Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    What does the phrase "every woman is a lesbian at heart" mean? 
    I don't understand exactly what it's trying to say.
    
    Lorna
    

I've always taken it to mean that deep down, all women love women. It's a type
of self-love; love of your gender. 

My mother told me over the vacation that she wasn't sure she could love another
adult woman. I was horrified. I knew society had 'sexed' men's love; I had no
idea they had 'sexed' women's.
	Mez

    That phrase has always puzzled me, too.  
    
    I don't love *all* women automatically just because they are
    women, any more than I love, or hate, all men just because they're
    men.  It's all dependent on the individual.
    
    I'd like to know how the gay women among us intend or interpret
    the saying.
    
    --bonnie

    bonnie,
    
    That expression has always made me a bit uncomfortable. I interpreted
    it to mean that 'if women get in touch with their *real* feelings
    they'd realize that they all really like other women rather than men.'
    
    
    Bonnie

    I perceive a difference in loving a women and sleeping with one.
    I love children too. I am not a pedifile (sp). 
    
    Kate (What in the world is a "het" woman?)
     

    het = heterosexual

    I've always had two interpretations of it:  that, as Mez put it, deep
    down all women share a common bond of love as women; and second that
    who one sleeps with is not the most important factor in lesbian self-
    definition.   
    
    I find that I passionately want to believe the first one...regardless
    of too-frequent evidence to the contrary [sigh]. 
    
    The second one I accept as unquestionably true.  Most of the lesbians I
    know who have experienced sex with men consider het(erosexual) sex to
    be physically okay...but they have no desire for it because it's
    sterile; they can't get the emotional satisfaction with men that they
    can with other women, and so they'd rather sleep with the people they
    can also love.  So the sex of their bed partner is in some real sense a
    consequence of their identity as lesbians, not a determinant of it.
    
    						=maggie

    Het. Heterosexual! How obvious.
    
    Regarding Maggie's last note:
                         
    As the excellent artist that you are, you must see the great beauty
    in contrast. The trees against the sky, the dark against the light,
    the foreground against the background. Any other way would seem,
    to many of us, incomplete.
    
    Kate
    
    
    

    re .7, but does that mean that most/many/all (?) lesbians feel that
    they cannot ever love men as people, as friends, even if they have
    no desire to be intimate with them?
    
    I can't say that I love all women in general any more than I love
    all men in general.  I love individuals of both sexes as friends,
    as people.  But, I have never felt romantic love for another woman,
    and I have never felt any pressing desire to have sex with another
    woman.   (and I have felt both in regard to men)
    
    Lorna
    
    
    
    

*WHEW!  When I skipped the misogyny string, I missed a lot!

I just read over many of the notes (NOTES>SEA "LESBIAN") and understand
more where this note came from now.

<    Are lesbians "different" from het women in important ways?  Or, as the
<    saying goes, is every woman a lesbian at heart, regardless of who she
<    sleeps with?

You know, *I* never understood that either, but tended to imagine that it
probably was what a couple of women have said already, that there is a 
capability of women (in general) to love women.  In my opinion, we are
NOT all bisexual, although most probably are to some degree, so I don't think
that ALL women can love women as strongly as I do (meaning as a Lesbian).

What are the differences?  I think the differences between a single Lesbian
and a single heterosexual woman are as many or as few as between women of
the same orientation.  However, there are cultural differences that can
affect some things.  Mostly I think that those women who have accepted their
lesbianism and who have joined in activities in the gay community (and therefore
have had more exposure to the culture) have been able to make choices that
they may not have thought about before, or may be stronger women and may have
the strength to go against the heterosexual culture in making their own
choices.  Specifically I mean that I think that closeted Lesbians tend to be
more "feminine" in appearance than Lesbians who are "out".  

I think that really closeted Lesbians, the ones that I rarely get the
opportunity to meet, are trying hard to "pass" and therefore are not going to
want to look stereotypical.  It raises too many questions, and this could lose
them their jobs (especially in education).  Lesbians who are out may be more
comfortable with themselves, and may decide that they don't HAVE to force
themselves anymore into high heels that hurt their feet or nylons that snag and
run.  I think that comfort is a big factor in the type of clothes that most
"out" Lesbians wear.  To me, jeans are more comfortable than dresses,
especially in the high winds we have outside today (in Colorado).  I can't
count the times that I have chosen to wear a dress and 60 mile an hour winds
here had me against the wall, holding my dress down.  It was so nice to walk
into work today in pants, watching other women with the problem instead of me. 

I agree, too, that it is SO NICE to not have men make a pass at me.  For me,
unfortunately, it doesn't happen because I look "dykish", so I have to 
actively discourage them occasionally, but luckily it rarely happens at work
anymore, probably because I am now "notorious".  ;-)

It is terribly difficult when Shellie and I are walking downtown or in a mall,
etc, and we pass a couple of Lesbians (yes, we go by stereotypes, too), and
we want them to know that WE'RE LIKE THEM, but they ignore us, or if we smile
at them then they just think we're weird.  It's hard when THEY can't tell by
looking at us.

