A thread to discuss lesbianism, bisexual Women, and other kinds of sexuality patriarchy doesn't like

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I am starting this thread partly because of current events (a LGBT rep at Edinburgh University who seems very unwell, and odd, has been expressing views that were, amongst other things, lesbophobic and misogynistic). But I actually wanted to start it before I read that, and didn't get up my courage to think it through.

What I want to ask you is, how do you think women's sexualities are formed? What's the relationship between bodies and socialisation?

I am currently thinking that sexualities that don't include men (lesbianism, sometimes bisexuality) seem to be taken as a kind of threat by patriarchy - but so do other kinds of sexuality that don't fit the patriarchal desire for women to be sex objects. Sexuality for mothers, maybe? Sexuality for rape survivors? Do you think patriarchy is uncomfortable with these, too? I think it must be. I am trying to work out what the common thread is.

What can we do to help younger women form healthy sexualities?

Well, personally I was amused at the 'periods are medieval' bit, but considered I probably shouldn't launch into historical nit-picking.

Speaking of periods, mind, something that pissed me off the other day was a Guardian piece answering the question of whether it's a myth that women's periods synch when they live together. And I was finding it all quite fair - big studies of women who lived in the same houses, etc. - until the last bit.

They'd studied 24 lesbian couples and concluded, based on that sample, that lesbians don't synch up either.

At this point, I just thought, what a load of insulting bollocks. You can't call that a study, can you?

Because of course lesbians are biologically different to straight women, eh LRD?

Oh ... no! But, um, without being graphic, I suspect the amount of someone else's pheremones, not to say bodily fluids, you're exposed to in the course of a house share is a tiny bit different from the amount you're exposed to if you're regularly shagging them!

Though, mind you, I'm up for discussing if people do think lesbians are biologically different. I've no clue, I just mean it wasn't my line of thinking with that particular observation.

See, I'm interested, because it seems to me there are two big ways women get into radical feminism - one is via the sort of radical feminism that has a fair whack of old-fashioned lesbians, and the other is via motherhood. Is that purely because those are two life stages where you think 'fuck it, I'm not here for the patriarchy,' or what?

I think that's two life stages where you notice sexism the most.

I just sort of ended up in radical feminism because I have always been a feminist, and then suddenly, the viewpoints I had always had were considered "radical". (Like, anti-porn and anti-prostitution and not believing that penises can be female)

I've always had a rather low sexual interest in men, so never felt a need to please males. The day a boy complained about my unshaven legs at school was the day I decided to never ever shave them. (Beforehand I had just been lazy and considered waxing or shaving ... someday.)

Not being attracted to men makes seeing through their bullshit considerably easier, I suppose.

Yes, although DP isn't attracted to men and is also much calmer about everything than me. So it occurs to me it's also possible if you're gay, just to smile and opt out, and not to feel so angry about it all. I guess.

I love that you were that clear-headed in response to the shaving thing, though. I find it incredibly hard to sort out how I feel about performing femininity.

Oh I see your point LRD!

Yes, although DP isn't attracted to men and is also much calmer about everything than me. So it occurs to me it's also possible if you're gay, just to smile and opt out, and not to feel so angry about it all. I guess.

There's some truth in that.
I am just attracted enough to men to be frustrated that most of them aren't suitable partners because they're sexist assholes.

I love that you were that clear-headed in response to the shaving thing, though. I find it incredibly hard to sort out how I feel about performing femininity.

That boy probably saved my sanity.
I could have grown up to shave my legs and think it all my own choosey choice, as I just wanted to look like all those beautiful women on TV ... but when he complained about my legs (while, obviously, walking around with just as hairy legs himself), I realized that there was a double standard, and that he thought that perfectly acceptable.

You don't notice the subtle pressure to conform, but if someone goes and outright states it, it's a lot easier to resist.

I am just attracted enough to men to be frustrated that most of them aren't suitable partners because they're sexist assholes.

I think this is a common theme.

I remember a girl commenting on my hairy legs, and I'm afraid I just did the classic thing of feeling ashamed and going home to surreptitiously nick my dad's disposable razors as my mum refused to buy me any. So I think it is also a matter of personality and strong-mindedness.

LRD sorry, I've just realised that I sounded like I was having a go at you.

My and were not directed at you, just at the comment from the researchers that some of the women were lesbians. I see your point though that it is interesting to study women living with a lesbian partner because they are exposed to more pheromones etc.

Sorry, I am in a particularly bolshy mood today!!

Not at all!

And had they been directed at me I wouldn't have been remotely offended - it made me grin, because I did see how my post came across too.

It also seems to me this is part of the wider point. We can get into confusing conversations about periods and women's cycles because so much of the research just hasn't really been done, and we don't really study this stuff much at school (or I didn't). It certainly didn't occur to anyone to sit down and explain how women are 'hormonal' all through the month, and actually, so are men. We're just palmed off with half-explanations really.

