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'?

Hully, we moved down south and yet I still see it. Ok dd is still only 12 but most of her mates have 'gone out' with boys, they talk about boyfriends and being in love, most of the girls have dyed their hair, they wear padded bras, a little make-up and enthuse about fashion and the way to wear their clothes.

dd still dresses like a 10yo, can just about be bothered to get a comb through her hair and hasn't the faintest interest in boys. She's labelled a lesbian, not that this bothers her (at least I hope not) but she's not included in any group because she's not 'cool'. She doesn't watch soaps or reality TV programmes or scream whenever OneD are mentioned (yeah, it's OneD now for short) and therefore her punishment is exclusion.

That's exactly what happened to me at school in Oldham. Nothing has changed.

Eats, I didn't say they can't.

I think they probably can. I'm just looking at lust in a different way by taking sex out of the equation.

On a slightly separate issue . . . I think there does seem to be more of a "pressure" (if that's the word) within radical feminism at the moment for feminists to at least move towards "ideal forms" of intimate relationships that fit within the current conceptualisation of oppression and privilege.

Thinking back 20 years ago plus, I knew many feminists who chose relationships only with women as a reflection of their political ideals. They were open in explaining their reasons, but I don't think there was the level of "evangelising" (if that's the word) about political lesbianism that seems to be around now. I think that may be a function of at least some strands of radical feminism becoming more prescriptive about the beliefs and behaviours one must/should adopt to be a radical feminist.

It would seem that the ideal form of sexual relationship in this particular incarnation of radical feminism would be a committed relationship with another woman. It allows both people to enjoy both the physical and emotional pleasure of a relationship without in any way conforming to patriarchal ideals or colluding with patriarchal oppression on a personal level.

There are many people who do choose who they do and don't have sexual relationships with for political reasons. For example, Jewish people may choose only to date/marry other Jewish people. Some Christians do not have sex before marriage and aim to remain with the same sexual partner for life. Others may choose to engage in relationships with people of only the same caste, class or who hold the same political views. In that context, political lesbianism isn't that strange.

It would seem though that for those feminists who for whatever reason don't feel able to have a sexual relationship with a woman, the next best option is celibacy. You have to forgo the sexual pleasure bit, but at least are not colluding with patriarchal oppression in your personal life.

I think there may be some level of acceptance of women being in sexual relationships with men one, for procreative purposes, but also with the "hope" that their views will evolve, that they will leave these relationships either for celibacy or a relationship with a woman.

Lesbians who have not chosen their sexuality for political reasons likewise may become "convinced" that their relationships are a political act and not just the result of emotional attraction or personal preference.

I've seen some radical feminist writing that is very, very critical of bisexual women. I think there were a few comments along this line on another thread here as well. That might seem puzzling at first glance. But, I think the reason for condemnation and exclusion of bisexual women is that they have clearly demonstrated that they can be in sexual relationships with women, but they also value the option of relationships with men. It's as though they have no valid excuse for not rejecting sexual relationships with men, which means they are more "active" in their collusion with patriarchal oppression by having sex with men.

I'm not passing comment on the rightness or wrongness of this view, but rather just tapping out what I think seems to be the emerging view at the moment and checking out with others if I am on the right lines. Thanks!

Why does it always centre around sexuality?

Why such a huge focus on sex? Is this not a patriarchial idea in itself? Can women not have lustful relationships with men and women without being labelled either way? Without committing to a sexual act with either?

Complexity my 14yo niece is currently pregnant. Failed by her parents, failed by social services and failed by society in general. Another working class upbringing. From an early age my sister was forcing her to grow up, to concentrate on her image and appearance, to make herself the centre of attention. It's very sad.

I'm so very glad that I don't have to grow up all over again.

yy Kritiq

THERhubarb You make a good point about lust.

I can only speak from my own experience and I guess people feel it in different ways.

For me, I am usually attracted to men for two different reasons (at a very basic level).

One is that they are physically very attractive to me (and I don't really have a 'type' so to speak).

The other is that I'm attracted to their personality, and I connect with them.

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Luckily for me, I found my DH to be both.

However, they do often fall into one category or the other, and simplistic though it is, the sexually attractive ones for me, would often be highly unsuitable partners- clash of personalities, ideals etc. And the idea of making a life with them seems unlikely, despite this I would sleep with them if I was available and they'd probably be great in bed. (I suspect it's the clash in personalities that may well be part of the attraction).

Sometimes, sadly, I've met men whose personalities have been very attractive, but I haven't been attracted to them at all physically, and I can't get past a platonic friendship with them.

And I guess that's where I don't understand the term 'political lesbianism'? Is the idea that you are in a relationship out of choice to align with your political ideals?

If it is, then I would struggle, because I find many women great to be around, but I'm not at all sexually attracted to them. And I find having a sex life a very basic (and pleasurable) human need. One that I wouldn't feel comfotable denying myself.

Yes, great point Complexity. There is a lesbian academic called Rosemary Auchmuty who writes really well about girls' fiction in the first half of the 20th century - in those days passionate but non-sexual friendships between girls and women were seen as the norm, partly because social/educational life was more segregated and partly because there was much less pressure on girls to 'grow up' (ie become sexual beings) very young.

Agree with Rhubarb too about what a shame it is that everything becomes about sex. I am pretty celibate by nature (though vapidly heterosexual, to use LRD's excellent phrase above) and I do find it opens up more close relationships with people of both sexes.

