You know what, y’all? I have had a revelation. I don’t want to be with a man. Any more of them. It’s not some sort of “I just figured out I’m a lesbian, who knew?! All this time I’ve been living in my body and interacting with people, and wouldn’t you know I just figured out when I like someone” sort of thing, though. I mean I am attracted to men sexually, but then again, I’ve never been exclusively attracted to men anyway. I occasionally even find them tolerant company. But the truth of the matter is, it’s one of my worst nightmares being stuck with one. Because everything I know about what being stuck with a man entails is that at best it’s not that bad and at worse, well you know, he fucking ends you when you fry his eggs wrong one day.
So to clarify, still a bisexual, so seriously, do not leave comments saying how shit bisexuals are or how glad you are that I figured out I’m a lesbian on my page. I am just a bisexual lady who has decided I’d rather date women. I never quite made the logical leap to ask myself if there is any clear reason I date them when I don’t like them that much, and don’t have the misfortune of being exclusively attracted to them, or, as yet, tied to any man on a permanent basis in any way. It was when I was thinking about what a best-case scenario with one would entail that a light bulb kind of went off in my head and I was like “Chatonne, why would you want that anyway? That doesn’t sound that great, really.”
All of this thinking about how a “good” straight relationship could/would even go made me start thinking about Pascal’s wager. Admittedly, that popped into my head because the topic was stressing me out and making me think a lot about hell. This wager basically posits that you should believe in God because if believe in Him and you’re right, you go to heaven. If you believe in Him and you’re wrong, you’ll live a decent life and be a benefit to society. If you don’t believe in him and you’re right, you get nothing for it. If you don’t believe in him and you’re wrong, you will go to hell. The basic problem with this logic, is that it only works out if there are only two options for you, believing and not believing, and there are only two options for the truth of the universe, God is, or God isn’t. This is not the case, because really, there are countless religions, and many consider the truth of their worldviews to be mutually exclusive. That means for you, faith is not an on and off switch. This also discounts the different possibilities for the universe. There isn’t just God or not God, there is god, or goddess, Krishna or Odin, god and goddess, Demeter and Isis, really any combination of gods and goddesses could be or not be. This also doesn’t work out because it’s not really hell, heaven, or neither, it’s hell, heaven, Sheol, Valhalla, Tartarus, nirvana, Hades, reincarnation, vast nothingness, becoming an angel, being reborn as a star, or any number of things.
I thought about how, in a way, relationships are like that two. It’s not man or loneliness. They say that all the time, but it’s not true. There are also communities of friends, women, blissful solitude, polyfidelity, or any countless numbers of other possibilities of ways to live and be happy. That got me to thinking, okay, now that I’ve established that this bet I’ve been asked to make is not rigged nearly as effectively as they say it is, and there are more doors I can pick than the two they said, let’s think about what’s really behind that door. Now that we’ve decided that we don’t have to accept it’s just heaven where you serve or hell where you burn, let’s actually think about how I really feel about the supposed prize I am supposed to be betting and scrambling and hoping for. And I realized that even if everything goes the way I’ve been trained to hope it does, that still isn’t something I really want. I guess the best way to put it, is eternally bowing, scraping, and singing praises sounds as torturous to me as being lit constantly aflame. So why not roll the dice and see what’s behind another door?
I had gotten to where I was willing to kind of stake it out and try to find someone that is tolerable, or maybe find someone sweet, dumb and malleable enough that I could coax them into being tolerable. And then I took a bit more of a logical journey and was like okay, you have found a man you can get along with, where does your relationship go from there, assuming all goes well? Well I thought about how relationships with men always go, and the answer to that question is “eww gross! Why the fuck would I want to do that?!” You “win” a relationship, you get stuck with babies, endless PIV and marriage, which ties all of your legal statuses and assets to him permanently. You “lose” a relationship, and there are endless ways you can be totally fucked. You get this frustrating lose-lose situation, for example, with sex.
Sex with them always must include PIV, and you’re fucked either way you turn that. If you have good sex with them, then you have more of it and you multiply your pregnancy and std risk, that sucks. If you have bad sex with them, you get to fake lots of orgasms, deal with the intense discomfort of having someone fucking you badly, and get to a point that you dread whenever they come near you with that thing which certainly produces psychological discomfort. You also are still running the same pregnancy and STD risks you would be if you actually enjoyed it. If you have no sex with them then you shoot up your rape risk in the event they get pissed with you and decide to just entirely disregard your non-consent. You are also constantly under fire as a result of your reduced relationship security. It’s like Pascal’s wager, sort of. Lose, lose, lose!