However, for me it is personal preference.  I tend to like blowing people's
minds, and I really like it when someone looks at me and says "YOU'RE gay?"
It blows stereotypes away fast.  This was something I had to think about when I
was recently deciding if I really wanted to cut my hair, which currently is
past my waist. I will be cutting it, and I will like it better, but when it is
only past my shoulders it won't make the impact that I currently have. 
However, it will never again fall in as I am changing the litter box.  :-}

          Carol

    Re .10, Carol, I really think you should think about it before you
    cut your hair.  Your hair is so beautiful!  Maybe you should wait
    til you're 50 to decide! :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    I have to agree with Lorna, Carol your hair is so lovely it seems
    a shame. Don't we sound just like men? :*)

    It does seem that out lesbians do have a certain freedom that
    heterosexual women, those who want a "man" in their lives, don't.
    I'd guess that most of us, even the old tomboys like myself, have
    done and said things with the specific idea of placating the males
    in our lives. Like leaving hair long when short is more convienient.
    It's all those little things that add up and control facets of our
    lives. All the subtle compromises that make up our lives with men.

    I can recognise and appreciate a woman who is sexy to me but I don't
    have much inclination to have sex with a woman. There was a time in
    my life that I did some experimenting and for me men are the sexual
    partners of choice.  There is just something missing (please, no
    tacky jokes ;*)) that makes it not satisfying. Women are too soft,
    it's just somehow not enough.

    I like the Yin/Yang differences. The complimetary opposites that men
    and women provide each other are the spice that makes the meal. This
    is after the fact observance however. For me, I like men because
    it's men that attract me. I don't know that my body needed an
    explaination. I understand there are lesbians who respond that way
    to women and I understand that. What I sometimes don't understand
    are those who are lesbians as an intellectual choice because they
    feel men are (are what exactly? I don't know) whatever, that they
    don't want to be involved with. liesl

>    I'd guess that most of us, even the old tomboys like myself, have
>    done and said things with the specific idea of placating the males

You mean men are not attracted to the tomboy look?  I can't believe that.
I get the feeling just as many men are attracted to jeans-and-short-hair
as to heels-and-make-up.  I have always been the jeans-and-short-hair type
until recently (now I occasionally go for the long-sexy-dress-and-short-hair
look) and have never been short of men who find me attractive.
And there are lots of examples on short-hair-athletic-looking poster
women and actresses.  (Take Jamie Lee Curtis, for example.)

I found myself a little surprised when I read that people who adopt a
"dyke" look get less attention from men.  Do you think it is because men
recognize that such a look is signally "Lesbian here" or because they
simply aren't attracted to that look?

(As I said, I have never been short of admiring men, yet also a number
of people have said I "look like a Lesbian."  I take it as a compliment.)

Geez, I *am* rambling today, aren't I?

D! 

    
    
    I'm more than a bit uncomfortable that Carol's the only lesbian
    who feels comfortable responding to that question.  Is it because
    it's such a stupid question?  
    
    Lesbian women may, indeed, feel less pressure to dress like the
    majority, but there's nothing inherent in heterosexuality that
    makes it necessary to be uncomfortable to attract men.
    
    I'm going to make a rash generalization about human nature -- a
    person of whatever gender or orientation is attracted to a person
    who thinks they're sexy.  If I feel attractive and sexy, men react
    to me that way even when I'm wearing sneakers, jeans, and a
    sweater.  If I feel unattractive, that's how they react no matter
    how provacative [and presumably uncomfortable] my clothing is.
    
    I'm a jeans and long hair type -- and I've had long hair since
    long before I met Neil.  In fact, it was entering a period of
    chosen celibacy, when I explicitly didn't want to meet or become
    involved with men, that I found the self-integrity to wear my hair
    the way I want it, even if it is less convenient than short hair. 
    Why do I want it this way?  Mostly because at the time almost
    everyone was wearing short hair; long hair was old-fashioned,
    "hippy," and noncomformist.  It was also politically incorrect. 
    Probably still is.  But it's sexy, too, and I make no apologies
    for liking to feel attractive to men.
    
    --bonnie

    First off,
    
    My vote, Carol, is *don't cut your hair* it is one, only one, granted
    but definitely one of the lovely things about you...
    
    and in re Bonnie
    
    I'm also uncomfortable with the fact that Carol is the only lesbian
    who has answered this note, and further uncomfortable with the fact
    that the replies from our older (in womannotes time) lesbian freinds
    have become so much less freqent, but further that no new lesbiann
    voices have spoken up in quite while..
    
    I'm still eternaly grateful for Carol's early efforts.
    
