# OK, what's the deal with the nu-lesbians? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 5, 2004, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-whats-the-deal-with-the-nu-lesbians/248797 "2004-06-05T13:15:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![The\_world\_s\_most\_deadliest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@The\_world\_s\_most\_deadliest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_world_s_most_deadliest)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-whats-the-deal-with-the-nu-lesbians/248797/21 "2004-06-06T19:46:01Z")
Wow! Thanks for all the thoughtful responses, Dopers! It seems that my suspicions weren’t far off the mark on this topic. I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one that’s noticed this little quirk… > [@Lamia](#): > > …As long as their behavior is some sort of show for the benefit of straight men (either to arouse or shock) and not a sign of real affection then it’s okay. That’s exactly what I wanted to say I thought was happening, but for fear of misunderstanding what might really be going on, I didn’t. Thanks Lamia! > [@Priam](#): > > The infamous “can I watch?” line still comes up with distressing frequency. I believe it. My sister in law is…newly gay? Her girlfriend is her first foray into non-straight relationships (and she’s a total sweetheart, I love her to death). I’ve known my SIL for almost ten years and talked her through a lot of bad breakups with guys, etc. I know it was a bit of a shock for her mother, but her brother (my hubby) and I took it really easily - just because we know she fell for her GF because of the person she is, not because of her gender. Its not like she’s a different person, or that she’s negated her previous relationships, or she’s turning Republican, etc. But I can’t believe the responses that male mutual acquaintances give me when they find out the news. “No WAY!” “She can’t be gay, she dated so-and-so!” “She can’t be gay, she dated ME!” and of course, “Can I watch?” Christ, does it really upset the applecart for these guys so much? I know a lot of them harbored crushes on her (she’s model-pretty) but she’s not a pod person, your masculinity wasn’t enough to “save” her, and I’m pretty goddamn sure she’s not going to let you watch her and her girlfriend any more than you can watch me and my husband, you bastards. (I didn’t ask any of my OP questions to her or her GF because I know she’s still dealing with identity issues and I never spend any one on one time with her GF to just randomly blurt out these questions. Thank Og for the Straight Dope!) > [@Otto](#): > > Look, the operative word in the phrase “lipstick lesbian” is lesbian. Lesbians have no interest in attracting men sexually. Thus, the idea that lipstick lesbianism is faux-lesbianism to attract men is flat-out wrong. I’m glad someone else brought this term up, I tried very hard to work around it in my OP. I’ve always heard of lipstick lesbians meaning the “feminine” lesbians vs. the “dykes” who were stereotyped as manly, mullets and flannel, etc. I always considered it an insult by proxy, since the existance of the term lipstick lesbian assumes that the common version of the lesbian doesn’t wear makeup, look “girly”, etc. But I’ve never heard it used to describe bi or “playacting” girls. The aforementioned male mutual acquaintances also heavily play into this mode of thinking. “Well SIL must be the lipstick lesbian cause her GF is as butch as hell!” :rolleyes: Her GF dresses casually, short hair, very little makeup. I dress casually, have short hair (hers is longer, actually), and wear moderate makeup. I would wear less if my skin was as nice as the GF’s! If you put us both together I know you couldn’t tell from makeup or clothing style who was the married girl and who was the lesbian. But because my SIL wears more “girly” clothes, then the GF is automatically “butch as hell”. Gotcha, assholes. > [@LordAshtar](#): > > I was at a party once and two girls came up to me and the dude I was talking to and said, “Want to watch us kiss?” **Exactly** what I’m talking about. If two girls that were really together went to a party and decided to kiss in the corner because they’re in a relationship, I know that around here they’d get the ol’ hairy eyeball from most men and women alike. But if two girls are kissing for the specific reason of being watched by others, specifically straight men, then its OK! 😕 > [@pizzabrat](#): > > “nu-lesbians”? Is that how you spell it, now? I couldn’t make the umlauts work, ha ha. Seriously, I just took the “nu” from “nu metal” - which is crappy, fake, overproduced pop with a supposedly metal edge made for mass consumption - and created “nu lesbian”, which is the crappy, fake, overproduced “lesbianism” made for mass consumption that LordAshtar graced us with an antecdote about. If there is a term for this that everyone else is using, please fill me in. Again, thanks for the great commentary everyone! ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2004, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-whats-the-deal-with-the-nu-lesbians/248797/22 "2004-06-07T00:02:39Z")