I know exactly what is expected of me when it comes to being in a relationship with a man. Not only do I have access to mass media, I’ve also met hundreds of other people in the real world; I know what’s expected. You are expected to get in a relationship where you start out with dating. What dating is, is you go on banal amusements together. Movies, dinner, dancing, that sort of thing. If you’re doing this properly, the man will pay for aforementioned banal amusements. How you will play your part, is you will get all dolled up in your lady drag, you pretend he’s not boring you shitless, and you will let him PIV you. He pays, you look pretty and let him fuck you. If a man has been taught proper manner, he will be quite nice to you during these amusements. He will open your doors, pull out your chairs, compliment your drag, and occasionally drag his eye line up from your breasts so that he can pretend to be interested in your face. Really he should be able to manage to pretend to be interested in your face after you’ve gone and put so much bright sparkly stuff on it, from earrings to eyeshadow and lip gloss. But both of you know what’s going on, he’s performing the perfunctory acts so that he can get your panties off and you can move from phase one of dating, to phase two.
So once you’ve completed phase one, with the banal amusements, you enter phase two. Phase two is basically the transition stage. During phase two, you can occasionally relax your drag efforts, and he will accordingly relax his chivalrous politeness efforts. Basically, you’re laying the groundwork for stage three in which your obligations to the man become permanent. During this stage you meet parents, have a series of “the talks” where monogamy is established and plans for ongoing commitments are established and you start ironing out your expectations from one another. Towards the end of this stage, couples tend to start spending increasing amounts of time indoors, which is quite a contrast to the way that stage one is filled with little outings. This time spent indoors tends to lead rather predictably to a feeling you should head to stage three.
Stage three is where a woman’s obligation to serve a man becomes permanent. The events that lead to stage three can happen in several different sequences, and really it only takes one or two of these events in order to prompt a shift to stage three. To get from stage two to stage three a couple can either move in together, get engaged, or have the better half find herself pregnant. Either of these three things tend to lead to marriage, or a not-legally-recognized facsimile thereof. And what pray tell is marriage? Basically hell, if you happen to be a woman. It’s a patriarchal organization designed specifically to ensure a man a life-long servant. Aforementioned servant will basically be expected to do whatever the man requires of her, the list of duties is infamously mutable. A sample list of job titles that would cover the aforementioned duties is laundress, on-call prostitute, chef, nanny, personal assistant, maid, personal trainer, therapist, nurse, and secretary.
Honestly, that sounds like that sucks; I don’t want to do that. I would like to spend my life with someone, but I can’t imagine wishing to spend my life with someone that would expect me to do all of that for less than free, as I would still probably need to bring a second income into the home, thus creating a situation where I am paying at least half of my income to him and his upkeep for the privilege of providing his upkeep. That sucks, right? And from knowing other women, reading statistics and studies and just watching television and movies it’s clear to me that no matter how diligently I do all of this, I still can’t be expected to be rewarded for all of this with gratitude, consideration, affection (and NO, the obligatory PIV is not by any definition affection) or even emotional support and decent conversation. So you basically date in purgatory, and marry in hell. You know what, I’ve seen what that set of beliefs has to offer me, and I think I’ll take my chances with another faith. I know, I know, they say I’ll burn in hell. But really, their “heaven” sounds pretty shit anyway, right?
Feb 22, 2012 @ 12:53:32
its telling that women look for men with womanly attributes when considering potential manly mates. why not just cut out the middle MAN altogether? its such a crock, and yet its devastatingly obvious at the same time.
and this:
made me LOL. there has to be a better way, no?
Feb 22, 2012 @ 14:16:43
The guy I had been most recently considering having as a nigel said something gross about kittens yesterday. Literally, he was like “me and my friends joke about doing all sorts of nasty things to kittens” when I mentioned I really want to get a kitten. I sputtered into horrified silence, and he got huffy with me. “I can’t help what I think, we’re just joking around.” I was like “how the hell do you not see the problem here? If this madness emanated from your friends they need to literally fucking go. Like I’d have to veto them to be with you.” He said “veto my friends!? They’re my friends. And why are you being so melodramatic? It’s not like I’d DO anything to a kitten, I just can’t help what I think.” Retch. Fuck this. Men hang out and do shit like that? Indulge each other with chatter about bestial pedophilia? And that apparently qualifies as mild enough activity as to cause confusion if women are exercised about it? Fuck this times a million. Any sort of being that can even understand and be around thoughts like that is not one I can build a life with. I’ve already determined I can’t leave a man alone with a baby or a child. Not even a fucking kitten? GTFO this cause is worthless.
Apr 18, 2012 @ 11:18:47
I would actually report him to a psychologist or something. My friend in Texas recently found the top half of a kitten he was feeding on his doorstep. Often, “I was joking” means “don’t punish me for it”. He’s trying to get away with it by saying he’s joking.
Apr 18, 2012 @ 15:08:32
I wouldn’t leave him alone with a pet of mine regardless of how he excused that comment, but at the very least it was a wake up call to me how much so biophilia tends to be lacking in men and what sort of thoughts and compulsions I would have to struggle against if I were to be partnered with one.