    Bonnie

	 RE: uncomfortable with Carol being the only lesbian answering
	     here


	 How do you know?  I mean, if a lesbian is 'in the closet' and
	 answers this note, would you be able to tell by her
	 writing if she was lesbian or het???


	 Anyway.....

	 kath

    okay kath...
    
    only *out* lesbian..
    
    okay....
    
    and any woman could be bi...
    
    :-}

    Good point, Kath -- Yes, I meant replies that identified the
    lesbian point of view in a way that a naive and rather
    inexperienced heterosexual woman like me could gather some insight
    into a lesbian's point of view instead of just my own . . .
    
    --bonnie

    Well, if any of the women who have replied here are, in fact, closet
    lesbians or bi-sexuals, they haven't said anything here that helps
    me to understand lesbians any better.  So, they may as well be straight
    for the purposes of this topic.
    
    I, also, appreciate Carol's reply, and also the reply Catherine
    put in the misogny topic.  The frustration I feel is that when I
    made the comment that I thought most lesbians looked masculine I
    was quickly called to task for perpetuating a stereotype and for
    not knowing what I was talking about, etc.  But, it looks as though
    I may have to stay ignorant about lesbians, because it unfortunately
    seems that hardly anybody who is out of the closet feels comfortable
    talking about the differences between straight women and lesbians.
    
    Re .13, Liesl, I would have to agree with your comment that my body
    seems to have made the choice for me.  I am attracted to men, although
    sometimes I've wished I wasn't because they can be such a pain to
    try to deal with.  (But, who knows, women might be just as bad if
    not worse.)
    
    Re .14, D!, *I* don't think you look like what I think of lesbians
    looking like (the butch stereotype).  Short hair doesn't automatically
    make someone look butch.  After reading many of your notes, I think
    of you as a "wild woman" a wild *heterosexual* woman! :-)
    
    I have found a very few women to be mildly attractive but nothing
    compared to the way I feel about attractive men.  For example, when
    I see Stevie Nicks or Kim Basinger, I think, if I were a man, or
    if I were very attracted to women, I would find her attractive,
    but it doesn't bother me that i'll never have a chance with either
    of them.  When I watch a Bruce Springsteen video or a U2 video (Bono)
    I really can't stand the fact (after awhile) that I will never be
    able to get my hands on either of them.  In other words, the attraction
    to men is overwhelming, while the attraction to women is very mild
    and easily forgotten.  Men just seem more interesting and exciting.
    
    But, if I ever were going to be attracted to women, or if all the
    men on earth dissapeared or something, and it had to be women or
    nothing, I would prefer women with long hair, stylish clothes, make-up
    and jewelry.  I personally find that more attractive than the butch
    look, and any time I have ever found another woman even mildly
    attractive it has been a feminine looking woman.
    
    Lorna
     

    This is not totally relevant, but when I read Lorna's reply, I thought
    about the guys who make me salivate, as opposed to the women who I
    watch with appreciation. I don't go into heat over any women. But I've
    noticed that when the heat wears off over a man, I'm left with very
    little substance. This is not to say that I don't like being exhausted
    from time to time, but I guess there's something more stable to feeling
    warmth, as opposed to heat. Since I don't have one, I guess I can't
    call it a "pecker-inspired" reaction, but I have found that the
    reactions that seem hormonally induced aren't really as meaningful as
    the ones that come from my heart and soul.
    
    I wish there were more men who warmed my heart and soul, instead of
    heating my hormones. Perhaps then I'd be able to get close to them as
    people. Right now, I typically only seem to get close to them as men.
    And I often find that that isn't enough. 
    
    I guess that's why when I hear the statement about women being lesbians
    at heart, I look deep inside of myself and find a kindred to all women
    that I just can't find for men. At the same time that I am delighted, I
    also find it sad.

    Re .21, yeah, well, I wish I were more capable of "warming the hearts
    and souls" of *men*, instead of just occasionally "heating" their
    "hormones"!  But, in 10 yrs. I probably won't even be able to do
    that, so I guess I shouldn't complain!  (why is it so much easier
    to heat hormones than warm hearts and souls?) :-)  
    
    Oh, well, back to the regularly scheduled discussion.....
    
    Lorna
    

    I have to confess to having overstated the case, earlier.  
    
    I said that of the ca. 100 lesbians I know, only one is a (I'm groping
    for a good term here) "natural femme".  That seems to imply that the
    other 99 fit the "lesbian stereotype" and, on reflection, that simply
    isn't true.  I offer my red-faced apologies for the disservice I did
    everyone by creating that impression.  A much fairer picture would be
    the typical bell curve:  a minority of women who much prefer the
    stereotypic "feminine" look, another minority who wouldn't touch such
    gear with a pole of any length, and the vast majority somewhere in the
    middle:  presenting in a way that maximises comfort and personal
    self-confidence in social situations while (as Catherine and Carol have
    pointed up) avoiding features that trigger male attention.
    
