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

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I was wondering how much sexuality is influenced by, or influences, how you interact socially with other women. I don't mean 'is sexual orientation determined by nurture' because that's offensive bullshit, I mean the more nuanced stuff about how you are sexually and what kind of sexual relationships you like to form.

I would like to think more about it without getting into that tedious 'oh, you are a feminist, you have to hate men/love women/mistake 'equality' for 'having no personal preferences amongst people'.

What I've been noticing is, I'm valuing women-only spaces more and more. And this is despite (because of?) the fact I naturally end up in groups with lots of women because a lot of my work is female-dominated. I was thinking about how much I just plain enjoy women's company. And I wonder how much this has to do with sexual identity (I'm rather vapidly and theoretically bisexual but have been married for a short time). And yet, although we're all enthusiastically discussing feminism, and separatist feminism, and all sorts of exciting theories, most of us are married or in monogamous relationships with men. Is there a correlation?!

MN seems also to be full of women who're pretty clued up on how to have a good sex life, and I wonder if that's because we're a majority-female community who get a lot of time to talk 'woman to woman'?

[Hullygully]

I didn't read the other thread (not for any reason) so I'm not interested in the who said what said.

This thread is interesting in its own right and that's all that matters.

I definitely couldn't do political lesbianism, am interested to know how one manufactures desire from a political view?

[maybenow]

I know quite a few lesbians through sports clubs I am in (I wonder why sports clubs seem to have more 'out' lesbians than proportionally in the general population - but that's another thread!)

But I have never fancied a woman and I can't imagine how homosexuals of either sex can seperate how they relate to their own body from how they relate to the bodies they find attractive. If I find a female body attractive then it's because i want to emulate it, if I find a male body attractive then I can't emulate it so I 'fancy' it/him instead.

I would be worried that if I had a girlfriend then (particularly in the early 'lust' days) either she'd have a gorgeous body and I'd feel terrible next to her and wouldn't measure up or she'd not have a gorgeous body so I wouldn't fancy her physically. I guess it doesn't help that all the lesbians I know personally are super-fit and sporty and I feel a bit of a booby-curvy blob next to them and doubt any of them would ever fancy me.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

hully - well, that's what I wondered but couldn't ask this woman I met who was a political lesbian. I feel it'd be very rude to just say 'well you must be bisexual deep down' because a) I'm sure she'd know best! and b) it's a political movement, it's not only to do with her personal desires.

But it is interesting, and it's interesting that I (and maybe you too) find myself automatically thinking of a sexual relationship as the defining relationship in your life. But that must be quite a patriarchial concept in itself, mustn't it?

[THERhubarb]

Kash and Hi, just me then!

It's hard for me, as Mali said, to imagine myself with anyone other than dh and I've never had any leanings towards women as sexual partners. I'm more than happy to have physical intimacy without sex and used to sleep with my male friends quite happily without every wanting more. I can't speak for them obviously!

Cake - it's not a comparison. It's an observation. It's not my view, it's my experience. It's right to question this surely? We can't pretend that these groups of women don't exist because they do. We can look at why some groups of women talk only of diets and relationships and how society and misogyny might have influenced that, especially in very traditional working class areas. It does no good to pretend that this never happens or that anyone who has experienced this is therefore a closet misogynist herself who holds anti-feminist views.

I was brought up never to question my place in society. My role was to marry then have kids and give up the little job I had, as generations of women before me had done.

Luckily back there there were free grants that enabled me to go to college and then onto University. I fear more now for generations of girls who have these female roles thrust upon them and have no chance of escaping that environment because all the escape routes have been closed off by the government.

[maybenow]

Gosh, that sounds like I have terrible body issues, I don't really... but I know that my DH loves my boobs even if they're not the pertest boobs in the world, and he loves my curves even though i'd rather have a fitter, firmer more athletic build.... If my partner had her own better curves and boobs I'm not sure how my body could please her. (though obviously she could love me, but that's not the same as fancying).

[Hullygully]

Women that speak of those things are unintellectual in the main, even if professionals.

Loads of people, male and female, choose not to think...

[Hullygully]

I could make myself have sex with a man I didn't fancy (unless he was gross) so I suppose I could with a woman for political reasons - but it seems a really odd thing to do.

[Hullygully]

I mean, it seems odd to have sex with anyone of either gender that you aren't consumed with lust for.

What's the point?

[THERhubarb]

Hully, some women are not encouraged to 'think', that is not their place. Was it Armstrong and Miller who did the sketch about a woman who voices an opinion at the dinner table only to ruin the entire night?

maybenow I understand what you are saying.