Feb 22, 2012 @ 14:24:36
ok, so they cant help what they think. fine. why do they act like that makes their thoughts (and them, by extension) acceptable? we are free to discard them based on the criteria WE set arent we? and having disgusting “thoughts” (aka. fantasies) about bestial pedophilia as you say, can be a dealbreaker, if WE say it is. cant it? i mean really.
they really do think they get to make all the rules. and yeah, we have to play by them IF we want to be with them, but theres the thing: we really dont. the catch is that we have to start planning for this early and really commit to making alternate arrangements. its a pretty big catch. huge, actually.
Feb 22, 2012 @ 15:06:47
And fine. You have horrible, uncontrollable fantasies. Why exactly must I hear about them? If you have told me about them, you have made them my business and my problem. If I have to contemplate the depths of your depravity, do I not additionally get to have an opinion on it? I guess I should be glad that he let me know his perversions are essentially bottomless.
I guess I do have to put up with his perversions, habits, demands and shit if I wish to be with him. But really, for what reason would I want to be with him? If you get rid of all of the fake propaganda about how it’s so fulfilling to have a man or whatever, the reality of relationships with men is bullshit. And luckily I am young, I don’t have any kids, I am not married or cohabitating with any man at present. It gives me a chance to really ask myself if I even want to attempt all of that. And no, not at all. I had given up on the idea of raising a child since I would rather not bring a person into this horrible world we live in, and I have sufficient issues with depression that I would need to be with a man that could not only pick up the slack, but in times it’s really bad do all of the stuff. Like take care of himself, the kids and me. You know, how I would automatically be expected to do for him all the time I’m not physically or mentally incapacitated. Between thinking about it, and running across your post about the Dishwashing Dillemma right when I was considering men’s competence generally, I decided it’s not worth the gamble.
But I figured at the least I could have a cat. Or not, apparently. Like you can’t even raise a kitten with confidence with a man. I guess that’s not surprising considering what happened with Phona’s plants. If I really can’t have anything but a man in the house alive if I want to have a man and not have the worry about him horribly killing it, then what’s the point? Maybe the killing or desecrating of all the living things in the house is motivated by the same jealousy that makes male lions kill cubs?
Feb 22, 2012 @ 16:38:47
You’re pretty much on the nose with your portrayal of relationships from the female point of view. Men are just not meant for lasting relationships unless the woman keeps them in line, but that’s a lot of work. It seems to me that you’re smart enough to realize that, but that this also makes you smart enough to realize that there are other alternatives. It seems most women don’t even realize that there are alternatives… so they have PIV, have children, then they have to leave their boyfriend because they can’t stand them any more, then their life is basically fucked economically and psychologically… It’s horrible.
Feb 22, 2012 @ 18:03:47
sorry, but implicating womens intelligence in these matters is lame. women know what they are doing, perhaps particularly when they capitulate to men. its a survival strategy under the P and theres nothing stupid about trying to survive. and men being assholes and women having to deal with that reality in one way or another, doesnt make women stupid. it makes men assholes, and beyond contempt for the despicable, unconscionable “choices” they foist upon women, and for ruining womens lives.
Feb 22, 2012 @ 18:14:39
Well, I don’t think most of us are smart enough to realize there are alternatives to the way we live… that’s just a fact. It’s really really hard to get to that point, and most people simply don’t have the time or incentive to think about it.
Feb 22, 2012 @ 18:29:55
you are not hearing me. women DO think about the alternatives. and considering that it can ALWAYS, ALWAYS get worse for us, up to and including having to prostitute ourselves to survive, many women “choose” to partner with one man. because being raped and abused by one man, to survive, is better than being raped and abused by all men, to survive. its not a matter of not thinking it through, quite the opposite.
and having the “time” or “incentive” to think about these things, is not the same as intelligence. and women do indeed have the incentive to think about it, and men do too. in fact, men are constantly coming up with new ways to make male supremacy work for them, and coming up with increasingly horrifying ways to damage girls and women. incentive! indeed.
read dworkins “right wing women” for more.
Feb 23, 2012 @ 12:39:26
Great, great post. I think your comment about the Nigel’s kitten fantasies is very enlightening. I completely agree- eff that times one million.
Feb 23, 2012 @ 13:58:22
That made it clear to me it was time to get real about what I would be risking for myself and anything living in my home if I brought a nigel into it. It’s only possible to “date” them if you make yourself forget how real the chance you’ll get a kitten fucker or child filleter really is.
Feb 24, 2012 @ 16:15:13
You live alone? Oh, I don’t even remember what that’s like… must be nice!
I live with a man, because if I didn’t live here, I’d be homeless. I have nowhere else to go. Nowhere. There’s no PIV or sex of any kind. But, I’m not dumb; I know the compromises I’ve had to make. I know that I am essentially his pet/property, since I have no money, no job, no car, and no alternatives. Well, at least he’s usually nice to me… /s As soon as I get the chance I’m outta here… I want to live in a bus or something.
