Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I recently heard a comedian state that he was a lesbian trapped inside
    a man's body....%^).
    
    I've met, through a friend of mine who is gay, a number of lesbians
    through the years, one of who seemed quite "masculine" (Does this
    really mean aggressive, BTW?), and others to seemed to be quite
    average in their behavior; I found out after the fact that these
    interesting women I was having a great conversations with were lesbians,
    and I would have never known, frankly.
    
    I've also attended, with this friend, the annual Gay Pride Parade,
    which is a big deal here in L.A., with something like 100,000
    people lining the parade route, and which has several lesbian groups,
    marching. The most memorable was "Dikes on Bikes", of course, a pretty
    unattractive group of female bikers who fullfill the cliched version
    of lesbians, but there were some very attractive women as well.
    
    This being Los Angeles, there is always a lot of scuttlebutt about
    who in the entertainment industry is, or isn't. I'm not about to
    violate anyone's confidentiality, but I will say that there is a
    very major, and beautiful, female pop star that is an object of
    lust for many men who is in fact a lesbian. (Don't send me mail,
    I ain't telling who!)
    
    Which leads me back to the old saying: You can't tell a book by
    it's cover.
    
    -roger
    
    

    Don't take this personally, Roger :-) but after reading your response I
    realised that I'd screwed up and forgot to make this a FWO/FGD pair as
    I'd originally intended because of the importance of getting a dialog
    going between lesbians and het women themselves.  So, rather than move
    your response (I know you to be too courteous to want your reply to
    stay in the FWO stream) I decided to emend my omission but switch the
    usual order of the strings.
    
    						=maggie

    Oh, and no, "masculine" doesn't mean agressive, particularly...or at
    least not as anyone has used the term so far, I think.  I took it to
    mean, and used it that way myself, to mean "short hair, no makeup, work
    shirts, heavy belts, and boots":  a stereotypically "masculine" style
    of dress.
    
    						=maggie

    When I used the term "masculine" in reference to lesbians I didn't
    mean it to mean agressive either.  I was referring only to appearance
    - style of dress and hair, etc.  
    
    Lorna
    

Gee.  Over the last 8 years I have gone through stages of self-identified
Lesbian, heterosexual, bisexual, asexual, omnisexual and certifiablly sexually 
confused ...and my changes in appearence and demeanor haven't corresponded
at all to my changes in sexual self-identifications.

But then, I am young, haven't been "sexual" at all for very long, and
haven't had very long to *really* identify myself with either group.   Also
my appearance and demeanor have changed so much and so often that they would
be difficult to correlate to *anything*.  

I did observe one thing - the Lesbians I met in "general" populations were more
likely to dress "butch" than the ones I met in all-Lesbian spaces (like a
meeting of DoB.)  I figured this could be due to one of three things... 1) the
"butch" look is a public signal to help Lesbians identify one another. [I
remember a bit in the book Lesbian Woman describing the early years of the two
Lesbian authors, where they are discussing whether a mutual  aquaintance was
Lesbian, and "She *must* be...how many women wear trench-coats?"] and therefore
not necessary in an all-Lesbian space...  2) the Lesbians one meets in public
(and knows they are Lesbians) are generally "out", whereas in all-Lesbian spaces
they may not be...perhaps there is a correlation between outness and butchiness
(maybe women who have 'finally' come out then take a style of dress that asserts
their outness?), or 3) [most likely] it was a limited and biased sample.  :-) 
[Especially since, in my experience, DoB is a sort of warm-fuzzy kind of group,
probably less likely to attract hard-core butches.]

One comment.  I have used the word "butch" here instead of masculine, as
some other people have.  Someone (Bonnie?  God, after 350 messages in one
day it's so hard to remember who wrote what) talked about a Newsweek article
and "crunchy granola" type of Lesbians, who wear jeans and sandals and
no make-up etc.  I know the "'nola" look, it isn't limited to Lesbians,
(I am from Santa Fe, the home of 'nolas!) and I have never considered that
look masculine.  More "natural", the type who likes yogurt and wheat germ,
than masculine.  And certainly not "butch".  When I think butch, I think
women with crew cuts, in beat up leather jackets, combat boots with bandanas
tied around them, and well worn jeans.  (pant, pant) I think both words, 
"butch" and "masculine" have as many images associated with them as people
hearing/using them.

If it's true that Lesbians <> Heterosexuals, then where do bisexuals fall
into this spectrum?  

D!

D! brings up something that is very interesting to me....she talks about
undefined sexuality and changing sexuality.

I can identify quite a bit with that.  And I DON'T believe that it's because
"I don't know what I want" but rather that I'm just a person that is 
'into' change.  I've had experiences of ALL kinds under my belt (no pun 
intended) and all equality as interesting and exciting and all quite different.

Sometimes I almost feel like my sexuality changes when my mood changes....but
I really don't feel that I project any sort of "signals" with my changes
in sexuality......at least I haven't recognized any......hummmm.....I guess
I'll just have to be 'more aware' next time!  ;-)


>If it's true that Lesbians <> Heterosexuals, then where do bisexuals fall
>into this spectrum?

Bisexuals have the versatility to be act and dress how they want and send out 
whatever type of signal they want, depending on their mood......I think it's 
really apt the saying that "Bisexuals have the best of both worlds."

:-)

kath

    re: appearances
    
    A Lesbian couple that I know very well (I'm tempted to say, "Some
    of my best friends are..." :-)) are sort of a "mixed bag". Both
    often dress up like "ladies" on social occasions, and obviously
    enjoy doing so, not as an attempt to avoid the "butch look". One
    of them, though, in the normal course of events, wears jeans. She
    also has wonderfully long hair, while the other has short, curly
    hair. Certainly no stereotyping there.
    
    I would say that they probably "closet" themselves when it comes
    to the work environment. One used to work at DEC, in the same group
    as I, and I was the only one that knew she was gay. In fact, it
    was a rather delightful game. The couple considered themselves
    "engaged" at the time, and since the "other" woman in the couple
    had a gender-ambiguous name, it was rather amusing to refer to her
    by name and have everyone assume that she was male.
    
    But, socially, they've never made any attempt to be "discreet" or
    hide their nature.
    
    re: jeans
    
    Put me down as a male who not only finds women wearing jeans to
    be attractive, but prefer such. They seem more "down to earth" in
    jeans (no offense intended to those who don't like jeans).
    
    --- jerry

me>If it's true that Lesbians <> Heterosexuals, then where do bisexuals fall
me>into this spectrum?

kat>Bisexuals have the versatility to be act and dress how they want and send out 
kat>whatever type of signal they want, depending on their mood......I think it's 
kat>really apt the saying that "Bisexuals have the best of both worlds."

Hmph.  Except for the fact that bisexuals are often rejected from both worlds.
Many straights tend to think that anyone who has any homosexual experience 
is really homosexual.  Other straights (Mom, f'rinstance) thinks that
bisexuality means that you are really heterosexual, but "going through a
phase", testing other waters.  Many homosexuals think bisexuals are really
homosexuals who are too scared to admit it, and are putting up a limited
heterosexual front for themselves and others.  (Like the blond in "Torch Song
Trilogy")  Others thing bi's are really hets who are just playing around
with homosexual for "kicks".  All around, people scorn bi's for not being 
able to "make up their minds".  