Yes complexity but my argument is that women can also have that kind of passionate relationship with men too. Obv I cannot argue from their point of view but certainly from my own, I have found myself lusting after men not with the aim of shagging them but to 'make love with their minds' to use a rather 'woo' term. Or because they ultimately make my laugh my clit off.

There are also women I feel passionate about and enjoy being with, in fact have a desire to be with, because we 'get' each other so much.

There is plenty I 'lust' after that is not sexually related at all.

For me, the physical act is something a little different. It's with someone I have shared experiences with, someone who has committed to me and someone with whom I have produced other little lives.

I personally wouldn't want to be with a woman all the time because I appreciate the gender differences that I have with my dh. It makes things interesting. I like that I have experiences he can never have and vice versa.

Complexity and MoonCup-

Forgive me for being thick, but do you mean passionate, as in emotionally committed and close?

As opposed to 'passionate' in a sexual context.

In which case I agree. I am emotionally committed to many of my close female friends, perhaps more so than with some members of my family.

I would like to think my freinds would be close regardless of my sexuality.

THERhubarb- I would like to think that's true, although I am admittedly undecided on the matter of platonic relationships with men.

I am capable of it, but I've had so many discussions with women friends of mine, who are convinced that men aren't capable of platonic relationships with women and even for a split second at some point he may well have thought of you in a sexual context. I wonder if I'm being a bit niave thinking that that's doing men a massive disservice.

So often (before marriage) I was disappointed by male friends of mine wanting something more out of our relationship than friendship (which in my mind can be just as great). I felt quite cross about it, as it seemed to overly complicate things.

Complexity- no need to look it up- I understand, I just wanted to get it clear in my mind what you meant.

You can be passionate about a hobby or your children too. I guess it's a measure of strength of feeling.

Yes, that's right Kashmiracle. Like Rhubarb I have close platonic relationships with men too. I daresay at some point they have thought of me in a sexual context (indeed, a couple are exes, so they definitely have!) and occasionally I have admired their muscly forearms or whatever. But then I have had moments of sexual frisson with female friends too... assuming both sides are aware that nothing will ever 'happen' in sexual terms I don't see it as a problem.

Mooncup- that's great you can be close to your exes. That's an interesting dynamic, because if they are exes then I suppose you've kind of got the sexual stuff out of the way, realised it's not worked and moved on but hung on to the connection and friendship.

I'm not really in touch with my exes, so I don't have that.

But what my friends said about men always having some sexual spark in the back of their mind has now made me a little less easy around men. I guess I feel a bit self-conscious. I don't know why, because, like you, I'm not giving out 'available' vibes.

Kash, I'm not sure that women can speak in such certain terms on behalf of men. I have had such a close relationship with one of my male friends that it did lead to gossip, but for us it was more of a brother/sister relationship. We watched out for each other and to this day we remain very close. He even referred to an ex he dated as "Rhubarb MarkII". He's now getting married in 2014 but still consults me on all aspects of life, as I do him.

I've also had other close relationships with men, shared beds with them and my innermost thoughts. Yes some did think they could have a relationship with me but when it was made clear that this wasn't part of the understanding, they accepted that and we remained close friends.

However, I have to be honest and say that dh started out as one of those friends too. He was a darn sight more determined than they were though and at first my lustful feelings for him were more to do with his mind than anything else. In fact I found it very difficult to see him as a sexual partner at first. I think I had to discover that emotional bond before the relationship could progress further.

It's funny but I've met a number of women who say their children are their hobby yet they seem quite resentful of men having hobbies away from the home. It makes me wonder if they aren't substituting their own interests with children and therefore are never quite fulfilled in themselves. I have to add though, these were women who had given up work to raise the children and although they could have found the time to go back to work or sustain a hobby, they felt it was their 'place' to be a mother and wife first and foremost.

Political lesbianism says that sexuality is socially constructed. We are all taught to be Het from a young age. And thus women can become lesbians if they choose to be. And that although those lesbain relationships may involve genital contact, they dont have to.

Kritiq as you know radical feminists dont agree on everything, but they do agree on basic tenets. And one of those basic tenets is that Het relationships are an important source of day-to-day oppression for Het women.

So yes an obvious choice for radical feminists is to be lesbian or celibate. Not all are though, some are with male partners. And yes many radical feminists do question why radical feminists who are bisexual women do not choose women as partners.

Yes lots of theory has been written by women who were with male partners, but most of them did eventually leave those male partners. Not because anyone told them to, but because the cognitive dissonance of believing a particular set of beliefs and doing something different in their personal life, became too much.

That sounds a bit dull Eats frankly

"Het relationships are an important source of day-to-day oppression for Het women."

Surely that depends on who you are in a relationship with?
Or are radical feminists honestly saying that men and women should be separated to lead separate lives completely?

There's a problem with saying 'we're all taught to be heterosexual and can become homosexual if we want to'. Namely that if this is the case, it follows that all those utter arseholes who think gay people can be 'educated' out of heterosexuality with the 'right' kind of treatment are actually correct.

That plus the idea of rationalising desire to the point where it fits in with a prescribed politics is, frankly, creepy.

It's easy if you ARE a lesbian, of course...

Either "reason" given for being a lesbian can be misused by the right wing. If it is biological e.g. genes then maybe scientists can detect a way to determine if a foetus is a lesbian and offer an abortion? If we are taught in our sexuality, then yes maybe we can be educated out of it.

What we should be arguing is that being a lesbian or gay is fine and there is no reason to try and cure anyone of it.