And, I judge d00dz on their friends, too. If they hang with assholes, THEY are an asshole. And, I let them know it. I have plenty of opportunities, since I am Just. So. “Sexy” (but rapidly aging into invisibleness, I have lines on my face!!! OH NO). Men fall all over me at bars, cafes, etc. cuz they think I’m “cute” or whatever, and then I let them have it (verbally)! Ka-CHOW! They run screaming after they realize I expect (not want, EXPECT) them to see me as human and respect me. I also openly tell them that I am smarter than them. Even without a degree. Ha!
You’re great, and way to go dodging a bullet with Kitten Abuse Fantasy D00d. Push him FAR AWAY, forever. Ugh. Just another sociopathic, narcissist turd.
Oh, I love little kittens… how could ANYONE joke about hurting them? There is a special Hell for them. So sez a certain misogynist sci-fi author. Urgh.
Sorry so rambly.
Feb 24, 2012 @ 19:23:31
I live with family, but I have never lived with a man that I am not related to in my adult life. My grandmother warned me about living with men and how the mixing of finances can create power balance problems and trap you, so I didn’t do it. She said whatever you do, have your own place to stay so if you have to, you can boot him out of it.
Birds of a feather flock together. I don’t want to surround myself with people that I feel are unsavory. I know you’re not supposed to judge and all of that, but I feel like you should judge the company you keep the same way you should judge the choices you make. I work hard to be the kind of person that I can be proud of and don’t want to deal with people who don’t value their character. I feel like if a guy is okay with having awful friends, he’s okay with being an awful person himself because they would be repulsive to him if he really had opposition to who they are or what they do.
And yeah, fuck that guy. I’ve waded through pornography use, cheating, homosexuality, lying, manipulation, verbal and psychological abuse, occasional sex-fail, risking potential pregnancy, the general irritation associated with being obsessed with juvenile pursuits, and all of that over the years with different nigels. But I had to draw the damn line at kittens. If you don’t love kittens I cannot share space with you. If thoughts of bad things happening to kittens doesn’t make you want to go “oh no! Kittens! Stop! HELP!” then I can’t think that maybe you’re decent. I can see how a person can dislike kids, in spite of often being cute they are rude, annoying, destructive, and loud. But kittens? The loudest thing they do mew in distress, and even though that’s loud it’s completely adorable. Chatonne means kitten! I feel tempted to create a religion and join it just to establish kitten killer hell and burn him in it.
Feb 23, 2012 @ 12:58:51
I’ve been in relationships with men and women both, but whenever I’m actively on the dating market it’s women only. Men have to be placed under observation for several months as friends before they can be determined to be redeemable or not.
Feb 23, 2012 @ 14:04:34
I’m just glad that in the time I’ve been spinning the roulette wheel I didn’t hit a circumstance that stuck me with one. I don’t really want to risk that again. It’s all fun and games with nigels while you’re in stage one, and most of them seem fine. But boy, you hit stages two and three and they start showing their colors. And their colors are pretty similar: variations of sociopath greige. Why be bothered with that if you’re attracted to women?
Feb 23, 2012 @ 13:02:41
I like this post–so nice to see other womyn coming to such similar conclusions as my own about dating/mating with men. Ah, nasty-kittens fantasies–the innocent darling, not even conscious enough to realize how it outs him as a cruel pervert to admit that fantasy out loud. But you didn’t miss it–that’s the important thing!
Feb 23, 2012 @ 14:14:23
I was more alarmed by the fact that he didn’t realize how gross that was than the fact that it had crossed his mind. Like if he had a thought like that and went “shit! What’s going on there? Maybe I need a therapist” then like maybe? But the fact that he was flat out stumped by my revulsion just sealed the deal that he really DOESN’T know how fucked that says he is as a person; all he seems to grasp is that I’m judging him and it makes him feel pissy.
Feb 24, 2012 @ 00:58:47
Hi again. Love this one! I’ll be sending it to my cousin the next time she and her on-and-off boyfriend break up. It’s clever how you play on the similarities between concepts/shows/etc most people are familiar with and radfem analysis. All of your posts so far and have managed to be more accessible than the typical radfem blog without obfuscating the main idea. You must write. A lot.
By the way, I apologize for the off-hand remark I made about bisexuals. Certainly wasn’t encouraging you to swear off men and declare yourself reborn lesbian. To the contrary, that sort of thing is what motivated the comment. (and I’d drawn parallels to your ex Nigel’s response at LGBT meetings) Actually, what you’re saying is very important indeed. A woman needn’t fudge her identity to have a legitimate justification for eschewing men. The impossibility of having a relationship on her terms under patriarchy is reason enough.
Keep blogging! I’ll be waiting for your next update.
