Do you think (your) sexuality changes how you relate to women-only spaces?

Sorry the thread has moved on massively, but can I just say I wasn't picking on Rhubarb. You made a few random generalization which annoyed me.

I get irritated by the idea that if 6 women sit around talkin about cup cukes and shoes because it is a safe topic that they are assumed to be vapid idiots with nothing to talk about. Where as 6 men can discuss football in the exact way and not be considered vapid idiots. Small talk is not what we base our friends on I don't tend to get in to serious conversations or debates with strangers I save them for friends. So my point was that if you currently have more male friends yes, you will have more intelligent political debates with them.

Also re lust. All my female friends are absolutely gagging for it and often have the issue of their partners not being able to keep up. Certainly is the case in my house or was before kids, now we both just want a lie in.

Rhubarb I agree. There are some women on mumsnet who are asexual. I have seen posters who talk about this and are then being disbelieved by some posters. I have also seen women talk online about being asexual in an asexual relationship with another woman or man and that being described as strange.

I think there are "naturally" a much wider range of ways of living and types of close relationships, than our society tends to promote. In particular close relationships that are non sexual.

Tut, just as it gets interesting I have to go. Will try and catch up tomorrow.

Kash, I agree.

Dahlen, do you think that is because our society is so sexually focused now? You cannot have close relationships with other people of either gender without there being an assumption of sexual frisson.

We seem to be a nation obsessed with sex and peoples sexuality. Like confusing the word 'passionate' to be solely concerned with sex when it really doesn't mean that at all.

I don't view myself or anyone else through sexual eyes and it's a shame that our actions, thoughts and opinions are all debased through sex. It's enough to drive someone into celibacy!

(well, not quite! )

We've never had a society that hasn't been based on the pair-bond, so it's impossible to know one way or the other, but it would seem that it's a natural desire for most people, regardless of sexuality. Combine that desire with a society that works around ownership of property and services, and the pair-bond seems an unbreakable institution, whether it's marriage, cohabitation, civil partnership or whatever.

To really see what would happen if we rewrote the book about heterosexual relationships, we'd have to completely restructure society, which is of course partly what radical feminism is all about, but I can't see it happening in my lifetime.

For me it isn't about whether my DH is a good 'un or not (he is), it also isn't about the dynamic of our relationship as Mr and Mrs Beach.

It is about me questioning the socialization aspect of the whole set up. For both of us.

I think it is an interesting subject but it isn't an easy one to explore because it is pretty personal.

I can only speak for myself, but certainly I have found my sexuality changing over the years.

I would say I am 90% straight, but not 100%. That has remained pretty constant over the years. I prefer the company of other women over men. I'm not sure that's due to sexuality though. All that said, I believe gender is largely a social construct anyway, so I will always have more in common with a man who shares similar attitudes/values than I will with a woman who doesn't, and I have friends of both sexes.

To come back to political lesbianism, I have found that feminism has changed the nature of my heterosexual desires over the years. What I found attractive before discovering feminism would turn me off completely now, and vice versa. I find that very interesting and it has certainly allowed me to become much better at only including men in my life who believe in gender equality either as partners and as friends. It's not too far a stretch to see how that could extend to rejecting men altogether, especially if one was unfortunate enough to be surrounded by large numbers of misogynistic or chauvinistic men.

THERhubarb Yes. Essentially. As I said before, my personal belief is that people are born with an innate sexual orientation. Of course people can be coerced and conditioned to be something they are not, but deep down inside people understand their own definition of sexuality and I don't believe that's an active choice they make. How they live, and what relationship they are in is a choice.

I still don't think that necessarily directly correlates to a particular social or political stance. I'm a therapist by trade, and what I love about my job is how easy it is to misjudge people. They have the ability to surprise and (sometimes shock you) and they are never straightforward. So no, I don't think it's a reliable indicator. I don't think people can be put in definitive boxes.
We change and evolve, and mature and live in shades of grey throughout our life.

Kash, so put that way, a woman in a heterosexual relationship could actually be more of a feminist than one in a homosexual relationship?

That implies that your sexual orientation does not serve as a reliable indicator as to your political or social stance.

THERhubarb I totally agree. Gender inequality works both ways and neither is fair or just.

THERhubarb That IS a good question.

The premise of the question kind of relies on the assumption that both women in the relationship are Feminists. The submissive, may not be, in which case, no.

