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'?

[THERhubarb]

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.

[Kashmiracle]

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.

[Dahlen]

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.

[Beachcomber]

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.

[Dahlen]

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.

[THERhubarb]

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! )

[THERhubarb]

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

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

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.

[IdCalUaCuntBtUvNtGotTheDepth]

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.