But that's a bitch for another day.

D! (I have my pet peeves, did you guess?)

> Except for the fact that bisexuals are often rejected from both worlds.

Yes, you're right.  I meant the 'best of both worlds' meaning they can feel
comfortable picking from the ranks of men AND from the ranks of women.

However, I totally agree with you that Bisexuals are rejected by both sides
and I see that in almost every note on Homosexuality vs Heterosexuality.  It's
almost like people feel they can lump Bisexuality into one of the other 
categories, which they really can't.

And people always seem to think that Bisexuals are people that just "can't 
make up their minds" and I find that attitude demeaning at best. 

Also, some lesbians seem to believe that if a Bi is in a relationship with 
a man, that the Bi will also be open to a relationship with a woman, and it
rarely works that way.  Bis are NOT 'two-timers'.  Most Bis have normal healthy
serial relationships just like many other homosexuals and heterosexuals...it
just so happens that sometimes their partners are men and sometimes they are
women.  

Most Bis I know treat people as PEOPLE instead of males and females.  They don't
categorize people into groups, they view them as a whole.

kath

re: 932.29

>    All right, I'm going to go ahead and say the ultimate politically
>    incorrect thing:

 Jeez, and I thought I had already cornered the market on such utterances. :-)

 The Doctah

    G'Day,
    
    	I am looking forward to a current affairs show on TV tonight that
    has advertised a story on a lesbian couple who have six children.  In
    the ad they don't say where the children came from, possibly a previous
    marriage.  These women do fit the normal stereotype of what lesbians
    are 'supposed to look like'.  They asked one of the kids if he missed
    having a dad around and he said no.
    
    	It should make interesting viewing and if there is interest I will
    summarise it tomorrow.
    
    David.
    
    
    
    

    From the discussion in the FWO version of this topic, it appears to be
    the consensus that although heterosexual women are sexually attracted
    to men, they are emotionally attracted to other women.  The consensus
    is that men do not satisfy women emotionally (with possible rare
    exceptions.)  The bodies of heterosexual women, it seems, draws them in
    directions that their minds would never possibly lead them.  Their
    bodies, indeed, conflict with their minds.

    Although this is not particularly startling news, to contemplate it is
    sad and discouraging, because it implies that men and women are
    hopelessly at spiritual odds.  Not hopelessly, you protest.  Surely, you
    contend, there is always hope for change.  But be it nature or nurture,
    does it really matter as far as I am concerned?  And whatever love I
    have to give, it seems, is inadequate.  The best I can aspire to--if I
    am lucky--is to satisfy a woman's loins, but never her soul, never in a
    million years her soul, at least not as well as others can.

    Fantasies about romance die hard.  But, you protest, Mike you old stud,
    you sex god, you every woman's horny dream, go with the flow, enjoy it! 
    But, I protest, I am none of those things, not even close, so where
    does that leave me?  So what, you insist, so what if you can't satisfy
    her above the neck.  What, is this some sort of ego thing with you,
    Valenza?  No, no, I respond, not at all!  If the love I give cannot
    fulfill the other, I proclaim, then I have failed, for is not caring
    for the other what love is about?  Why bother, I ask?  And you cackle
    and say, Mike you twit, go eat some Doritos.

    I'm looking for a cave to dwell in, where I can contemplate my navel,
    alone, for the rest of my life.

    -- Mike

    Cheer up, Mike - we're not *all* "lesbians at heart," either in the
    sexual or the emotional sense. My experience has been that I have had
    very, very few truly close relationships in my life, but of those,
    about half have been with women, half with men.
    
    All have been valued, but I've never had that kind of emotional
    relationship with someone and shared a mutual physical attraction as
    well.  (While I was attracted to some of the men I've been emotionally
    close to, and some of them were attracted to me, it was never mutual -
    bad timing, bad vibes, bad luck - whatever. And I've never been
    attracted to a woman in that way; never, not even as a fleeting
    urge. Not that the idea turns me off - it just doesn't turn me
    *on*.)
    
    I have no idea if I'm in the minority or not, but for what it's
    worth...
    
    -b (out-of-practice heterosexual)

    Re: .12
    
    You could try being a "rare exception". You might like it.
    
    	-- Charles

>The consensus
>    is that men do not satisfy women emotionally (with possible rare
>    exceptions.)

 Initially I was horrified to read that. But I guess I can understand where 
they are coming from. There are certain things that I share with other men that
no woman ever seems to understand. I can only imagine that women feel the same
way. I also think there is a distinction between "men do not satisfy women
emotionally" and "women can be emotionally satisfied with other women even
if they are heterosexual." The latter doesn't actually exclude men as a source
of emotional fulfillment.

>     Although this is not particularly startling news, to contemplate it is
>    sad and discouraging, because it implies that men and women are
>    hopelessly at spiritual odds. 

 I would say that certain aspects of our personalities can only be truly
appreciated by those of the same gender (with a few, rare exceptions.)

 One thing that bothered me is a feeling I have that if a woman happens to
have more male friends or seems to relate to or just plain like men better
than women, it implies an internalized misogyny since no women would actually
choose to like men better without misogynistic feelings. Does this mean that
men that like women better have an internalized hatred for other men as well?
I really don't buy this.

 The Doctah

    Re .12, it would help if more men liked shopping.
    
    Actually, I've had just as many emotionally close relationships
    with men as I have women, if not more, in recent years.  It's just
    that they don't always last with men because it gets all confused
    with being sexually attracted or in love or not being sexually
    attracted or in love or having a romantic relationship with a third
    person who doesn't understand why their SO should have a member
    of the opposite sex for
    a best friend, etc.  Close emotional relationships with women tend
    to weather the years better for me (maybe because I'm not interested
    in them sexually or romantically).
    
    One thing I do have to admit, tho, I don't why, but I find nothing
    thrilling about being in a large group of women.  I enjoy small
    groups of women for conversation but large groups of women both scare me
    and bore me.  The only time I enjoy large groups of people is at
    rock concerts.  I find being alone with an attractive man more
    thrilling than being with a bunch of women, but that doesn't mean
    I hate women.  I like *being* a woman.
    
    Lorna
    

    re 932.29 (Bonnie R S), 932.36 (Liesl), 932.39 (Mary)-
    
    I missed something in the substring along the lines of "rejecting the
    patriarchy (is nearly a life-threatening thing to do.)"  The sense I got
    when Mary used the phrase was not at all similar to Bonnie's and
    Liesl's usage.  Perhaps if any of the three of you agree, you could
    continue that substring there or here (I'm just listening, really.)
    
    re 931.12, Mike V-
    
    I don't see such a consensus emerging, actually.  Bonnie's and Liesl's
    notes (above) don't say that to me.  And Carla's 932.32 especially
    doesn't, though it points out how and why she's thrilled with her
    current relationship (nice note, Carla, thanks for sharing) partly
    because of the 'feminine traits' of the guy.
    
    Your proposed 'consensus' also posits that heterosexual women's
    "bodies, indeed, conflict with their minds."  I'd rather take the
    observations that lead to this and synthesize a different thought;
    that socialization teaches women to value emotional abilities.  As few
    men develop their own, they seldom receive women's validation/valuation
    for them.  But I think that women would value men with emotional
    capabilities if they met more of us, and if we were not afraid to
    show those capabilities.
    