    I think you got jumped on, Lorna, because far too often a mention of
    the "lesbian stereotype" is followed by some brain-dead comment about
    how all lesbians hate/envy men and aren't real women et cetera ad
    nauseam, and it gets to be habitual to put a lid on it reeeal fast.
    
    						=maggie

RE: .20 (Lorna)

>But, it looks as though
>    I may have to stay ignorant about lesbians, because it unfortunately
>    seems that hardly anybody who is out of the closet feels comfortable
>    talking about the differences between straight women and lesbians.

Lorna, I really don't believe there ARE that many noticable differences between
lesbians and hets, so there really isn't much for me to add to the discussion.

Lesbians are attracted to women.  Femme hets are attracted to men.  Bis are
attracted to both (not necessarily meaning they have more than one relationship
going at one time, tho).  

Women many times dress to (subconciously most times) attract the type of 
person they are attracted to.  Hets do it and lesbians do it.

Beyond that, I can't really see many differences between lesbians and 
femme hets.  I certainly don't see a different 'mindset' or radically different
attitudes.

Sorry, I wish I could add some insight, but I just don't have any....I guess I
just don't see that much difference.

kath

Lorna sez about me...
>       After reading many of your notes, I think
>    of you as a "wild woman" a wild *heterosexual* woman! :-)
    
Really?  Hmmm.  <thoughtful look>

[How to phrase this so it doesn't appear that I am jumping on Lorna or
offended by what she said...I do so hate to use you as an example, but...]

In notes I have never, never said what my sexual preferences were.  I
have made comments that made it clear that I have had relationships and
sex with men, and in fact, am currently involved in a relationship with
a man.  I have made comments about being attracted to specific members
of both sexes.

This is an example of heterocentrism, and perhaps a bit of homocentrism.
That is...first, she must be heterosexual (default assumption.)  Second,
she has dated men, which means she isn't homosexual, and supports the
first assumption.  Therefore she must be heterosexual.  the term "bisexual"
rarely enters people's thinking along these lines.  Everything has to be
black and white.  

Not to blame you, Lorna, I understand why it happens, few people are
exposed to bisexuals, so they become less sensitized to them, think about
them less, etc.  I just wanted to point it out.

D! (please note, I still have not stated my sexual preferences...or at 
    least, which *gender* preferences...;-) But if you haven't guessed...)

    re: signals
    
    People dress to send out signals to those they wish to attract.  So it
    has been said here that lesbians may well dress a certain way,
    particularly when out in mainstream society, to signal other lesbians
    of their preference.  And also the lesbian-in-mainstream-society may
    well seem butch, and thus not attract men, and thus they won't be
    approached by men and won't have to deal with turning down what would,
    to them, seem a potentially undesirable proposal.
    
    I went with some friends to a lesbian bar, and I only realized when I
    got there that my hair was back and I was wearing purple (which, from
    what I gather, is, in addition to being a great color, a fairly
    widely-worn-by-lesbians color - please correct me if I'm wrong), and I
    was wearing jeans and sneaks and not *looking* terribly heterosexual. 
    I was surrounded by friends, but there were many women there I didn't
    know.  And I bit my lip wondering if anyone would approach me or
    anything and attempt to "make a pass" or "get my attention" or
    whatever.  My BIGGEST concern was how to say no thank you without
    tripping all over myself or looking dumb.  I mean, by dressing the part
    (albeit unintentionally) and going there (albeit for a wonderful
    womanfriend's birthday party), I was, like, "asking for it", so if I
    got what I "deserved" (i.e. - a proposal) - then I could only blame
    myself for having to deal with the consequences (possibly making them
    uncomfortable by not having made myself clearer at the start and I've
    never been very good at saying no to people being a people-pleaser at
    heart so I feel particularly uncomfortable with that).  Maybe lesbian
    women look more butch on the whole than heterosexual women to save
    themselves to trouble of crossed signals, so they won't be dealing with
    offers they don't want, and so they'll be getting the offers they do
    want from the women they are attracted to.
    
    -Jody
    
    p.s.  I don't think there's really any difference between lesbian and
    het/strait/whatever women's souls - but the way they live is clearly
    delineated by what they want from life.  As may be the way they dress
    and walk and speak.  This is to be expected in this world - you act on
    what you want, and act away from what you do not want.
    

