Is sexual orientation a choice?

[WidowWadman]

Julie Bindel seems to think so.

Is it just me or is that actually fairly offensive?

I want to know where she gets the idea that bisexual women are actively promoting sleeping with men to lesbians. Based on what exactly? Women being unsure of their sexuality and experimenting is somehow threatening? Women are being 'traitors' for doing so?

I find it pretty backward feminist thinking if free exploration and expression of sexually is being frowned on here... just because they still sleep with men sometimes. I thought that women being judged for who they slept with was oppressive behaviour? Now suddenly its not. Er... what?

It looks like she wants to wipe out bisexual behaviour and identity, whilst arguing that lesbians are having their identity threatened by bisexual women!!!! Er... anyone else see the problem with that?

Its a total appeal to fear. Its a non-existant argument. Its un-cohesive and hypocritical.

Hmm - hence the term bi-phobia. Because people like Bindel, really seem to fear and encourage the fear of bisexuality and bisexual people.

Also, underneath it there seems to be a prescribing of sexual desires and behaviour into what is or isn't acceptable to her. Where the concept of "My Body, My Business" fits in to that I'm not quite sure.

Hmm - hence the term bi-phobia. Because people like Bindel, really seem to fear and encourage the fear of bisexuality and bisexual people.

Also, underneath it there seems to be a prescribing of sexual desires and behaviour into what is or isn't acceptable to her. Where the concept of "My Body, My Business" fits in to that I'm not quite sure.

Hmm - hence the term bi-phobia. Because people like Bindel, really seem to fear and encourage the fear of bisexuality and bisexual people.

Also, underneath it there seems to be a prescribing of sexual desires and behaviour into what is or isn't acceptable to her. Where the concept of "My Body, My Business" fits in to that I'm not quite sure.

Rich's concept of a lesbian continuum has been heavily criticised over the years for de-sexualising lesbianism in favour of the idea that lesbians are just more into a warm fluffy sisterhood than other women. I don't disagree with that criticism. But I think the lesbian continuum has two useful facets. One is that it conveys that lesbianism is not just about sex, but that it is also about women really valuing other women, putting other women first. And that, at the time Rich was writing, was revolutionary.

Which leads to the second point, which is that what Rich wrote at that time was so uplifting and radical for young lesbians who had been told all their lives that they were sick and pathetic. Here was a woman who wrote so beautifully, so eloquently, telling us that it wasn't just that we were ok, that we should be tolerated, but that we were doing something beautiful and important. Plus, it allowed heterosexual women to find a language for talking about how they identified with and valued other women, too.

Its time has gone, but it was and is an important concept, even if you don't apply it literally. Ditto the concept from that New York group - was it the Radicalesbians? - that 'lesbianism is the rage of all women condensed to the point of explosion'. Taken literally, it is of course nonsense. But it conveys something that was very powerful and important in the 1970s.

Yes, to what you say Devora.

I think the concept of a lesbian continuum is liberating for a lot of women. It puts into words the feeling of solidarity that we have 'en dehors' of sexuality. And I think that is liberating for women who find themselves in a state of compulsory heterosexuality. It is a really generous and inclusive sentiment.

I don't think it is a passé sentiment. At all.

GAG, being a lesbian doesn't mean you really, really like having sex with women or that they are any more sexual than anybody else. Some people really like sex and are very sexual and some are less bothered.

It isn't some kind of accomplishment to be a 'sexual being.' Some people are and some aren't. As for 'emotionally laden' - everyone on the planet has emotional relationships, apart from psychopaths I suppose.

See I think the 'women don't like sex' is a double edged mixed up patriarchal load of hooha.

Mainly because what that really means is 'women don't like PIV sex with a man'.

Which is actually a very politically loaded statement.

Beachcomber

"Mainly because what that really means is 'women don't like PIV sex with a man'.

Which is actually a very politically loaded statement."

Or maybe it's just a load of tosh. Some women don't like penetrative sex. Some women do. Some women don't like sex with a man. Some don't like sex with a woman, some like sex with everyone, some don't like it at all, different people have different kinks.

But it isn't just a load of tosh.

It is politically loaded tosh.

Beachcomber - I find anyone telling me what I should or shouldn't do in bed both politically loaded and insulting. I suspect I'm not alone.