    I find this synthesis to be much less "sad and discouraging" ;-).
    Put those Doritos away, Mike, and get out your tissue box!
    
    DougO

    re .12:
    
    Just because most het women need and value the emotional closeness
    they have with other women friends doesn't mean that they are not
    satisfied with the emotional closeness they have with their male
    partner.
    
    One person cannot satisfy all the emotional needs or be everything
    to another one.  What a terrible burden that would be.
    

>    One person cannot satisfy all the emotional needs or be everything
>    to another one.  What a terrible burden that would be.

 Yes, Ellen, I agree!!

 The Doctah

I don't understand the concept of a conflict between satsifying the mine and
satisfying the libido.  That isn't how it works for me.  I need one for the
other.  I can't be perfectly sexually satisfied by a person who does not share
my soul.  I cannot share my soul with someone who is not sexually satisfying
to me.  If I could only find soul-mates in females, and only find sex-mates
in males, I'd be SoL.  I just can't imagine sex being in *conflict* with
love/deep friendship.  To me, the two together are more than the sum of their
parts - they feed off and on eachother, growing and merging until there is
no difference.

But then, this is the woman who's loins can't be satisfied unless her intellect
is, so we've already established that my sexual priorites are different than
the average woman's.

But have hope, Mike, I can't be the only one.

D!

    re:.18,.19
    
    Ellen, Mark,
    
    My sentiments exactly. The more friends we have, the richer we become.
    It's hard to tolerate the 2 body/1 mind syndrome as we see in many
    couples. 2 people floating around in little bubbles meant for 2.
    
    In ideal life for me is really a sexual relationship with a man
    and friendships with both men and women.
    
    Kate
    

    re: .12
    
    Mike, it's been my experience that the majority of men tend to
    neglect the emotional side of a relationship and the majority of
    women tend to neglect the physical side -- and it's because that's
    how we were raised.  A girl who enjoys sex is a slut and a boy who
    shows his emotion is a sissy.  But we're grown men and women now
    and we don't have to live by the rules our teachers tried to make
    us live by in sixth grade, or whatever.  We can learn other ways
    of dealing with each other.  Men can learn to understand their
    emotions and women can learn to appreciate their bodies.  
    
    The rewards are indescribably wonderful -- a closeness of body,
    mind, and soul together. 
    
    But because women are the ones who have been taught to deal with
    emotions, and because in general men are used to being in charge
    in a relationship, it's a lot harder for a man to learn to
    understand and give emotionally than it would be in a free society
    where men and women were equal and all parts of the human being --
    body, mind, and spirit -- were equally valued.  The man keeps
    expecting the woman to do it all.
    
    Building a healthy relationship in an unhealthy society is not an
    easy thing.
    
    --bonnie

    G'Day,
    
    Followup to .11
    
    	I saw the article last night and it was very interesting.  The
    couple are in England and really do seem to make a good family with the
    six children.  Four of the kids came from a previous marriage which
    broke up when the woman met her girlfriend.  The other two are a little
    more complex.  This woman wanted to have children but had basically
    been a lesbian all her life which made it difficult.  She managed to
    find a male that was willing to 'just have sex with her' in order for
    her to conceive - no strings attached.  Now this may be a fairly
    dangerous thing to do but it worked.  The second child was conceived
    with the sperm donated by a gay man and the woman inseminated herself. 
    She was quite adamant that she wanted a gay man for reasons that she
    did not go into.  Maybe the first one actually had problems she didn't
    mention.
    
    	When the children were asked what it was like to have two mothers
    and no father, their unanimous reply was that since they have never had
    a father living with them then they can't really compare.  What really
    struck home though was that they said that most of their friends who
    were in 'normal' families usually had no father anyway, their parents
    either being divorced or the father spending so much time at work or
    with his mates that they never saw him anyway.  That's a pretty heavy
    statement from a group of kids aged between about 6 and 12!
    
    David.
    
    

    RE DougO, the Bonnie's and I indeed had a different impression of
    patriarchy = men than Mary did. When she pointed this out it gave me
    a good bit to think about.

    An open note to the men in this string. Perhaps what we are saying
    is that we (hetro women) want the men in our lives to pick up more
    of the qualities we value in other women. True equality will come
    not when women become more like men but when men become more like
    women. We need to integrate all the culture related traits of both
    sexes. We are enculturated to not be whole beings and to deny our
    selves when they stray into the area of the other sex's traits.

    What we are saying is we love you and want you in our lives. But we
    want you to accept some of our terms for relationships. The men in
    this file (at least those who write) are the least part of the
    problem. Even when we argue you give us more respect than we have
    come to expect in general society. There are a number of you whom I
    feel a sincere fondness for and whose spiritual and emotional selves
    (as viewed from the narrow window of notes) reach out to me and
    bring me feelings of warmth and caring. liesl

    I'm with Liesl on this one. 
    
    I truely enjoy men who are sensitive and thoughtful and expand
    on their 'feminine side' as it used to be called. My husband
    is not only my lover but my best friend and 'dear companion'
    (to use an old fashioned expression that caused much humor at
    my in-law's 50th wedding anniversary service.) We think alike
    a lot, come up with the same thoughts quite often...and we
    laugh together.
    
    Bonnie

    it may sound very trite, but...
    
    I do not wish for men to become more like women or for women to become
    more like men.
    
    I would prefer both to become fully functional, well-rounded human
    beings.
    
    It seems to me that asking men to call more upon their 'feminine side'
    only furthers the stereotype of woman={caring,sensitive,nurturing}/
    man={strong,forceful,competitive}.  It all feels so divisive.  And the
    shorthand tells us something about how far we still need to travel in
    our quest for equal partnership in society.
    
    I put in 932.[somethingorother] that I feel most alive in groups of
    women and that my primary sexual orientation is toward men.  This in no
    way denies the deep and fulfilling relationships I have with men, sex
    aside.  There is nothing missing in the relationships with men.  This
    also does not deny that most of my least pleasant life-experiences have
    been woman-to-woman [the single exception that comes to mind is when I
    was raped, but if pushed I could come up with more...oops, I thought of
    another one: Steve, the ex-fiance, got married while I was out of town
    ...but somehow it doesn't compare]
    
      Ann

    Okay, so maybe I won't retire to that cave just yet.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    
    re:932.58
    sounds like something men would do.
    

re: 932.57             

|    These are the type of differences I was thinking about too, Laura.
|    lesbians are not in a position to claim any of the privilege that
|    society extends to [valued] heterosexuals or [valued] men.
|
     Does society treat lesbians differently from homosexual men???
    
    					Nigel
    

     >>Does society treat lesbians differently from homosexual men???
    
    Nigel,
    
    In terms of society "approval" or legal status in relationships,
    lesbians are treated the same way as gay men.  The difference here is
    that gay men have access to societal privileges that are awarded to men
    in general by virtue of their being male.
    
    Laura

    
    
    First of all, thanks to all for starting this topic and 932.  I was
    keeping quite least I reveal my ignorance on the subject.  I feel that
    I have a better understanding of the lesbian life now.
    
    re Mike:
    
    Here's where I'm going to vary quite a bit from the majority of women
    here.  My best friends have almost always been my male lovers. 
    I've had one 7 year friendship, (we were lovers for the first two
    years), one 3 year friendship and I've been friends with my fiance for
    2 years.  As a matter of fact the first real female friend I ever had,
    didn't come along until I was in college.  The 'girl-friends' I had in
    grade school always hurt me emotionally so I was cautious with women.
    So, I would never say that my brain and my hormones have disagreed. 
    