Feb 24, 2012 @ 19:13:31
I’m glad that my writing is clear and accessible. Part of the reason I created the blog was that I didn’t feel there were enough radical feminist blogs, so I wanted to add to the number, but I also wanted to make sure that if I send my friends that are not radfems here they can read it.
I’m a bit sensitive about sexual orientation questions after the adventures of label changing excuse making-up ex Nigel from my post about personality disorders. My knee jerk reaction to people that come out as gay after having been in several straight relationships and say that all of their straight experiences were bullshit devoid of real desire is “well fuck you then, you should have just stayed single if you didn’t like them so much. Why trash them just because you are in a happier situation now?” It reminds me forcibly of the situation with Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie. In an interview quite soon after his divorce from Jennifer, Brad said that he never even knew what love was before he met Angelina. Having been married to Brad for a decade before he met Ms. Jolie, Jennifer responded to that quip by saying it seems like he is missing a sensitivity chip or something. I feel like if a person is going to be with someone else, they should do so because they believe that the relationship can, and hopefully will work out and make both of them happy. If you get in a relationship with someone that you know off the bat you don’t want then you are being unfair to that person. Had I never actually wanted any of my previous male partners and been with them anyway for appearances or something, I feel that would make me a dishonest asshole that’s using them. If you need someone for appearances, then ask a dear friend if they’ll make appearances for you or let the person know that you don’t want anything serious and decide on their own if they want to kick it with you; I just don’t think it’s okay to make that person think that you really want to be with them when you’re just bullshitting or treading water.
I think that it’s a shame the queer movement got so attached to the born this way thing that they have completely erased the legitimacy of choices. I really think it’s not uncommon that there are people that could be in straight relationships, but choose not to be because that’s not what they want, not because they have uncontrollable urges that compel them without their knowledge or something. “I can’t help it, I feel how I feel” is the kind of thing that kitten abusers say to excuse their behavior; if your behavior doesn’t require excusing then don’t excuse it, own it.
Apr 18, 2012 @ 11:37:07
Why not send it to your cousin now?
Feb 26, 2012 @ 14:49:40
While bearding is dishonest and hurtful to the person being used as cover, I understand why some gay people might do that. Not saying it’s right, though. It definitely isn’t. That said, many who have been in “several straight relationships” are like your ex Nigel and don’t want to use the bisexual label because it lacks political representation. The Cynthia Nixon statement and her subsequent retraction of said statement come to mind.
It’s mostly non-activist gays that use the born this way argument. My issue with the queer movement is their focus on identities and “queerness” of their culture. Instead of proudly stating they choose gay relationships, they end up saying things like, “Lesbians having PIV/watching gay porn/etc is revolutionary!” (As if any of that is revolutionary in patriarchy!) By now, I suppose it’s obvious that I don’t agree with the queer movement on fluidity, nor do I agree with the classical radfem position. As a woman who has only ever been sexually attracted to other women, I cannot. Was I born this way? I don’t know, but I also don’t consciously choose my thoughts. Now, whether I act on them is a definite choice, and that goes for everything. An appeal to nature is never sufficient proof of morality.
Nonetheless, my opinion does not necessitate compulsory heterosexuality as a practice. If attraction to men guaranteed happiness while partnered with one, so many married women wouldn’t be depressed. The division between lesbians, “gender nonconforming” queer women, and political lesbians is unneeded and could be easily resolved if the latter groups simply clarified that they choose gay relationships, not gay orientations. Yes, I’m aware that they are philosophically at odds with the idea of innate orientation. However, if they don’t believe in orientations, then surely what they’re choosing are relationships and identities, yes? If anything, it’s one of the biggest feminist statements possible for a woman to say she’s bisexual/straight, yet chooses to exclusively date other women/cohabitate with her friends because of the fundamental misogyny in how patriarchy organizes heterosexual relationships. Right up there with refusing to bear male children, if you ask me. You know, it’s funny. The more I read radical perspectives on sexual orientation, the more I suspect that the women who experience it as purely societal perhaps never had one and mistook internalized dom/sub messages for genuine lust after male bodies, but I digress.
Well, I should probably refrain from further discussing sexual orientation here since my views on this particular issue could be interpreted as somewhat essentialist. Sorry if anything I wrote offended you. Sometimes I just wish there were a space where women that put our liberation at the forefront could discuss our differences and build upon our commonalities. Maybe I should make one! Heh.