[HiHowAreYou]

Hully, perhaps desires are more restrained and adapted by society than we understand or admit?

Because, as you said earlier, in single sex environments, sexuality is much more fluid.

So maybe manufacturing desire from politics isn't as hard as you'd imagine.

I know two elderly women who both had a bad marriage in their youth, decided they'd never be with another man, even though they previously identified as straight, and then chose to turn gay.

That was a practical decision, so why would it be harder to make a political one?

[Grumpla]

I don't think EBAL was exactly "discussing" the concept now were they?!

I agree that it is depressing the number of people who have experienced women-only groups / conversations as "shoes and cupcakes" only.

I think this is a product of the way women are socialized in a sexist society rather than an innate need to debate shoes and cupcakes.

My first real experiences of "women-only" spaces all centered around becoming a mother. Just because the vast majority of primary carers for babies tend to be mothers (again, because of the unfair laws around ML etc, not necessarily just because the daddies are too busy being masters of the universe and the mummies love babies more "naturally")

I feel that motherhood gives you something in common that is far more meaningful than the sort of fake "interests" women are meant to subscribe to. A discussion about motherhood can easily encompass politics, feminism, economics, emotions, etc in the way that a discussion about handbags cannot. So women that prior to having kids I might have struggled to find common ground with, I have more opportunities to find that with now.

And of course motherhood has also had a massive impact on my sexuality too on account of being way too tired to have sex any more

[THERhubarb]

I couldn't have sex without there being an emotional tie either. I could never be a prostitute (although who knows unless you find yourself in that situation?). I never did see the appeal of one-night stands.

Intelligence and humour often makes the most unappealing of people attractive so perhaps that is what a political lesbian is? Someone who is turned on by brains?

[Grumpla]

God sorry I am losing the thread a bit here, too slow at typing on me phone.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

complexity - no, you've misread, I never suggested EBAL was a ninja anything, and I'd rather we stop discussing her/her thread.

I am just explaining, no, I'm not coming out with fantastic, cutting-edge feminist theory, but I am at least trying to debate things. If you don't like it, all I can do is apologize and try to explain why I'm still interested in talking about these things.

But, maybe we should all just go with 'women are lovely' and leave the analysis for today, I don't know!

[THERhubarb]

Why does lust have to be physical? You can lust for internal satisfaction.

Gawd I've found myself fancying the most bizarre set of men simply because they made me laugh or provided intellectual stimulation. I suspect if I just met them in a bar I wouldn't give them a second look.

[THERhubarb]

If we're doing a blog promotion shall I promote some of mine?

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I know what you mean rhubarb.

I think we're so much encouraged to see 'lust' and sex as totally separate from everything else, we have a rather skewed view of what the possible kinds of happy intereaction/relationship/community are. And I would really like to know or try to imagine how things could be different.

[Hullygully]

For this criticism to make any kind of sense then the assumption that we are ?born? with an inherent ?natural? sexual attraction to one gender or another or both must be upheld. It entirely fails to recognise the compulsory nature of heterosexuality which Rich first outlines (followed by Sheila Jeffreys and others) where women are not free to choose their sexuality under patriarchy. We are coerced, controlled and forced into heterosexuality.

My difficulty with this would be the feelings of those who know from a very young age that they are gay, and yet despite coercion and the mainstream being heteronnormative, remain gay. I think the same holds true for heteros.

will read on

[Hullygully]

Have read on.

If you can brainwash women into being hetero, why doesn't it work with gay peopel?

Not logical.

[CakeandRoses]

I wasn't having a dig at you there rhubarb, sorry if it sounded like that. I wasn't really directing it at anyone especially.

I just find it perplexing that the ability to be interested in/talked about beauty shizzle and feminism/intellectual stuff is often seen as mutually exclusive... My experience really isn't that some women are only able to chat about the former whereas it's a whole different group who talk about the latter. Although I'm sure these 'binary' women exist, I'm not denying they do - it's just not something I've personally seen much of.

hully That's not been my experience - i know intellectuals who are interested in moisturiser, i know (plenty of) intelligent people who don't think and I know not-especially-intelligent people who think a whole lot :)

Perhaps I'm lucky/unusual in that my RL experience of women mirrors the diversity of women on MN.

Sorry gorn off topic here...

I reckon I could be a political lesbian if I saw the 'need' (iykwim?) but I say that as someone who's a bit bi-leaning anyway, praps.