Beachcomber - I think it was on the patriarchy thread that you posted a Rich quote about " psychoanalytic denial of the clitoris". I think there is a general denial of the clitoris, not in individuals necessarily, but in the public sphere ther is an equation of the penis and the vagina. They aren't analogous, for the majority, in actual sex terms. But in cultural terms, they are. And in porn and even erotica.

I don't know if that adds or detracts from the debate because I am slightly lost and am somewhat ambivalent towards Bindel and so can't yet draw anything sensible from her article. Although I would say that I could chose. It is an interesting topic to roll around my mind for a few days, I think.

Not sure this will contribute to the political analysis here, which is fascinating, but some observations from my professional life and from friends and family..

Used to work with ex-prisoners , and found quite a fluidity in sexuality and behaviour amongst prisoners.Many men who are straight on the out had same sex activity in prison, was an unspoken but not guilty secret in a way, just something that happened there but not when free.

Amongst women there seemed to be a greater proportion who discovered same sex activity AND RELATIONSHIPS in prison that were more fulfilling emotionally and sexually. They maintained that change when out of prison, and identified themselves as lesbian..as one said to me ''no more dicky for me, girlies all the way now''

Also friend has twin boys, and an older girl. The boys are physically identical, truly impossible to tell apart, but now at 17 one, who always played with clothes, dressing up and with girls, is now out as gay, while the other is macho personified with all 'manly' traits on full bore, as they sort of have been since childhood.

So, dunno what that says really, maybe for some it is innate from the beginning, whilst others have an element of choice...did Tom Robinson ever explain going from stridently gay to happily hetero married? (making some assumptions there..sorry)

Tom Robinson's said in an interview that walking down the street he'd be attracted to quite a high percentage of the men and just a few of the women, but he happened to fall in love with a women. He also said that his vision of what 'gay' meant in those days was more what would be defined as 'queer' now - ie. you don't have to be exclusively attracted to the same sex. To his great annoyance, the media reported at the time that he'd "turned straight".

He's not really 'hetero married': like many people in mixed-gender relationships he's bisexual.

He talks about his bisexuality, and biphobia, here www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b014pw7d/Its_My_Story_Getting_Bi/

Thanks, was not sure what the story was, will look it up, ta.

seriously do not understand why anyone gives a shit who anyone else is or isn't fucking.

Well, at the level of caring who any individual is having sex with, then I agree Custy that it's not terribly interesting.

But why people make the sexual choices they make, and what that means for their lives, is interesting and important.

And it's kind of harder to be airily dismissive when your whole adult people people have defined and responded to you on the basis of your sexual choices. Ignoring the issue is a luxury I have never been allowed to have.

I am happy to say I enjoy hetro sex. Really dislike this PiV term as it makes perfectly natural sex sound like a disease. Never liked Bindel and yet again she says something to get people to talk about her. Egotistical and arrogant, thank heaven some sense has been said on this thread. Proud and happy mother who enjoys sex with my hubby... my only bi-sexual experience was a terrible disappointment and convinced me that I am happy with the PiV std.

Beachcomber - I find anyone telling me what I should or shouldn't do in bed both politically loaded and insulting. I suspect I'm not alone.

Why are you addressing that to me GothAnne? I haven't said on this thread that I agree with Bindel.

I'm not telling anyone what sort of sex to have. I just said that the idea that 'women don't like sex' generally refers to PIV - and I think that is a)tosh b)politically loaded.

And I think the concept of compulsory heterosexuality, as outlined by Rich, is much more of an issue of 'telling people what they should or shouldn't do in bed' than Bindel's article.

And yet so many people have lined up here to give Bindel a kicking and call her names, but there has been remarkably little discussion of patriarchal compulsory heterosexuality and consequent effacing of lesbianism.

RulersMakeBadLovers I did quote "psychoanalytic denial of the clitoris" on the patriarchy thread.

It is from EthelMoorhead's link on this thread.

Er... I've never felt compulsory heterosexuality though. Ever. I either like someone or I don't.

I've always expressed the fact I'm bi, since I had my first relationship.

The younger friends I have certainly have never seemed to have had a problem.

I do think that there is an age element in all this.

How can you not have encountered the socialization of compulsory sexuality?

One would have to have lived on another planet in order to escape it.

i'm dubious about the term 'natural' here - re: calling piv perfectly natural sex. there's really nothing natural about the way we have sex.

sex is for reproduction in our nearest relatives - coital sex was only engaged in when the female was in oestrus.

so whilst it's 'natural' to have piv sex for reproduction it's not really natural to do it for pleasure and all the other uses we make of it.