    Also RE whomever was talking about sex needing to include emotion,  I
    think there are several definitions of the word sex.
    	- a purely physical release
    	- a purely emotional release
    	- a combination of both
    I think that some people are satisfied with the purely physical and
    that this is the sex being referred to in the mind-vs-body notes.  
    
    
    Thanks again for this conference.
    Rachael
    

    re:.932.38
    
    	� If the person #2 is SO to person #1, then I'd like
    	to include her, just as I would include a husband of
    	my friend. Otherwise, I would not, either due to lack
    	of room or lack of interest in pursuing a relationship
    	with the other person.
    
    	� But I don't want to make assumptions either way,
    	so I never know what to do! �
    
    How about just telling the invitee, "And your SO is welcome." If
    she brings her roommate or brings some man, then you'll have your
    answer.
    
        � I visited in a man's house, met his house-mate,
    	and figured he must be gay. �
    
    Is there any particular reason why you made that assumption? I have
    two male housemates, but all three of us are happily het. And I
    know a *lot* of people, both male and female that have same-sex
    housemates purely for reasons of convenience. 
    
    re: 932.53
    
    	� It really touched my heart when she quoted something
    	that my grandmother used to say to us when we were
    	little kids, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger." �
    
    Interesting. There's a tendency on the part of a lot of people to
    think of that quote as an expression of fascism, simply because
    it came from Nietzsche (the actual quote is "That which does not
    kill us makes us stronger"). But politics aside, there's a lot of
    truth in that saying, and at least in the context of your quotation
    of it, fascism seems like the farthest thing from it.
    
    re: bisexuality
    
    There's a song that Mary Travers (of "Peter, Paul, and" fame) sings
    called "It's in Every One of Us" that has a line that goes:
    
    	"Sometimes I feel that I've bought this ticket
    	And I'm watching only half of the show."
    
    That line sums up my feeling about bisexuality. There are times
    when I feel like I'm missing a lot by being exclusively het, but
    as Lorna and Bonnie pointed out in a couple of their notes, the
    hormones are in control, and they don't want anything but women.
    
    I can also understand the feeling of emotional closeness that women
    can have with each other. Maybe it's a "women-thing". Most of *my*
    closely-bonded (non-romantic/sexual) relationships have been with
    women as well. They seem more in tune with that type of bonding.
    
    --- jerry

932.38>        � If the person #2 is SO to person #1, then I'd like
932.38>        to include her, just as I would include a husband of
932.38>        my friend. Otherwise, I would not, either due to lack
932.38>        of room or lack of interest in pursuing a relationship
932.38>        with the other person.
932.38>
932.38>        � But I don't want to make assumptions either way,
932.38>        so I never know what to do! �
.33>
.33>    How about just telling the invitee, "And your SO is welcome." If
.33>    she brings her roommate or brings some man, then you'll have your
.33>    answer.
  
How about just telling the invitee they can "bring somebody" (but don't _have_
to)?  It can be awfully tough to be the lone single at a party of couples.
Whether it's a SO, a date, a platonic friend or a sibling, it's still one
more person, and the message you send your invitee is the same: "come as
you feel most comfortable".

In general, I dislike the "Noah's ark approach" to parties [line up the 
animals, two by two...].  I think that if only SOs/spouses are invited and
the party is mostly couples, that conveys the message to the "onlies" that
they _should_ be part of a couple.  

Would you want Robin-your-friends-roommate at your party any more or less, 
for herself, if you knew she and your friend were SOs?   My guess is no, that
you want your friend to feel comfortable and accepted, and that's why you'd
want to invite your friends SO.  Why not extend the same to the unattached?

	Sharon

    In a recent article (Time?) on what's in what's out, there was a
    statement to the effect that if a man wants to find out what the
    next male fashion is, he should study the gay community.  As an
    example the article predicted that male pierced ears are on the way
    out.
    
    still in t-shirts and jeans, however,
    ed

    
    re:932.76 (which, hopefully, will be moved to where it belongs
    and then this can be put in the proper sequence, etc. ad nauseum...)
    
    i don't think you've quite got the picture. it's not that the
    women in question 'liked/loved' some guy so much, it was a
    question of, when a man called- virtually *any* man- all previous
    engagements with female friends were off. this was common practice
    among many of the women i knew.
    

    
    re:.37
    
    i believe that the concept was that we live in a world that
    assumes men are more important than women. women breaking
    their appointments with other women on account of a man is
    an example of how that bias creeps into even relatively
    innocuous aspects of life in general and the activities of
    heterosexual women in particular. it is my understanding that one
    ramification of lesbianism is that it challenges that bias,
    since a lesbian would naturally assume that a woman was more
    important than a man. it seems pretty relevent to me.
    

    in re 'a man called and I broke a date with a woman friend'
    
    I never did that, but to be honest I was never tempted..
    
    would I have done so in high school or college...  yes..
    
    but I would have done my best to explain to my woman friend
    why I was  doing that, and to have made her rejoice with
    me that I had *finally* gotten a date with the guy that we had
    been talking about for so long on the phone, gotten her  blessing
    and made a date to 'tell all' afterwards..
    
    
    Bonnie��

	 RE: .37

	 Mike........sometimes it's necessary to cancel plans like
	 that.....sometimes it is very important to spend time with
	 your lover......but more oft than not........hummmm....

	 I've had it done to me by "women friends" many times
	 when we have had plans and they got a "better offer" from a
	 man.  Most often I hear "you understand, don't you?"  No, I
	 DON'T understand.....it's a great downer for self esteem to
	 be "blown off"......especially when it happens on a regular
	 basis.

	 What I begin to "understand" is not what they think, but
	 rather that our friendship is a convenience to
	 them.....to have when it's convenient for them, but not when
	 "better things" come along.

	 I guess I'm very venement about it because I try to never do it
	 myself.  I feel that my friends are just as important to me
	 as my lovers.  And if I have commitments, even Adam Ant
	 asking me out isn't going to make me break them.  ;-) If the
	 person is really interested in me, and respects my commitment
	 to my friends, then they will understand.  If they don't,
	 then they weren't for me anyway.

	 kathy

    Kathy,
    
    EXACTLY!  and very well said!  
    
    	
    -Dotti.

    Re .39, Bonnie, if I had been your girlfriend I would have understood, but
    only on the condition that you promise to really "tell all" afterwards
    when I asked that all important question, "Well, how was he?  Any
    good?" :-)  :-)  (Just kidding, guys! :-) I would *never* talk that
    way about men.)
    
    I have had women cancel out on me because of dates with men, and
    I have cancelled out on other women because of dates with men. 
    When my girlfriends did it to me I sometimes resented it, and felt abandoned
but I really understood.  When I did it to my girlfriends, I always
    felt that they should understand how important the date was to me
    and forgive.  They always did eventually.  Of course, I would never
    cancel out on a girlfriend for just "any guy" but I wouldn't go
    out with just "any guy" anyway.  (And, if a guy you're really not
    interested in dating asks you out, it makes a wonderful sounding
    excuse to say that you can't go because you have plans with your
    girlfriend, and you would never consider cancelling on her for a
    man. :-)  I've done that, too.  Let's face it, it is a jungle out
    there.)
    