Well, I hate to make Carol stand alone here as the only Official
Lesbian to respond :-), but having just started a new project out in the
sticks, I haven't had time to keep up, and I forgot the  question by the time
I came to read the replies. :-)

But when I read the base note initially, I could only think "I don't know
the differences because I really only know my point of view."  With that
qualification, though ...

re: looks
I go for, for myself and others, what I guess might be labelled an androgynous
kind of look -- or rather, a natural, convenient, this-is-what-I'm-
comfortable-in, basically healthy in one's skin look.  However you define
it.  I *don't* like extreme "masculine"/tough looks (if I wanted 
tough presumably I'd be more interested in men), and I don't like
what I think of as "I need artificial aids to make me look like 
society wants me to".  I like an honest look, a playful look.
I see that in the majority of lesbians I know, and I don't know if
someone else might see it as a "masculine" look.  (I think it has more
to do with attitude than clothes.)

re: lesbians at heart
As I think Maggie said, the emotional richness of loving a woman is
what's important to me.  She may be different than me or the same as me
in external ways, but we will be able to emotionally connect on a deep
level.  Sex is great, but not the point.  I don't find a) that I'm
attracted to men sexually, or b) that I can have that level of understanding
with men -- there's *so* much misunderstanding to get by, so many
different things that we have been taught as our roles, so many walls 
society has built by separating the gender roles.

In my friendships, it's important for me to get by as many walls as
possible, to connect on as real, as honest a level as possible.  I
have good friends who are men, but there are still more walls there.
With lovers, I need fewer walls.  

re: hair
I kept mine long when short came in, late 70's -80, because I hate
fads.  But at the end of a month-long trip through Europe
I'd gotten so sick of washing it in B&B sinks, and getting it caught
in my backpack, that I just had to cut it off.  (And boy was my SO
surprised when she met me at the airport -- "WHAT did you do to your
HAIR?!?!" :-) :-)  Short hair was much more convenient for the, umm,
evening though :-).


	MKV

    Re .25, yes, I did make an assumption about your sexual preference
    because you have mentioned being in a relationship with a male.
     I'm sorry. 
    
    Lorna
    

    All right, I'm going to go ahead and say the ultimate politically
    incorrect thing:
    
    I think there may be a fundamental difference between heterosexual
    and homosexual women, and that's not our relation to each other or
    our souls, and that's our relationship to men.  
    
    For me as a heterosexual woman, the approval of men, or at least
    of one man, is in one sense essential, because without it, my life
    lacks sexual fulfillment in most of its dimensions.  I can get hot
    for a woman, but it doesn't bring any lasting fullfilment. 
    There's something missing (and yes, that's an obscene remark).  I
    suspect this is biological, something inborn in me.  As Liesl
    said, my body decided for me.  And my body doesn't know much about
    politics.  It only understands hormones.  My mind has other needs,
    my heart has other needs, my soul has other needs.  My body isn't
    that complicated.
    
    And needing men in this sense means that "rejecting the
    patriarchy" is very close to a life-threatening thing to do.  I
    can be my own person, do what is right for me, try to work and
    teach men that strong, capable women make the whole race better. 
    But at the same time, at the back of my mind . . . 
    
    I think most people dress  to attract the kind of person they want
    to associate with.   That may be a social association rather than
    a purely sexual one.  I dress to please myself, but I also dress
    to please [at least some] men.  I dress to attract the kind of man
    who thinks a woman in bluejeans is sexier than a woman in a dress. 
    
    For some time that's been only one man.  Of course I need him --
    he's my mate for life.  Patriarchy is a complication, something
    that needs changed, but not something I can say, "Oh, just throw
    it out, we women will build our own world."  For me, it wouldn't
    be a great world if the men were all transported far beyond the
    northern sea.  A world of only women, no matter how interesting,
    strong, and capable they were, would be flat and incomplete.
    
    --bonnie

    When I lived in Los Angeles there were quite a few lesbians that
    worked with me. You couldn't tell by looking at them. Some made
    me and my heterosexual friends look dyke. But that was in the 70's
    when sexual experimentation was "in". Many people were playing
    "same sex games". They weren't really gay though. Most of them had
    their curiosity quenched and went back to life in the slow lane.
    
    Kate

    Re: Mary and Carla --
    
    This makes it sound as though you would find relationships with
    men in general equally rewarding had they been raised as most
    women are to pay attention to their feelings, express their
    emotions, and so on?
    
    --bonnie

	I came in here to bring up the emotional aspect of a romantic
	relationship, because several het women seem to be focusing on
	the physical aspect.  Mary Vaskas beat me to it.

	Thanks, Mary!

	There is an enormous difference bonding with a woman who most
	likely has been raised to share, nurture, care, love, communi-
	cate, express feelings, than with a man who is taught just the
	opposite.  Some women like the battle of trying to make a man
	open up.  Some women like the harmony of merging with someone
	who is very similar emotionally to them.  Oftentimes that will
	manifest in a relationship with another woman.

	I've read several het women's replies that there really aren't
	(m)any differences between lesbians and straight women.  But I
	don't fully understand how a straight woman can say that -- a
	lot of lesbians were straight [sic] at one time.  But I think
	it's safe to say most straight women have never been lesbians.
	I'm not going into any sordid specifics of myself here ... too
	public an arena.