Feb 26, 2012 @ 17:14:48
I feel like the aversion to using the bisexual label and lack of political representation for it are directly tied into the born this way thing. My experience as a bisexual person is being told all the time that my perceptions of my sexuality are wrong, because really people cannot and do not have genuine attraction to people of both sexes. The only people that think they do are mistaken, because sexuality isn’t a thing that can and does vary over time, it’s something set in stone at square one, and although people can be attracted to different individual persons, characteristics and activities over time, gender is a line that cannot and is not crossed as sexualities change. I think that some people go their whole lives being exclusively attracted to one gender or the other, but I find it annoying that because that is their experiences they have to extrapolate that it must be like that for everyone and give people whose sexualities follow different patterns hell about it. I think that biphobic pressure is what leads people into rejecting the label bisexual and excusing their previous straight relationships by saying they were all fake, even when they weren’t. Hearing these stories, seeing the way people are treated when they try to assert that they choose how they live their lives and are harshly put down and seeing how many people will refuse to be in relationships with them because they’re “confused” and “will surely leave them for someone of the other sex” leads people to repeat that cycle of lying about the nature of their past relationships and their feelings for or about their partners to fit in and having other people see them do that and decide to follow suit.
The queer movement is definitely an eye roller, as it mixes up gay sexuality, kinks, perversions and gendah into such bullshit soup. I think that’s largely motivated by people that are not actually sexual minorities wanting to get the privileges they imagine come with being sexual minorities. In a way, it’s sort of like how white people are sometimes jealous of black people because black people have black student unions and the NAACP and they claim that they’re reverse discriminated against in order to take on a grand show of the oppression that looks so cool to them from the outside. If you have a guy that likes dominating women, that’s just normal, standard heterosexual behavior. But if he puts on a dress and says he’s a lesbian then he’s a minority and he can go run through the halls of society crying crystal tears for his pain with his dress dramatically trailing behind him. If said man who likes dominating women instead channels that behavior into BDSM, complete with the whips and chains and costumes, then he can put his head in his hands and cry all over his assless chaps about how society decries him. I think it’s just a reaction to desiring to have activism and legitimization directed at themselves that causes people to expand from LGB to the much more general “queer.”
I definitely think that people don’t choose gay orientations, but they do choose gay relationships and that fact often gets lost in the orientation choice vs. nature discussion. Not being attracted to someone has never been considered a real reason for women to not be in a relationship. If women’s sexuality was considered something relevant to the relationship question, then PIV wouldn’t be nearly as popular as it is, considering how few women actually find it sufficient. I think that in some ways the importance of sexuality in relationships is overstated. I think most people would be happier in relationships that were entirely sex free with people that cared about them, treated them well, thought they were important and enjoyed the same sort of lifestyle that they wanted to live than in relationships with people they were really into having sex with but didn’t have an accord with otherwise. I had always had physical attractions to women, but had never met a woman I had an accord with emotionally in the sort of way that made me feel like I would want to be in a relationship with them, so after a few hook ups I quit doing that. Specifically what made me quit doing that was Lady Gaga’s quotes about being bisexual in a way that involved basically seeing women as sex objects but never being able to see herself in a relationship with them. I felt like wow, that resonates for me, and it’s a fucked up thing. It smacked of internalized misogyny, and as I’m a person that doesn’t like being toyed with, I made sure not to toy with anyone else and I felt like even casual hooking up is kind of dubious and unfair. There’s such a high chance of sexual activity entailing feelings that it’s sort of like playing Russian Roulette with someone to do that, and if you feel there’s no way that you could return those feelings, it’s like you’ve rigged the game.
So I decided to stick with men, since I knew that I could be and sometimes did feel like I could be with one, whereas I hadn’t really felt like that about a woman before. Everything sort of flipped around rather suddenly for me when it really dawned on me that based on what I know about men and how they feel about women generally, I can’t be with one. Not only would it be personally injurious to me, it would generally be in conflict with my feminist principles. It’s not really possible to live in peace with someone you can’t shake the feeling is probably mental road kill. And looking for non-road-kill specimens would entail dedicating A LOT of time and energy to dating and sifting through men, as they are drastically in the minority. Did I really want to dedicate at least twice as much time and energy to man-pleasing and dating and shit? No. So that leaves celibacy, which I was cool with from a sexual standpoint, but not a lifestyle standpoint. I could be okay with not having sex again, but I don’t think I could be okay with never having someone to share an emotional connection with again. I was toying with the idea of a Boston marriage, and I just happened to find myself drawing closer emotionally to a female friend of mine as I was tying my loose ends with heterosexuality. Much to my surprise, I found it quite easy to see myself in a real relationship with her. I couldn’t really make sense of being in a lesbian relationship if I don’t have to be, because there is nothing about taking on more oppression and less acceptance that appeals to me, but when my negative feelings about male companionship reached a critical mass, my feelings on the subject in general started to change. All of that said, I don’t feel like I was ALWAYS just sort of treading water waiting to fall in love with a woman or something, because I never felt like I was living my life in a false way before and the notion of having been repressing myself or deluding myself just doesn’t ring true for me.
Feb 26, 2012 @ 19:38:41
It seems you’re on a similar trajectory to the one outlined by Valerie Solanas in the SCUM manifesto. Reading to live by. It has informed a large part of my thinking about men and the pathetic excuse for civilization we live in.