    The last time I did this was about three years ago when I had plans
    to go out with one of my girlfriends on a Friday night, and a guy
    I had been attracted to for about 3 months finally asked me to dinner!
     I really was afraid that if I said, No, he'd think I wasn't interested
    and I really did want to go.  When I first explained to my girlfriend,
    she was really angry at me, and said things like, "You, of all people!
     You call yourself a feminist, etc.!"  But, I explained to her that
    I wouldn't have cancelled with her for any other guy except this
    particular one and she *knew* I had wanted to go out with him for
    ages.  So, finally she grudgingly forgave me.
    
    I see it like this.  Like it or not, it really is more important
    to most straight women to have a romantic love life with one special
    man than it is to have girlfriends.  It may turn out to be a foolish
    choice, but it's natural to try to get what you want most.  I try
    to understand that in other straight women, and hope they will
    understand it in me, too.  
    
    I think most of us grew up with the idea that there are not enough
    "good" men to go around, and we shouldn't miss any chance to "get"
    one!  (Of course, at some point, some of us decide we don't want
    one anyway.)  I think it seems to us, when we are growing up, that
    there will always be other females around to have as girlfriends,
    but that's it's going to be more difficult to find a  good relationship
    with a man.  I don't think this means we don't care about and
    appreciate our women friends.  
    
    There have been times when I have been especially disgusted with
    trying to get along with men in relationships, and I have thought,
    Who needs them?  I can just do things with my girlfriends.  But,
    then I realize that all my (straight) girlfriends, sooner or later,
    do something that shows me that the men in their lives will always
    be more important to them, than me.  (And, I don't have any close
    lesbian or gay male friends anyway.)  And, my straight male friends
    put their love relationships before their friendship with me.  So,
    I always figure I may as well jump on the bandwagon, and put men
    and relationships first again since everybody else is.
    
    Lorna
    

I really don't think it's a matter of men being more important than women.
I think it is because, in this society, romatic love is considered more
important than platonic love, and finding "true love" is the most pressing
need to many people.

I know lots of men who would similarly cancel plans with male friends if
they got a hot date.  That doesn't mean they consider women more important
than men, but sex/romatictic love more important than friendship/platonic
love.

It's really a matter of priorities...what's more important, your love life
or your friends.  To me, there are a few things.  Lovers come and go, friends
are (hopefully) forever, so often I consider effort put in to a friendship
a more worthwhile investment.  On the other handle, stable friendships that
have been around awhile can take a bit of abuse and neglect that a budding
love would collapse under.

Most times, if I make a plan with a girlfriend, I won't break it for a date. 
But sometimes, occasionally, that date and that lover at *that* time are
really important to me, and I know that my friendship with her can take it...
and yes, she understands.  (And yes, I understand when she does it.)
(Example: boyfriend from long distance comes to town unexpectadely)

Also, most times when I make a date, I won't break it to do something with
my girlfriend.  But sometimes, that event and that friend at *that* time are
really important to me, and if my lover doesn't understand, then the
relationship probably isn't right anyway.  (Example: friend is very depressed
and needs me to talk to at that time.)

I don't think it is so simple as "One should never, never place dating at
higher priority on a particuar evening than keeping a date with a friend."
Nor is it as simple as "Love (eros) is always the most important thing..."
Relationships, both friendly and romantic, are very complex, and such 
straightforward rules don't cover everything.

D!

>I really don't think it's a matter of men being more important than women.
>I think it is because, in this society, romatic love is considered more
>important than platonic love, and finding "true love" is the most pressing
>need to many people.

 I definitely agree wholeheartedly.

>    Re .39, Bonnie, if I had been your girlfriend I would have understood, but
>    only on the condition that you promise to really "tell all" afterwards
>    when I asked that all important question, "Well, how was he?  Any
>    good?" :-)  :-)  (Just kidding, guys! :-) I would *never* talk that
>    way about men.)

 <howls of raucous laughter from the background>

 "Yeah, right!" :-)

 The Doctah

I guess I haven't run across this one much.  If I have a meeting with
a friend or lover and I want to see someone or someone wants to see
me, they can have another time.  I guess I have a first come, first
served system.

john

    re .43, D!, you said it well, I agree.  You said how I feel better
    than I did! :-)
    
    Re .45, John, I think, for me, the problem with the first come,
    first serve system, which may seem the most fair at first, is that
    sometimes the second person to contact you may have the most pressing
    need or the timing may be more crucial.  I agree with D! that
    friendships and relationships are just too complex for a simple
    rule.  
    
    Re Doctah, how can you say that? Huh!  I was only *joking*! :-)
    
    Lorna 
    

Lorna (in .42):
>    when I asked that all important question, "Well, how was he?  Any
>    good?" :-)  :-)  (Just kidding, guys! :-) I would *never* talk that
>    way about men.)
 
Really?  Geez, I share the most *intimate* details of my life with my best
friend.  I don't tell *his* secrets to her, but I do tell all of mine.  I
am not a secretive person.  I need someone with whom to share the joys and
tribulations and the ups and downs of my love life with.  Which includes
"He's wonderful, he's perfect, I've never had so good, what do I do?" and
"I'm very unahppy, he doesn't/can't satisy me, what do I do?"  (My sentences
to my best friend almost always end with "what do I do" even though I almost
never follow her advice! :-)
   
>    one anyway.)  I think it seems to us, when we are growing up, that
>    there will always be other females around to have as girlfriends,
>    but that's it's going to be more difficult to find a  good relationship
>    with a man.  I don't think this means we don't care about and
>    appreciate our women friends.  
 
Wow.  That is so totally different from how I felt growing up.  From the
day I started dating men (first 'date' consisted of making out in the 
basement of my best friends house with her brother) at age 11, there have
always been men available.  Sometimes (often) not the right man, but such
a profusion of men I had no doubt that it wouldn't take me long to find
someone who would satisfy me.

But friends, good, close, female friends have *always* been in short supply.
I can count the "best friends" I have had on two hands.  I don't know
how to meet them, and when I do, I never know how to go about making it into
a close friendship.  I don't feel at all silly saying to a man "I like you,
will you go out with me?" or even "Will you go to bed with me?"  But I have
never gotten up the guts to say to someone "Will you be friends with me?"

In the past 7 years, I have been through 3 or 4 major relationships, and
uncountable number of minor ones.  I have had exactly *two*, count 'em, 
*two* close female friends during that time (and only one with whom I was
able to maintain the friendship for the full time.)  Friends to me are
rare and precious stones, and if I loose one, I *don't* expect to find another
to replace it in the near future, if at all.

I demand of lot of my friends, including understanding when sometimes carrying
through on my fits of passion take precedent over being with them.  But
do something to loose them, becuse there "will always be more"?  Never.  I
can't afford it.

God, Lorna, if you find female friends so easily, I *really* envy you.   Please,
please, tell me how you do it.

D!

Fear of someone (a man in our particular cases) giving up because he thinks you
really mean no:

I'll tell you what worked for me Lorna. I said "I can't then; how about the
Friday after?". Shows you're willing to make a firm commitment. Try to look
desparate while you say it :-).
	Mez

    re: breaking dates...
    