If she is then not really either, unless the dominant was behaving in a typically patriarchal way and reinforcing all the usual inequalities we as Feminists fight against. If it was the latter situation, then yes.

Did that make sense?

I guess I'm trying to say, in the same way I believe a man can be a Feminist, a woman who behaves in a way that a patriarchal man would and upholds those unequal gender stereotypes is just as bad as a man doing it.

Still not making much sense I'm afraid!

Does anyone here think that if you are in a het relationship that this is in direct conflict with your position as a feminist?

I certainly don't. I've never had a moment's doubt about my heterosexuality or the fact that my marriage puts me in conflict with feminism.

Kash, what about men who are forced to accept their role as breadwinner when actually they may want to stay at home and be with their children? I think it is much easier for women to accept the primary carer position than men and whilst you may see that as oppressive for women, it also oppresses those men who want that role for themselves.

dh says he was put under pressure at school to be macho and get involved in fights to 'prove' himself. He did do but he regrets it now. He was also forced to get involved in his father's farm when he saw his sisters go off to college. But he was the son and therefore he had a role to play in maintaining the tradition. When he finally told his father that he was to start college and study, his father sold the dairy herd without telling him, effectively cutting him out of the farm.

Interestingly enough the farm has now been split very unequally, with dh getting hardly anything and his sisters getting land and buildings.

So I don't think that oppression works only against women, although culturally we have had to fight more injustice and intolerance.

I don't feel conflicted at all. I don't see my relationship with dh as a political commentary. I see it as a close bond between two people who complement each other as individuals and not as part of any societal influence either way.

I have strong opinions that he either agrees or disagrees with but my views on feminism is reflected throughout my life including my relationship. It is completely equal.

Another question then: not all lesbian relationships are equal, there may be a dominant partner and a submissive one. So if someone is the submissive partner in a lesbian relationship, presumably they are also contradicting their role as a feminist?

Hully yes, I agree with you. I'm clear about what I expect and what I want and I've always been like this. My husband and I discuss our relationship and situation constantly and we're always upfront about stuff. It's not always perfect, and I don't always get things my way, but it doesn't keep me awake at night because I understand I have a choice.

I do sometimes wonder about other life choices I've made, and been forced to make despite not being comfortable with them, which says a lot about gender inequality and our social expectations of women rather than my sexuality and choice of marriage.

Someone one linked to this article on here and it really helped me get my head around the issue.

Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence Adrienne Rich

I don't mean I'm all great and sorted, just that I'm mindful and having been in a more strugglesome r'ship when younger, I know what I expect, want etc and it is all negotiated.

I don't (for me), BUT I think you have to be a very self-aware and strong person not to feel conflicted...

Does anyone here think that if you are in a het relationship that this is in direct conflict with your position as a feminist?

I think that is a really interesting question Rhubarb.

I can only answer it for myself, obviously, but I do find the two contradictory/conflictual. I don't think I'm a traitor to any cause, and nor do I think that of anyone else, but I find it difficult to reconcile being in a heteronormative set up with my politics.

I wouldn't stop my relationship but I won't change my politics either. And so I am in a state of cognitive dissonance.

I often joke to DH that he doesn't need to worry about me having an affair

That's bollocks, eats.

Peopel know if they like manana, minge or both no matter what society says.

Whether they act on it or not is a different matter.

I really don't think I can understand my sexuality in such stark terms.

I would like to think that I can differentiate how I've been 'socially conditioned' and what my true feelings are despite this, ie. being a Feminist in the first place.

But not only as a Feminist, but a woman, who was born heterosexual (I don't believe we choose our sexuality, in the same way we don't choose our gender) I understand that I have wants and needs that I choose to have met within the constructs of a marriage, which again I choose to define on my own terms within our adult and consenting relationship. I don't see it as opression or patriarchy, I see it as a choice I have made for myself.

I believe everyone has the choice to do what is right for them.

But some rad feminists as a poster early on stated, view women in Het relationships as traitors to the cause - is this correct?

Does anyone here think that if you are in a het relationship that this is in direct conflict with your position as a feminist?

Without patriarchy we wouldnt be socially conditioned to be Het. So women could discover their own sexuality without that conditioning. And if it was Het, fine

That's a separate issue from the social conditioning one.