health recently. I just got home from a three-day stay in the hospital. My medication has documented side effects that include irritability, which is why I grumped off early in this thread. I don’t believe in principle that rudeness justifies rudeness in response. I hope for a world whose rudeness level is decreasing, not increasing, and I hate to see it escalate. I feel bad that I typed a cuss word, but under the circumstances I couldn’t help it.

I was not thinking about LUGs when I started the thread. As I stated above, I have no problems with them finding their own level. The topic of LUGs is sort of germane to the thread topic, though.

I have a serious problem with groupthink imposing limitations on people’s freedom to explore their selfhood wherever it leads them. I am not advocating that lesbians or any other queer groups circle their wagons and suppress all nonconformists. I am proud to be a nonconformist to my dying day. My individuality never fits exactly with any predetermined identity. I felt drawn to lesbian society for two reasons. One is sexual and the other is cultural. The debate will be clearer if we disentangle the two.

  1. Sexual. This is pretty simple and straightforward. I’m a woman and I dig women. Men (mostly) don’t attract me. Some Dopers think this is all there is to it, so why complicate matters with stuff they don’t comprehend?

  2. Cultural. When women who dig women get together and share their stories, they bond deeply by recognizing the similarity of the experiences they share. A lot of creative sparks fly and a lesbian culture arises, with literature, art, music, political activism, and support networking. Personally, I find this lesbian cultural life very attractive. I enjoy it and find it to be life-affirming. I’m not surprised if there are people who don’t “get it” because they haven’t shared any such experiences.

  3. Wanna snog, Opal? :wink:

So my issue was not about whether I fit in on account of sexual orientation. That’s a given. My issue was purely a matter of self-doubt, not aimed at anyone else, whether I could fit in with this culture that I found so attractive. This has been a process of learning not to beat myself up about it. I can’t read Jeanne Adleman’s mind, but I imagine she suffered similar self-doubt. We live in a world that’s always telling women they’re not good enough. We’re too fat or too thin or too masculine or too feminine or too tall or too short or too weak or too strong or too ugly or too fashionable or too unfashionable — no matter what it is, merchants are always looking to profit off our self-doubt. I was saying yes, I know what it’s like to feel inadequate as a woman and beat myself up about it. But I’m on the way to affirming my own worth, and it means so much to me to have sistas behind me, we all support one another with these issues, and we all help one another to grow out of it and accept ourselves by accepting one another.

Being a woman is difficult enough to begin with, but belonging to a minority that is discriminated against feels inherently politicized to me. Maybe that’s just my personal outlook on life, because I’m leftist and feminist. I noticed that the lesbian culture I’ve come in contact with also tends to be leftist and feminist, so we should be a good match, right? But I had a further insecurity around the history of a certain separatist lesbian tendency that harshly rejected and condemned transwomen. Fortunately, that tendency seems to be on the decrease in the present day. Having found acceptance among a group of amazing women, I’m very happy and my faith in humanity is reassured. I just had a lot of insecurities to work through. Sorry if my working through my issues in public like this makes anyone uncomfortable, but I thought it was worth airing out.

96

I’m impressed with your honesty and introspection, (and I hope you’re feeling better). But I’m still scratching my head.

Is the problem finding which culture you “fit” better, or is the problem really the fact that you’re trying to shoehorn your identity into yet another group’s standards? I don’t see that you’ve gained much by hanging your self-worth on the acceptance of your “sistas” as opposed to looking for acceptance on Wall Street or Focus on the Family or any particular set. It looks like you’re facing exactly the same kind of self-doubt. You blame it on the misognynist culture and the oppression of women, but *everybody * wonders if they’re good enough, and whether they’ll “fit in” wherever they go, and both the left and the right can be equally ferocious in using that vulnerability against their own.

If you want to truly cultivate independence then you should be fundamentally skeptical of the self-doubt you’re feeling about how well you measure up - whatever the context. It should set off exactly the same alarm bells whether you’re browsing Cosmo or the Advocate.

97

Humans are social beings, that’s what it is to me. I tend to agree with left-anarchism, which says that people freely associate and organize for their mutual interests in the absence of coercion. I don’t start from the assumption that I’m an isolated monad. I take it for granted that I fit into society somehow. Therefore I prefer to socialize with people whose values I admire and agree with. All this talk of shoehorns is strange to my way of thinking. I’m comfortable in my nonconformity (i.e. weirdness), and my independence does not feel threatened. If I were in a situation where my independence was threatened, I would just walk away from it. What I want is a combination of independence with belonging. I need belonging because it’s the antidote to alienation. There are groups I’ve found, who seem to share some left-anarchist values, that give a sense of belonging while leaving people independent. Does this answer your question?