At this point in my life I’m about to jump off the cliff. I don’t give a shit anymore. I will not live with a man. With the way things are going there will be lots and lots of homeless people and males, as always, will try to convince females that they need “protection”. But I see their little circle game. I know that if I refuse protection, they will try to devise some way to make me “pay” for daring to live without them. And I’m ready to face whatever bullshit they dole out. Because I know that everything they touch turns to death and living with them is death no matter if i’m married or being actively hunted down and killed.
It doesn’t matter anymore. It’s liberating but at the same time I feel like i’m living on a knife’s edge. More and more females will feel this way as the economic system around us collapses and they turn to males for protection and/or prostitution for basic resources. We will see more and more of this and it is essential that we create communities of our own. It has been done in africa already.
I have a theory that our clitorises were actually engineered by males and that males are actually a manifestation of the virus known as sperm. Sounds crazy, but hear me out. Males are manifestations of sperm, a virus. It resembles a virus in that it is 100% of the material world, therefore dead, and needs a host cell to replicate itself. We are manifestations of the egg or, really, the host cell. Sperm finds its way to the host cell by tricking it into allowing sperm to attach to it. Sperm then injects its genetic material into the host cell in hopes of creating another sperm-creator.
In some cases the interaction between sperm and egg creates a female for the purposes of engineering another host. But now we know how to create children with chromosomes from two living cells, two eggs. This method only creates females. We do not need sperm because when reproducing with sperm we run the risk of producing males, and we do not need to risk creating yet another viral manifestation.
This theory explains a lot of things, including male dominated religions that stress the existence of females as a “vessel” for sperm and the preference for male babies (more replicators, we win, yay!) and the entire courtship process (of which the end goal is almost always PIV, opportunity to inject host with virus! replication!)
Replication is the only thing that brings meaning to the male’s life, which is why the patriarchy stresses marriage and family so much. The patriarchy is actively invested in dumbing down and limiting females so that we will unconsciously submit to becoming hosts to males.
In the process of dumbing down females all sorts of tricks are used, the root of all of which is fear. Racism, sexism, nationalism, all the social divisions you can think of are diversions to lure you back into the male trap. It is a crafty little parasite, sperm. It works by jolting and shaking its host and then feeding off of the resultant emotional distress energy/using the unaware host to replicate.
So really any attention paid to it whatsoever is actually feeding it energy. It can’t create it’s own energy because it is dead. And so are males, its manifestations.
When this theory is applied to daily life, things suddenly become very clear. One’s dealings with the male sex need not contain emotion or personal feelings, because that would be a waste of energy and playing directly into their hand.
Mar 01, 2012 @ 21:32:19
Well I would say that’s not a bad metaphor to come to based on an observation of their actions and the apparent motivations. With regards to the replication question, ex-Nigel the kitten hater and I were speaking and he said to me “I don’t see the point in even bothering to date anymore if no woman is willing to even let me try to be a father.” The whole point is to replicate, and the reasons for that desire tend to be pretty blurry. It is amusing that he thinks that he is somehow entitled to have someone hosting his offspring, though.
I think women are increasingly, one by one, peeling themselves and their lives away from the control of men because of our unprecedented ability to talk to each other and see what’s happening. Men are naturally getting even more spoiled and pissy and angry about the whole thing, but it’s happening. Men keep proving that we’re doing something by doing things like being pissed about these kinds of blogs and constantly trying to insert themselves and derail the conversation. MRAs wouldn’t exist if the patriarchy wasn’t being threatened. As long as we keep on telling the truth and showing women there are ways out, we keep moving forward.
Mar 03, 2012 @ 12:47:16
this blog, and other blogs that address the issues central to the problems males foster in females’ lives, ROCK
Apr 20, 2012 @ 07:22:37
I wonder if we would even need science to do female-female reproduction? I mean, if the male body is an aberration and a virus like you say, then doesn’t it seem that BEFORE the male was “invented” that females could NATURALLY reproduce with other females?
I mean, perhaps we don’t even need science!
You know all that bullshit in the puberty pamphlets that say the egg “disintegrates” before it’s expelled from the uterus every month? Who says it disintegrates? Maybe it doesn’t! (It’s just like the patriarchy to pretend the female body is weaker or more likely to have its parts “disintegrate”, isn’t it?)
Feb 26, 2012 @ 19:40:28
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/08/AR2005070801775.html (female only village)
Feb 26, 2012 @ 21:58:58
Yes, there is a false dichotomy concerning sexual orientation. Putting aside the problems with biological determinism for a moment, even if people are born gay and straight, that would not preclude some people from being born bisexual as well. Just curious. Were the people who told you bisexuality doesn’t exist gay men? Western men are invested in keeping the gay/straight binary intact (though usually only for men) for obvious reasons, although gay and straight men have different motivations. Whatever the case, I’m not that surprised. Sadly, there are gay people who don’t gain any insight from the prejudice they receive in society. Another possibility is some of the people urging you to make up your mind were actually bisexual themselves.