    My mother took the proper socialization of her daughters very
    seriously.  I have vivid memories of her instructions to me that if I
    had plans with any of my girlfriend(s) and then by boyfriend called and
    asked me out for the same night on which I already had plans with my
    girlfriend(s), that I should break my plans with girlfriend(s) to
    go out with boyfriend.  She way *very* distressed when I told her
    that I would never do such a thing.  She was probably worried that it
    would ruin my chances for marriage :-)
    
    I find it interesting that some women have worried that if a boyfriend
    or potential boyfriend called and asked her for a date and she told him
    that she already had plans for the evening that the man would interpret
    that as lack of interest.  Is there still some notion that women just
    sit around by the phone waiting for some man to call and ask for a date
    so their lives can be complete?  Are we making the assumption that
    some or most men or so immature that they can't understand that women
    might make some plans to do things, and that saying one night is
    already booked is a sure sign of rejection?  I haven't dated men in a
    very long time, but I find it hard to believe that most men interpret a
    sincere answer of, "gee, I would really enjoy going out with you, but I
    already have plans for X evening, how about the next night, or the
    following Friday?," as "I don't *really* want to go out with you." 
    
    I agree with some of the statements that people have made about giving
    our friends the message that they are unimportant or trivial when we
    break plans with them to get that all important date with mr. or ms.
    right.  
    
    Laura
    

    Re .47, well, I didn't mean to imply that I would ever do anything
    now, as an adult, to deliberately risk losing a friendship with
    one of my closest female friends.  I value friendship very highly
    because it often/usually (?) lasts longer than romantic involvements.
     I really love my closest female friends and don't think that I
    could just run out and replace them in an instant.  But, I still
    do think that it is easier to make female friends than to find a
    *good relationship* (long term) with a male.  I think it's easier
    to make male friends, too, than it is to find someone for an actual
    relationship.  I realize that there will always be men around (like
    they say, "men are like buses, there's one every 10 mins.") but,
    that doesn't mean that out of all the men who may be around, that
    I'll be interested in any of them, or that any of them will be
    interested in me (for a relationship).
    
    It's obvious from what you say about dating at age 11, that you
    discovered men long before I did.  When I was a little girl I was
    afraid of boys and men, and thought of them as some sort of alien
    species.  I also considered myself to be hideously ugly, compared
    to movie stars, and felt that no boys/men would ever be interested
    in me.  It came as a wonderful surprise to me as a teenager to discover
    that boys were people, too, and I could talk to them, and have them
    as friends.  And, it came as an even more wonderful surprise, when
    I was about 19 to discover that some guys were even interested in
    dating me, and thought I was attractive.  I thought it was a miracle
    when I fell in love and got married at age 23, to the first man
    I had ever been in love with.  So, I guess, because of my early
    experiences, even now, many years and many men later (!), I still
   (deep down) think of female friends as easier to find than dates,
    because I had female friends for years before I ever had any dates.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: breaking dates...
    
>    My mother took the proper socialization of her daughters very
>    seriously.  I have vivid memories of her instructions to me that if I
>    had plans with any of my girlfriend(s) and then by boyfriend called and
>    asked me out for the same night on which I already had plans with my
>    girlfriend(s), that I should break my plans with girlfriend(s) to
>    go out with boyfriend.  
    
    My mother took the proper socialization of her daughter very
    seriously, too -- she drilled into me that when I made a date with
    anyone for any reason, I didn't cancel it for anything short of an
    emergency.  If I agreed to go over to our neighbor lady's house
    for hot chocolate some evening, and one of my girlfriends called
    to go to a movie, I went over to the neighbor lady's; if I had a
    study date with a girlfriend and a boy called, I studied. 
    Anything other behavior was considered rude beyond words.  
    
    My brother learned the same code.  He once broke up with a
    girlfriend of his when he found out she had ditched some of her
    friends to go out with him.  He figured that if she had so little
    committment to her word that she'd dump her friends for a mere
    date, then she'd dump him as soon as something better came along,
    too.
    
    --bonnie
    

    Re .49, Laura, well, it has been over 3 yrs. since that last time
    I ever cancelled out on a girlfriend to go out with a guy, and now
    that you mention it, he did turn out to be quite immature.... :-)
    
    Cancelling on girlfriends was definitely something I did more often
    the first time I was single (age 17-23 yrs.) rather than this time
    (age 35-40).  I think most people in this day and age *should* realize
    that most adults do make plans in advance.  It's definitely been
    more often that I've said what Mez suggested, but I chose previously
    to admit the one time in the past 5 yrs. since my divorce that I
    did cancel on a girlfriend.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .48 and .49:
    
    I was beginning to think that I was the only one, after reading
    a very depressing series of replies here, that doesn't think it's
    got to be an "either-or" situation.
    
    You can respond to a second offer for a previously-committed time
    by suggesting a second time in the future.  Very simple.
    
    

    re: .51
    
    >>     <<< Note 931.51 by TLE::RANDALL "living on another planet" >>>
    >>                 -< what happened to good manners??? >-
    
    Bonnie,
    
    I guess, in her ms. manners book, that *was* good manners!  

Hmmm...I don't think it's always a matter of "This guy won't see me any more
or will think I am rejecting him if I tell him I had other plans."  Sometimes,
*gasp*, I find that something comes up that I really *want* to do more than
what I had planned to do.  And sometimes events come up that *can't* be simply
delayed, it doesn't work to say "maybe next week."  I gave the example of the
surprise visit from the out-of-town boyfriend.  

I admit it...if an attractive man called me and said "I have ochestra pit
seats to the final show of Phantom of the Opera and I'd like you to go with
me" I might very well cancel a planned shopping trip with my best friend.
And if *she* got such an offer, and turned it down because she didn't
want to break a date with me, I'd shoot her!  (And then go out with the
man who had asked her out.  ;-)

Hell, I recently cancelled a hot date to go to a gathering of =wn= folks,
because the hot date was reschedulable and the gathering wasn't.  Is that
really so bad?

Some things get priority because of their importantness (friendship.)  Some
things get priority because of their uniqueness (a trip to see Phantom of
the Opera.)

As I said, I think simple rules (even good-sounding ones like "Never cancel
out on anyone") don't work reliably in the real world.

D!

    Hmm, I guess I have a slightly different experience than many of the
    other het women in here.  
    
    All the men I've dated were friends first.  If they wanted to go out
    with me and I'd already made plans, often I'd just invite him along
    too.  But then, we usually shared a similar group of friends.  I don't
    know.  It feels kind of wierd, but I've missed out on the traditional
    dating thing I guess.  But I'm glad.  It doesn't sound like much fun
    if you ask me.
    
    Why does the romantic side and the friend side have to be so separate?
    
    Karen.

re: .56

>    Why does the romantic side and the friend side have to be so separate?
    
    It doesn't.  I'm married to my best friend!
    
    --bonnie

re: .49 (Laura)

�    I find it interesting that some women have worried that if a boyfriend
�    or potential boyfriend called and asked her for a date and she told him
�    that she already had plans for the evening that the man would interpret
�    that as lack of interest.  Is there still some notion that women just
�    sit around by the phone waiting for some man to call and ask for a date
�    so their lives can be complete?