I think these blog posts might be relevant
purplesagefem.wordpress.com/2016/07/16/patriarchy-and-female-sexuality-part-1/

purplesagefem.wordpress.com/2016/07/17/patriarchy-and-female-sexuality-part-2/

purplesagefem.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/on-lesbian-lust-and-identifying-as-male/

Although I am not a lesbian, I found a lot of what she says about women being active in sex very interesting and thought provoking. The vaginismus stuff is very interesting too - as to why the answer to not being able to be penetrate is medical treatment, not other forms of non-PIV sex

I feel very dissociated from my sexuality. I was with a man for 14 years that I didn't fancy because I felt that was too trivial a reason to leave somebody and nobody wants sex once they've had kids anyway. Then I had a baby and realised I was exactly the same person with the same sexual desires I had before, and the relationship would never satisfy me on that score. I also believed I only ever fancied 'bad' men so going for one I didn't fancy was the way to go. I feel like I've messed up both our lives through not being clear of my own desires and their legitimacy. Sorry to get all personal but this discussion really resonated with me.

Thanks fela, I will read those properly later, but wanted to acknowledge you linking them. Sounds useful!

terrified - oh, love, I'm so very sorry to read that. And, goodness, why not get all personal? That's what we're here for, discussing the personal stuff.

I can relate to some of what you're talking about, and it sounds incredibly draining and depressing. I do think there's this pressure on women to blame themselves/their sexuality if things go wrong - so I wonder if, when you say you thought you only fancied 'bad' men, that's part of that pressure? Sort of, instead of you thinking 'I happened to meet wankers, how horrible,' you instead told yourself 'my sexuality is the problem: I'm attracted to bad men, there's something wrong with me'? Apologies if that isn't what you are getting at.

Some very thought provoking posts, thank you all.

Re the bad men thing. I have wondered if the bad boy/man thing is due to the disassociation of women from their sexual desires. It's part of the retaining your good girls don't card because the bad boy made you do it.

A decent man is unlikely to bulldoze over barriers and coerce a woman into sexual acts. So the bad boy closes, and women get stuck in a relationship with one.

Older woman, particularly once they have children are more likely to filter out bad boys/men due to their need to protect their home/financial stability/children. So they will date decent men and have a more equal sexual relationship. It's a theory - feel free to pull it apart.

I've kind of gone the opposite way Harlot. I chose great dad material in my early 20s and struggled to maintain a sexual relationship. Now I'm a mum I realise all the fun I missed out on and I just want someone to have sex with! (without bringing them into dd's life). To link back to other themes in the thread, I thought lust was somehow shallow and I couldn't dump or reject someone just because I didn't fancy them. I think there is something there about feeling desire is somehow shameful.

Terrified, there's many advantages to how you did things. At 20, you were vulnerable, and would possibly have let men treat you badly. Also, an unintended pregnancy by some random dude would have had dire consequences.

As things are, you have a daughter, she has a good dad, and you don't have a lot more life experience than back then.

Not saying that saying "yes" to every random dude because doing otherwise seems shallow is a good idea in general, but it seems to have worked out okay for you. No need to regret the missed fun so very much, you can still have it now.

Terrified said I chose great dad material in my early 20s and struggled to maintain a sexual relationship. Now I'm a mum I realise all the fun I missed out on and I just want someone to have sex with!

Do you find in general that if someone measures up as good dad material then they are less attractive sexually, or just in the case of that particular partner? Can partners (of either gender) be both?

Grimarse I think someone like Richard Dawkins will argue good dad must be less sexually attractive. There are a couple of reasons for this:

1. Bad dad and sexually unattractive becomes extinct as no offspring
2. Good dad will support his children and be faithful, thus limiting his reproduction to a limited number of children
3. Women subconciously want their (male) children to have many offspring as that perpetuates their genes. They therefore want 'bad dad' to be the genetic parent, whilst good dad is the resident parent.

Too simplistic carol. There is some evidence with hidden ovulation that actually the most successful strategy for men is monogamy. I don't like talking about gene theory in the context of human sexuality because its too often used as an excuse for bad behaviour by men. I do however find it very interesting that there are loads of theories about human male sexuality whereas in the animal kingdom a lot of mating strategies can be explained in the context of the females behaviour. For some reason female human sexuality is barely discussed in an evolutionary context.

I think sociobiology in general is very controversial and so doesn't get studied enough, that evolutionary studies are dominated by men so slightly blinkered and that we are still coloured by Victorian views of females when we look at the evolution of humans.
You might find this researcher interesting Buffy. I keep meaning to buy one of her books. blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/raising-darwins-consciousness-an-interview-with-sarah-blaffer-hrdy-on-mother-nature/

Do you think that might be to some extent because researchers are so convinced by the male sexual aggressor/seed spurting theories, that they haven't thought it's worth asking the research questions about female sexuality and evolution?

In a word, yes!