Before I continue about bisexuality, I’ll say that I completely agree with your criticisms of queer politics. Also, I’m glad you mentioned feeling like other people are projecting their sexualities onto you because that is exactly what lesbians feel is happening to us, particularly by the queer movement. The push for acceptance of the idea that women, and only women, are inherently bisexual is patriarchy repackaged as something subversive, much like BDSM, transsexualism, sex positivity, and all the other wonderful “progressive” ideologies.
Ah, but women have never had a real reason to not be in a relationship. As for sexual attraction being relatively unimportant in a relationship, I think that’s probably more true than most people (men) would ever admit. It’s certainly seems true for many women, though probably not myself, and it would be for men too if it were an “open” arrangement. The stress on the importance of sex within a relationship is just another convenient way to dominate women, as far as I’m concerned.
Thank you for sharing some of the details of how you came about the decision to date women. You are incredibly mindful of other people’s feelings. The notion that personalities have “genders” is ridiculous, so I agree that it was internalized misogyny that prevented you from seeing women as potential partners. For years, I was the same with the exception I didn’t see men that way either. Of course, I still expected to grow out of it and become straight like everyone else, but that clearly never happened. In late elementary school, I remember being jealous of the boy my best friend liked because I was attracted to her. What I ended up doing out of spite is pretending I liked him so he would spend time with me instead of her. I did that a few more times up until high school when the expectation you would give PIV to the boy you liked became too much to fake. (very immature and passive aggressive thing to do, but I’ve obviously grown up since then) To the casual observer, this would look like cliche cattiness between teenage girls. The point I’m getting at is bisexuals and homosexuals have different lived experiences, but both sides somehow end up thinking the other is either marginalizing their voices (in your case) or colonizing their community (in mine).
Speaking of internalized misogyny, I’ll add that as another factor causing reluctance among bisexuals to claim their label, and this is an instance where both sides are contributing to the problem. There are lesbians who openly proclaim they don’t date bisexuals because they view them as promiscuous and don’t believe their relationships with women are legitimate just as there are self-hating bisexuals who are set on changing the definition of lesbian to include non homosexuals. How can this problem be negotiated? Lesbians should stop shaming bisexuals and belittling their same sex relationships (e.g. “You’re gonna marry a man and have three kids by the time you’re 30!”), while bisexuals should respect the lesbian label and correct people who assume they are lesbians. The issue of lesbians refusing to date bisexuals will always be there, but realistically, this will harm lesbians more than bisexuals in terms of dating prospects once more people come out as bi or label free. This is mostly anecdotal, but to me it seems bisexuals are ironically the largest sexual minority despite having the least representation.
Mar 01, 2012 @ 21:06:18
Why be bothered with that if you’re attracted to women?
Why be bothered with that even if you’re not attracted to women? It is still possible to have all of those nonsexual aspects with friends and family.
I was more alarmed by the fact that he didn’t realize how gross that was than the fact that it had crossed his mind.
Men glorify evil. It’s fun for them and then they expect us to ignore the evil as though it’s not there. Character is not a consideration for men because they purposely endeavor (successfully) to have a really bad one. Haven’t you noticed no matter what kind of scum a man is, other men still respect him as long as he is upholding patriarchy. Think about all the politicians who have either betrayed their wives and/or gone to prison. If they were women they would be ruined for life, but not men. They can still get six figure salaries and continue on with respectability intact like nothing ever happened. Men don’t count character because if they did no man anywhere would have a job and only women would be respectable (the truth). Think about that. Imagine if Nancy Pelosi had sexted pics of her breasts to the universe. She would have to dig a hole and tunnel underground to live. But just you wait. Wiener will surface again in a while with some new cause just like the scummers always do.
Mar 01, 2012 @ 21:26:26
It is possible to have all of the nonsexual elements with friends and family, but I do think there is something in particular about intimate exchange that many people (certainly myself) miss when not partnered. I could go the rest of my life without have sex again, and be fine, but I can’t say I’m so sure about going the rest of my life without kisses and other sorts of physical affection that are outside the bounds of familial or friendly relationships.
And yes, men do glorify evil. I was kind of trying to hold onto the notion there are enough men that don’t that there’s a reasonable chance I’d find one, but it became quickly apparent while discussing the morality of doing nasty things to kittens and why that is a problematic desire that I don’t care enough about the notion of being partnered with a man to even risk running across more of that sort of moral decay.
The attachment of the system of law to the patriarchy is definitely the reason politicians are consistently useless and feminist political action is much like being Sisyphus rolling a boulder up a hill, only to roll it down the other side and start again. Lately I’ve been considering ways that women can move outside that system, like avoiding fixers and rippers in favor of midwives and healers, and things like that. That’s sort of a side note, but really once it became really real to me what the nature of manhood is, I didn’t know if I wanted to trust myself to anything about it if I didn’t have to, much less suggest other women do so.