	I will say that the main reason I'm involved with a man right
	now is because I chanced upon a person who happens to be in a
	male's body who has intensely feminine traits.  He's extremely
	sensitive, he cries at sad stories on the news, he nurtures,
	he cherishes love, he has long hair, he listens, he partici-
	pates in the relationship and doesn't just let it continue on
	its own steam, he wishes he could physically have a baby, and
	he gives without prodding.  He lets me love him as fully as I
	can share my love.  He doesn't block off his own emotions.

	It's not the outside that I'm interested in but rather who is
	"inside" and how the person projects him/herself.  The soul.
	The interaction.  I think many women who feel as I do end up
	bonding with other women.

	It is the bonding.  Who/what you feel comfortable with.  What
	you need from a relationship, from another person.  It's the 
	equality.  It's the lack of emotional battle.  And it's the 
	merging.  Rarely have I found that with men.

	Carla
	

	Bonnie, I deleted my entry and then re-entered it, upsetting
	the order of things.  Sorry!

	To answer your question for myself, it's really difficult to
	say.  I love the comraderie I can so easily find with women.
	It's like wearing a big comfortable sweater, flopping down on
	a puffly pillowed couch in front of a warm fire, and saying,
	"Yeah.  This is good."  I've only found two or three men in
	my zillions of years of dating I feel similarly about.  You 
	know, natural ease.  Immediate comfort.  Spiritual symmetry.

	It's hard to answer your question.  I really don't know that
	I can answer it.  Can I say "maybe"?

	Carla

    I find .32 and the reply by Mary Vaskas both very interesting. 
    I guess I feel pretty much like Bonnie in .29, though.  I feel,
    like Bonnie and Liesl, that my body really doesn't care what kind
    of emotional needs my mind may have.  (My body wants men!)
    
    I sort of feel that I can fulfill my emotional needs for other women
    through my girlfriends but that there's no need, or desire, for
    these friendships to become physical or to become SO type
    relattionships, and that, in addition to these, I still want sexual
    relationships with men.  I have found some of my friendships with
    men to be as emotionally fulfilling as those with women.  
    
    I would have to say that men have been responsible for both more
    happiness and more unhappiness in my life than women have.  (I wonder
    if it's because they've been more important to me?)
    
    I like both men and women for friends, but in addition to that I
    need men for sex, and I don't need women for sex.  I guess what
    i'm trying to say is that even if I developed a beautiful, fulfilling
    emotional live-in relationship with another woman, I wouldn't
    be interested in having sex with her, and I'd still want to have
    sex with men. 
    
    Lorna
    

    <--(.27)
    
�    I *don't* like extreme "masculine"/tough looks (if I wanted  tough
�    presumably I'd be more interested in men
    
    That's an interesting comment, Mary!  I misread it at first ("if I
    wanted [to be] tough") and it was interesting that way, too.
    
    My misreading brought to mind a comment I heard from one of my profs in
    grad school about men:  "Gay men are conventionally thought not to be
    masculine, but actually gay men value masculinity more than anyone else
    does".   It seems to me that he was correct and, mutatis mutandis, that
    lesbians value femininity more than anyone else does.
    
    Then I read it correctly and the question leaped to mind:  if you
    wanted tough [in a sweetie], why would you be more interested in men
    necessarily?  Is it that you see "tough" as being more genuine in men?
    
    						=maggie
    

    
<    And needing men in this sense means that "rejecting the
<    patriarchy" is very close to a life-threatening thing to do.  I
<    can be my own person, do what is right for me, try to work and
<    teach men that strong, capable women make the whole race better. 
<    But at the same time, at the back of my mind . . . 
    
    This is exactly what I was trying say, thanks Bonnie. Your note said
    it well. This (IMO) is the *difference* that really separates
    lesbians from strates (for some reason this spelling bothers me but
    thats another issue).

    To me a world without men is not a world I want. Too much would be
    missing. I hear everyone that talks about the feelings of acceptance
    and sharing that women can have for each other. I recognise that and
    enjoy it in my women friends. But it just doesn't replace that need
    I feel for a man in my life. It is just that sense of "other" that
    makes the connection more intense. There is a bonding here that is
    also more than physical. With the right man at the right time there
    is a feeling of completeness that fills your being. And this in
    spite of the garbage that our culture has tossed on us. Imagine what
    this could be in a world of equality.
    
    There are times that my feelings towards men war with my needs for
    equality. That is what makes women's rights such a difficult quest
    for some of us. liesl

    Sex in the human animal is such a complicated thing.  It depends
    on a close understanding betweeen two people for its deepest
    meanings and warmest moments, and yet sometimes the most pleasure
    comes from a  fleeting contact with a stranger.  It can bond two
    people who have nothing in common and rip apart friends.  It can
    cause more hurt and more joy than anything else I know of.  And
    that's even without considering the reproductive aspects. 
    