	I think it's more the fear that a lot of men get "I have to wash
my hair" type responses and, even though the woman is interested, the man may
believe he's being blown off.  I think Mez hit the best way to deal with
it - if you have other plans, suggest an alternate date.


						--D

         <<< Note 931.47 by TLE::D_CARROLL "Theobromine: My drug of choice" >>>
                   -< I share my soul with my best friends >-

<always been men available.  Sometimes (often) not the right man, but such
<a profusion of men I had no doubt that it wouldn't take me long to find
<someone who would satisfy me.

    Some of us have never experienced this, I certainly haven't. 

    I can only speak from my personal experience on the fringes of the
    Lesbian/Gay culture of Denver in the early 70's but many Lesbians
    that I knew at the time were not adverse to dropping a mere friend
    for a romantic contact. One woman I knew was as agressive as an
    oversexed man in putting the moves on women. From this conversation
    I've gotten the feeling that Lesbians are ,as a rule, much more
    monogamous than the crowd I knew. That may be due to the times
    however. This was in the fallout period of the free love generation.
    liesl

    I think D!'s comments in .55 are the closest to my own. I just
    can't see this as a straight "either A or B" type of situation.
    It depends on the circumstances.
    
    If I made plans to visit with a friend on Saturday night, and
    on Friday night, I fall into the opportunity to go on a date with
    a woman that I felt was a "good prospect" on that same Saturday
    night, I'd break the visit in lieu of the date, and wouldn't feel
    the least bit guilty about it. On the other hand, I'd probably
    explain to my friend why I was cancelling, and hope that he or she
    would understand. I know that if the situation was reversed, *I*
    would understand.
    
    Or look at this scenario. Say you made plans with a friend to go
    to a movie, and all of a sudden this guy you're interested in, but
    is an out-of-towner, calls up and says, "Hey, I'm going to be in
    town this weekend. I'll be busy with such-and-such almost the whole
    time, but I'm free on Saturday night. Do you want to go out to
    dinner?" would you *really* tell him, "Sorry, but I'm already
    committed to seeing this movie with a friend even though we could
    just as easily see it another day"?
    
    I don't really think it has to be an emergency situation for one
    to break previous plans, though it should be something more than
    inconsequential. After all, what they is friendship all about if
    you can't forgive a friend for breaking a date? Part of my "social
    contract" with a friend is that I want him or her to be happy. I
    don't expect to be the most important thing in my friends' lives,
    and if their breaking a date with me to pursue a romantic liaison
    is to their benefit, why should I be hurt? Shouldn't I be happy
    for *them*?
    
    --- jerry

    Re .63, that's funny, Mike, because this morning on the way to work,
    I found myself trying to remember if my mother had ever said anything
    to me in regard to this type of situation.  I don't think she ever
    did, so I guess my folks neglected this aspect of my "training",
    too. :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .63
    
    Well, my mother drilled the same behavior into my brother, too. 
    
    If you believe Nancy Friday in _My Mother, My Self_, the reason is
    that mothers give up on trying to civilize their sons but keep
    pounding it into their daughters until the daughters give up . . .
    they figure that boys are "different" and they dn't really know
    how to tell their sons to live, but they know what being a woman
    means, so they have a right to tell their daughters how to live.
    
    I'm not sure I necessarily believe this, but I do agree with the
    conclusion that this isn't a difference between lesbians and
    strate women. 
    
    Maybe the only relevant fact is that we all have a sexual
    orientation. . . 
    
    --bonnie

    My folks didn't really talk to me much about dates at all.  Then again,
    I didn't really have any dates till college, where I lived on campus
    and got to figure it all out for myself....
    
    -Jody

    RE: breaking dates/alternate dates...

    When I was allowed to date, it was after my parents had already met
    the guy AND his parents. My dad even drove around in the car with the
    guy and approved his driving BEFORE I could ride in a car with him...
    however, once I made a date, I could not cancel it for anything, short
    of being sick. It made me mad at times, and it tended to have me not
    accept some dates, until I was really sure...

    Re: alternate dates..  I have had guys call me and ask me to go to XYZ,
    and have had plans, my usual response (if I'd like to see that person)
    is, I can't that night but how about L,M, or N night... hasn't failed
    yet :-)

I disagree that there is no difference between lesbians and straight women
in breaking a date with a friend to make a romantic date with another person.
I've seen this a lot more with straight women, and I agree with the woman
who said that she thought it was part of a woman's socialization that men
are more important than women (or that being WITH a man is more important
than being with a woman).

         Carol

    This is just a tad off the subject but I've got a close friend who
    has broken "dates" with me because her kids had a game she hadn't
    remembered or because she had to take them somewhere and her husband
    felt it was her job to run them around. Is this different? Should I
    be upset? (I'm not BTW, I feel as her friend I understand) liesl

Carol (.68):

>I've seen this a lot more with straight women, and I agree with the woman
>who said that she thought it was part of a woman's socialization that men
>are more important than women (or that being WITH a man is more important
>than being with a woman).

I still disagree.  Saying that more straight women break dates for men than
Lesbian women break dates with friends for dates with lovers doesn't
suggest to me that women in general are taught that women are less important
than men...that can be still be explained by romantic love being more
important than platonic love.  It *would* support your case if women
often broke dates with women for date with men, and men *rarely* broke
dates with with men for dates with women.  But in my experience that hasn't
been the case.

Does the fact that men often break date with friends for date with women
support that men have been socialized to think women are more important
than men?  That doesn't seem to be the case (as often discussed elsewhere)
so I don't think the fact that women often break dates with women for
dates with men lends support to the idea that women are taught to think
men are more important.

Which isn't to say I don't think women are taught that men are more important
than women...that seems clear in many ways.  But in this instance, I think
the "date breaking" syndrome is more due to society placing huge, utmost
importance on *marriage*, on *romatnic love*, on finding that one permaneant
*life-time mate* (of the opposite sex, of course.)

This would also explain while Lesbians (and possibly gay men) would break
such dates less often - because the pressure is to find a mate of the *opposite*
sex, there is less pressure on a Lesbian to accept a romantic date because
that date might be "it".

D!

re: breaking dates

I think lesbians might do it less often because we're more likely
to have been hurt by it in the past.

	MKV

>I think lesbians might do it less often because we're more likely
>to have been hurt by it in the past.

 Could it be that lesbians have fewer dates? :-)

 The Doctah

    Mea culpa!  I put this in the FWO topic by mistake.
    
    re:932.83
    
    Actually, two lesbians (a couple) that are long-time friends of
    mine flirt with men (including me :-)) reasonably often. There's
    also one gay man of my acquaintance who is an *outrageous* flirt
    with women.
    
    --- jerry

    Somewhere in one of these two strings, I can't find it right now,
    someone made a comment to the effect that, although gay men and
    straight women are attracted to the same qualities in men, lesbians are
    attracted to very different qualities in women than those which appeal
    to straight men.  That seemed to me a fascinating disparity, if true.
    
    Is it true?  If so, what do lesbians zero in on that straight men
    don't?  And why should that be so when the parallel (gm:sf) isn't true?
    
    						=maggie

>    Is it true?  If so, what do lesbians zero in on that straight men
>    don't?  And why should that be so when the parallel (gm:sf) isn't true?