> [@Tir Tinuviel](#): > > Playing to that fantasy is called “Lipstick Lesbianism”, as in; something that girls put on to try and impress men. > > In all the cases I’ve ever seen the girls involved would have been absolutely disgusted with the idea of doing anything more than kissing, because that’s, like, totally gross, eew! > :rolleyes: > > Do men not find this sort of display demeening/insulting their intelligence? A bit, yes, but even more demeening and insulting to our intelligence is the fact that it _works so damn well_. ---
**Author:** ![Tir\_Tinuviel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@Tir\_Tinuviel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tir_Tinuviel)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2004, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-whats-the-deal-with-the-nu-lesbians/248797/23 "2004-06-07T11:21:45Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > I am unable to accept your apology, for I am unassured that you will not compound your error by repeating it. > > Look, the operative word in the phrase “lipstick lesbian” is _lesbian_. Lesbians have no interest in attracting men sexually. Thus, the idea that lipstick lesbianism is faux-lesbianism to attract men is flat-out wrong. See that’s why it makes much more sence to me the other way round. (With a big simple ol’ tar brush) - Women wear lipstick to attract men, women “wear” lesbianism to attract men. Lipstick is not real, neither is the lesbianism, women use either to look more attractive to men. When I say “my part of town” I mean that until this point everyone I ever heard use the phrase or every place I ever saw it written down implied the same definition I did; that’s where I got my definition from. I don’t fancy my chances of trying to alert everyone to the fact they’ve apparently got it wrong, especially when all I can back it up with is that a few people on the internet said so, and it actually means something that we’ve already got a better term for: “femme”. Now that I am aware it can have a different meaning, I’ll add it to the list along with words like “fanny” and make sure I clarify on the rare occasion I might have this conversation with a “non-local”. Ya know, I might even see if I can expand the usage of the term “nu-lesbians”, unless you have another word for it? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2004, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-whats-the-deal-with-the-nu-lesbians/248797/24 "2004-06-07T12:39:10Z")
Here’s my experience on this, and “nu-lesbianism” or whatever one wants to call it. Just this weekend, I was over at the apartment of a woman I’ve just started dating. She was showing me some photographs of family and friends and stuff, all very ordinary pictures. Then there was a picture of her and another woman. They hand their arms around each other in a very friendly, non-sexual way. She showed me the picture and said “That’s [name]. I dated her for a few months.” Very matter-of-fact. It seems to me that younger (than me, anyway, as the woman I’m dating is) women seem to be able to do that sometimes. The woman I’m dating now certainly defines herself as hetero, but a straight woman who just happened to have a relationship with a woman for a while. Just no big deal to her. Kind of fits in with the “LUG” (Lesbians Until Graduation) phenomenon, where women have relationships with women in college, but don’t define themselves as lesbians after college. Just seems to me that women are more flexible than men when it comes to sexual preference and identity. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2004, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-whats-the-deal-with-the-nu-lesbians/248797/25 "2004-06-07T14:08:45Z")
Whether it’s biologically more likely or not that women are more sexually flexible, I certainly feel that women are allowed more freedom to play or experiment with gender roles than men are, everything from tomboys being accepted while sissies aren’t to what I think of as the “one-touch rule”\* not applying to women but applying to men. \*Meaning that one touch in a sexual context by someone of the same sex makes one queer, which for men is actually a fairly recent rule, dating back maybe 30-35 years (before that men who let other men touch them sexually were “trade”). ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2004, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-whats-the-deal-with-the-nu-lesbians/248797/26 "2004-06-07T21:48:54Z")
> [@Tir Tinuviel](#): > > When I say “my part of town” I mean that until this point everyone I ever heard use the phrase or every place I ever saw it written down implied the same definition I did; that’s where I got my definition from. I don’t fancy my chances of trying to alert everyone to the fact they’ve apparently got it wrong, especially when all I can back it up with is that a few people on the internet said so, and it actually means something that we’ve already got a better term for: “femme”. That’s mighty odd. I’ve seen it used the way Otto suggests countless times, but never in the way you say you’ve always seen it. It’s a “pretty” or “looks like a normal gal” lesbian, or in other words not butch. [http://www.lesbianworlds.com/glossary/def\_femme.htm](http://www.lesbianworlds.com/glossary/def_femme.htm) \<-- scroll to “also known as”) [http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/comingout/g/Lipstick.htm](http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/comingout/g/Lipstick.htm) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-whats-the-deal-with-the-nu-lesbians/248797.md?page=1)