    I can understand what Mary and Carla have said about the emotional
    closeness of a lesbian relationship, the ease of it and the
    comfort of it.  (loved the comfortable-sweater analogy, Carla!)  I
    would use similar words to describe my relationship with my best
    friend.  I can meet her for coffee in the cafeteria and talk about
    some problem I'm having, and I don't have to explain all the
    background stuff that I have to explain even to Neil.  But it's
    not something I would value in my relationship to any man.
    
    
    I'm beginning to form the impression that in a lesbian
    relationship, there are a lot fewer of the extreme highs and the
    extreme lows and a lot more of the deepness and tenderness, while
    in the heterosexual relationship the highs are part of the thrill.
    The things that are described as walls impeding the relationship
    to a lesbian are, for me, part of the excitement, part of the
    wonder, part of the difference I value in a man.  
    
    --bonnie

    Two questions, please:
    
    (1)  Why is "strate" the preferred spelling?
    
    (2)  How can I tell whether a same-gender couple living together are
         doing so because they are SO's or because it's financially
         convenient?  Sometimes I want to invite one to my house and I
         don't know the other one.  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!  
    
         I visited in a man's house, met his house-mate, and
         figured he must be gay.  A short time later, I read of his engagement
         to a woman.  (Fortunately I wasn't inviting him anywhere in the
         meantime!)  On the other hand, I invited a woman friend to a party
         and did not invite her house-mate.  Later on I decided they are
         *probably* lesibans, and that she probably would have liked to
         bring the other woman, but I still don't know for sure.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

re: .31 Bonnie

I don't know -- he'd have to have pretty soft skin too -- and I
recall not liking whiskers scratching :-).
Seriously, I don't know.

re: highs and lows
I get those too, with women -- possibly more in the courting stage
before we know each other, during the Hot In Love stage.  I think it
has more to do with possibilities/hopes than differences, but maybe
it's just to do with Unknown.  Or maybe it's just to do with sexual
attraction.  I don't know what it is, but yes, I get it too :-).

re: rejecting the patriarchy
Yup, it seems like one of the biggest conflicts for a straight woman
would be giving up the privilege of the man (or The Man) she is
attached to/dependent on, if the power structure was to change to one
more equal.  It's (just) one of the areas that being a lesbian is
easier, I think. :-)

re: Lorna
What you've described, as having close emotional bonds with women but
not being sexually attracted to them probably is the real, "natural"
difference between lesbians and straight women.  Even when I have a close
friendship with a man I'm not intereseted in sex with him.

re: Maggie  -- toughness
Sure, the implication is that men are those who have been raised to
be "tough" -- non-emotional, strong-silent-type, might-makes-right --
not that they "naturally" *are*, but that they are expected to conform
to a "tough" role.
("Tough" is different than "strong" -- I *like* strength, a person
has to be strong in at least some area (mentally, physically, intellectually,
something) to be attractive to me.)


	MKV

    <--(.39)
    
    Aha, once again I misunderstood:  I often use "tough" as a casual
    synonym for "strong" and so thought that that's how you were using it,
    too.  Thanks, Mary.

I noticed a difference in Mary's reply that answered what I would
have said to Bonnie.  First she said:

<Seriously, I don't know.

  then she said:

<Even when I have a close
<friendship with a man I'm not intereseted in sex with him.

For me that's the key.  I know a few wonderful, sensitive men.  I really like
them, but I wouldn't want to have sex with any of them, much less commit
my life to one of them.

There's something in me that is just absolutely thrilled when around women.
Large groups of women especially have such POWER to them!  Except for losing
Evan, I would LOVE to be in an all-female environment, especially if 
mostly/all lesbian/bi.  Something like "Daughters of a Coral Dawn".  *Sigh. 

          Carol

Mary Vaskas...
>it.  I *don't* like extreme "masculine"/tough looks (if I wanted 
>tough presumably I'd be more interested in men)

Hmmm...I don't think that follows.  The widespread existence of butch
Lesbians who don't have trouble finding partners show that there are
plenty of women attracted to "tough women" more than men.  I for one
am attracted to butches, and find the butch image to be arousing, but
I am totally turned off to macho/tough men with a similar image.
(Don't even ask me to explain, I haven't the slightest idea why!)

D!

<    (1)  Why is "strate" the preferred spelling?

"Strate" isn't the preferred spelling for me, but it is for some people.
Folks have started using it because of the negative associations of the
opposite of "straight".  Just like people don't want to be thought of
as "anti-life" (Pro-life), folks also don't want to be considered "crooked".

You, Liesl, and others have "my permission"  ;-)  to use whatever spelling
you are most comfortable with.  If you want to be especially considerate
of the feelings of some Gays/Bi's, though, you may want to experiment with
the alternate spelling.
    
<    (2)  How can I tell whether a same-gender couple living together are
<         doing so because they are SO's or because it's financially
<         convenient?  

Ask them.  If they are Gay and say they aren't, they certainly can't blame
you for not inviting their spouse.  