I dunno, but you made me think of something that happened last night.
Sitting at dinner, the woman who was sitting across from me at the table
next to us was positively *distracting*, and I couldn't concentrate all
through dinner.  I pointed her out to my male companion, who thought that
she was mildly cute, but not particularly attractive and certainly not
*distracting*!  Yet he and I usually agree in our assesment of the 
attractiveness of men we see.  

D!

PS: To the thin woman with the short blond hair and beautiful eyes, if you are a
DECie, and you read this file, and you were eating dinner at Charley's in the
Pheasant Lane Mall last night and you noticed a woman in a black sweater and
accompanied by a tall bearded man staring at you, and it made you uncomfortable,
as I sense it did, my apologies.

    
    Re .74
    
    I was looking at women at a social event recently with my boyfriend
    - he was telling me how he'd select a partner, and I was telling
    him how I would (we were only discussing women here).....
                          
    His selection was based on whether they had "that way of holding
    eye contact a little too long", how they danced, and whether they
    looked bored with their partner or not.
    
    Mine was based on someone who looked happy with herself, looked
    like she'd be honest and fun to be with, and how comfortable
    she seemed to be with other women.
    
    My interpretation is that he looked first for a sexual partner -
    I looked first for someone that I would like and could communicate 
    with. 
    Honesty and humour are important to me, but maybe that's because it's 
    still so taboo in some places for women to approach each other that those
    qualities on both sides would make rejection less painful!
          
    'gail

I *still* think it is sometimes justified, but not often, and either way, it
still hurts.

For the first time in, oh, four years or so, a woman bagged a firm date with
me to be with a man (actually a whole house-full of men - who can blame her?)
for Friday night.  She says "I know we were supposed to go into Boston Friday
night, but I was invited to this pot luck at the fraternity...".  (Apparantly
even pseudo-Lesbians will break dates with women to be with men....)

Anyway, just thought I'd put this in here since I found it amusing that it
happened to me for the first time in a *long* time just a couple of days
after a discussion about the same topic.  :-)

D!

(See, I *do* forgive her though, else I would have made her feel guilty by
explaining to her how I am staying in Boston this weekend for the *sole*
purpose of going out with her on Friday, and I'll be bored all weekend
because *she* bagged me... ;-)

    
    
    	I read some survey the other day that said the top (number 1)
    	item on the list of what-men-look-for-in-women was a "good body"
    	(that was how the article stated it).  That led me to wonder if
    	lesbians are as concerned with having a partner with a "good body".
        I'm just guessing, that based on where strate women rate a good
    	body, that lesbin women are not.
    	
    
    jayna

    >	I read some survey the other day that said the top (number 1)
    >	item on the list of what-men-look-for-in-women was a "good body"
    >	(that was how the article stated it).  That led me to wonder if
    >	lesbians are as concerned with having a partner with a "good body".
    
    
    Something about this bothers me.... I think it has to do with
    the idea of looking for ways in which lesbians may/may not be
    similar to men.
    
    Kathy

Actually, what bothers me is the implication that the lesbians I know don't
have 'good bodies'.

I like their bodies a lot. 
	Mez

    I would suspect that lesbians can't be distinguished from straight
    women on this issue:  body type is much less important than
    personality, but not unimportant.
    
    						=maggie

    I think this is an area that lesbians and straight women are
    different.  I think that what we consider a good body is different,
    but that we both appreciate "goodness".  
    
    Straight women have a fairly well defined image of goodness to 
    strive for (refer to the latest SI issue for examples).  Lesbians 
    have other (and in  my opinion less limiting) criteria.  
    I know women who like their parners to be larger or stronger or petite 
    or traditionally pretty. Some of us are even attracted to women
    of other races.    
    
    Pure physical attraction does exist lesbian circles.  But as a group
    we do seem to be uncomfortable with this.
    
    			-maureen
    
    

    Why uncomfortable, Maureen?
    
    						=maggie

Actually what _I'd_ like to look like is Colleen Dewhurst.  Yes, that's 
pretty well defined.  Some days, I'd like to look like Juice Newton.

What I find attractive _to_ me, in men and women, is not well defined at all
if we're talking body or looks.  I guess I just wing it while being thankful
that I continue to find attractive people when I least expect them.

  Ann

    re (uncomfortable)
    
    I don't know why, but we sure seem to spend a lot of energy
    discussing every other aspect of our live besides the sexual
    side.  We have romantic relationships with others who have nice 
    personalities  and are intelligent and whatever.  But I don't know 
    too many lesbians who are comfortable admitting to having plain
    ole lust in their hearts.
    
    Maybe we are afraid of acting like men?  Or maybe women in general
    aren't comfortable being openly lustful.  When we grew up, lust
    was something that was ok for boys, but girls were supposed to learn
    restraint.  It might just be cultural conditioning.
    

    Phone number!  I need phone numbers!
    
    (Can't you tell I'm about to be single again :>)  )
    

    G'Day,
    
    Re: .86
    
    >The lesbian sex magazines, tapes and other erotic articles are
    >hitting all time high in sales! I think we are just learning to
    >find out what our potentials are...
    
    I wonder just how much of this type of material is bought by lesbians
    though.  There are a lot of males out there that find watching two
    women making love much more enjoyable than the usual male/female
    magazines/videos.
    
    David.
    

    
>    Lesbians and gay women, of course!

    I thought these two terms were synonymous.  What's the difference?

    This month's Mother_Jones has an article on women's pornography. One
    of the women they interviewed was Suzy Sexpert (I'm sure that's her
    real name :*))

    Anyway (this is from memory) I think she's also involved with
    On_Our_Backs which I think is a lesbian magazine. Her stuff is filled
    with S&M type sex and the article author (a woman) admitted that it
    made her feel very uncomfortable. I must admit that from the
    descriptions I wouldn't care much for it either. I'll try to
    remember to bring in the magazine and enter some of it in the porno
    topic. At any rate the article goes on to say that women's porn (not
    just of the lesbian variety) is growing in popularity by leaps and
    bounds. liesl

    I know a man (not my spouse) who prefers made-by-women-for-women
    erotica to the standard sex stuff because of what he calls its
    tenderness.  He's a romantic, not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am kind
    of guy (his description of himself) and he doesn't like watching
    stuff that appeals to that mentality, but he likes being aroused
    by visual stimulation.  
    
    --bonnie

re: *image* of Lesbian women....

Strange/funny experience yesterday.  Saturday I finally got my hair cut 
short, short *short* (not quite as short as Lee_T's, but close...:-) and
blondish...I went to see my Mom yesterday who was a little taken aback by
my new 'do.

We were discussing the fact that I should wear earrings now so that it will
soften the harsh look of the short hair.  

And my Mom says that without the earrings "you look like a...a *Lesbian*".
<pause>
I respond with "My, wouldn't *that* be *tragic*!"
<pause, hard look>
And Mom laughs as she realizes how stupid and prejudiced her statement sounded.

:-)

(My best friend said "You look like a Dyke", but the difference was that from
*her* that was the highest compliment she could pay the cut. :-)

D!, butch and proud of it!  =:-)

< And my Mom says that without the earrings "you look like a...a *Lesbian*".
< <pause>
< I respond with "My, wouldn't *that* be *tragic*!"
< <pause, hard look>
< And Mom laughs as she realizes how stupid and prejudiced her statement sounded.

Good for you for turning it around, and good for your mom for realizing the
above!!!!

    Carol