98

I think the LUG concept is mostly fed by timing and circumstance, and I think it will fade as the years go by and the average age of “coming out” gets younger and younger, then they’ll be known as “LUGHS” (Lesbians until graduating High School). :smiley:

In the “old days”, prior to gay-straight alliances in high school, college was (and I suppose will continue to be for some time) a fertile breeding ground for budding lesbianism.

Budding things can often be fragile and delicate, even a budding bulldagger. :wink:

**Say you’ve just spent 4 years having your first “relationship” with a woman, who happens to be your dorm roommate.

Things might very well begin timidly…no longer under the watchfull eyes of parents, teachers, or the high-school-hall-rumor-mill…you find yourself in close quarters with a beautiful young woman who often gets naked in your presence…who is also experiencing all of the new and exciting things that college and moving away from home have to offer…who catches you staring at her over your Biology text book now and then…who you catch staring at you over her French text book just as often.

Pretty soon, wild monkey sex is being had at every available opportunity.

You do everything together. You’re joined at the hip. You start envisioning the rest of your lives together. She’s the ONE, the ONLY woman for you. You’re saturated in your newfound identity and this love and lust with this being with whom you’re sharing it all.

You’re not thinking about the shades of grey in the continuum of sexuality. You’re not thinking about whether your definitions of “experimenting” or “bisexual” are in sync with her’s. You’re smiling while smelling your fingers in the middle of a lecture hall, staring off into space, calculating the fastest way to get you both naked after lunch.

Then one day in your senior year, you stumble into the room after an all-night biochemistry cram-fest at the library. You’ve got 30 minutes till your final, and all you’ve wanted all night was to feel her lips on your neck. But as your eyes focus in the morning light, you hear a gasp and see Your True Love, laying there naked …with a boy. :eek:

Hot tears stream down your face as you stumble blindly across campus. Somehow you find the room where your final is being given. The words blur across the page. 4 days later, in a drunken stuppor, you open your transcript and see that you got a big fat F on your biochem final.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned…and the concept of the LUG is born…in an irrational fit of jealous, wounded, spiteful backlash.

**Any similarity to myself, or any of my friends is either accidental, or purely for the purpose of mashing anecdotal instances into a fictional representation of a particular time in life.

99

I resent that. You quoted an author saying “good enough to be a lesbian”. I maintain that a woman does not have to be “good enough”. She just has to be romantically and sexually attracted to other women. I assume that the majority of lesbians, just like any other variety of human being, seek acceptance by a community of like individuals. However, while such acceptance is certainly rewarding, it is not a requirement for being a lesbian.

Again, I resent the statement that I don’t get a false statement due to lack of similar experiences. If a group of Jews on the street welcome as a fellow Jew, it’s a nice warm feeling. If they say that, for whatever reason, I am not a Jew then I’ll be slightly upset but considering that mom was Jewish, the bris, the bar mitzvah, and a quick look at Maimonides’ list of core Jewish beliefs, I’m still a Jew.

100

Doc, your criticism helps me to see this issue from a wider perspective. I have always valued your knowledge and insights on these kinds of issues. I learn a lot from you.

I quoted Adleman because I found her statement provocative and thought-stimulating. I wanted to invite the Doper minds to help me explore what it could mean. I appreciate that your Jewish heritage affords you multiple unimpeachable affirmations of who you are. I entered lesbianism without such time-honored support for my selfhood. I am working on building it from the ground up. I agree with you that I am the only authority on who I am. Still, I’m not ashamed to take help from my dyke sistas in the hard work of making my own selfhood. Life is richer and more meaningful when people support one another this way. My selfhood is not separate from other human hearts. The experience of love and healing I was blessed with in Atlanta last month has helped me so much. I’m exploring the meaning of it here. I feel I attain my fullest selfhood through sharing love with others in a caring community.

I didn’t mean to diss you, Doc, for seeing it differently from me. I was just trying to be clear about the points of misunderstanding. I’m very pleased that the respectful discourse we share here allows us to work through such misunderstandings and hopefully find common ground.