When you ask, make sure you let them know why.  That way they may not get
as defensive as they might otherwise.  ("why do you ask?  You want to 
'cure' me???!!!!")

    Hugs to you, Nancy, and to all of you wonderful folks here.  I *really*
like you.

          Carol

BTW, did I mention that I wasn't planning on cutting my hair SHORT?  Just
to past my shoulders?  It will still look nice.  Honest!  :-)

    I'm raising my hand as still being confused...
    
    I, too, am thrilled to be in large gatherings of women.  I _never_ feel
    more alive, more energised, more loved, more valued than when I'm with
    women.  I can contemplate a life with no men in it with perfect
    serenity -- although it is not something I actively desire -- except
    for the wrench at losing the men I value.
    
    Yet, my primary sexual attraction is to men.
    
    I've never had sex with _any_ person I wasn't all-over comfortable
    with.
    
    I guess I'm someone who doesn't see a great deal of differences in the
    women -- only the 'norms.'  As 'norms' and deviations therefrom have
    been the scourge of my young life, I may be heavily in denial or
    something ...
    
      Ann

    re .38
    
    >(2)  How can I tell whether a same-gender couple living together are
    >     doing so because they are SO's or because it's financially
    >     convenient?  Sometimes I want to invite one to my house and I
    >     don't know the other one.  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.
    
    If you've been to their house and notice that there is only one
    bedroom, there is a pretty good chance they are SOs.  
    
    The best way to ask the appropriate number over (without prying)
    is to ask your friend if s/he would like the roommate invited also.
    If the answer is affirmitive then the extra person is probably worth 
    spending time with whether or not they are the first person's SO.  Most
    people don't go out of their way to get a wet blanket invited along.
    
    			Bb

    
    I have been reading the replies in this note and I guess I wanted to
    tell about my life as a lesbian and my feelings about how I look and
    perceive myself.
    
    I have been living with my SO for 11 years and I have a son who is now
    19.  My life is very everyday. I get up get ready to go to work. I come
    home to my family and we have supper.  Mike and Jean will tell me what
    their day has been all about and we ususally watch TV together. 
    Weekends we do family things.  We visit our families.  My grandson
    comes over and we play with him.  
    
    We are just another couple enjoying life.
    
    My feelings about how I am and how I dress is really how comfortable I
    am.  When I go to work I dress differently each day.  I wear dresses or
    skirts or pants depending on how I feel for the day. I wear makeup and
    I curl my hair which I have been letting grow because I would like to
    wear my hair long.  When I go home I dress in sweats or jeans or what
    ever I am comfortable in.  I guess that I am just me when it comes to
    how I feel about my image.  I love wimmin because I have found a
    particular closeness with them that I did not find with the men that
    have been in my life.
    
    I do not exclude men from my life because some do bring me joy and
    strength.  I think it is particular younger men.  Mostly Mike friends
    and I think that is because they seem to turn to Jean and I for
    guidance and counseling.
    
    I have found in my life that I try to do what is true for me.  Recently
    I have very much found out what I am all about and what it really means
    to be a woman and to be proud of that fact.  I have taken alot of pride
    in my accomplishments of my work, my family and my son.
    
    So that's a little about who I am and what it means for me to be a
    lesbian.
    
    Denise
    
    

re:-1
    
    Thanks, Denise.
    
    General:
    
    Most gay people I know (male and female) knew they were gay since
    they can remember. As Bonnie said it's a body thing. Maybe everyone
    should accept it as a body thing and not a thinking thing. My being
    heterosexual has very little to do with the fact that I don't like
    most men very much. I do find many of then shallow and bad tempered.
    It has to do with the fact that they're the ones my body wants.Un-
    fortunately, it's hard to satisfy both mind and body ;^).
    
    Kate

re: .39 

<Yup, it seems like one of the biggest conflicts for a straight woman
<would be giving up the privilege of the man (or The Man) she is
<attached to/dependent on, if the power structure was to change to one
<more equal.  It's (just) one of the areas that being a lesbian is
<easier, I think. :-)

    But that's not what I meant at all, Mary.  The kind of thing I'm
    trying to talk about doesn't have anything to do with feeling like
    you're privileged because some man chose you.  It has even less to
    do with depending on him.  In fact, the more indpendent and
    stronger I am -- the more equal, if you will -- the stronger and
    better the relationship gets.  
    
    But I'm also saying that sayings such as "Smash the patriarchy"
    are not just political slogans.  They wound.  They offer violence
    to one whole half of the human race.  They preach separateness and
    an eye-for-an-eye cruelty where I see the need for the
    heterosexual portions of the two halves to admit they love each
    other and need each other and aren't complete without each other.
    
    It's not just the privilege because they're in power.  It's not
    the "Why do I feel like I'm nothing without a man?" syndrome.  The
    more complete I am as a person, the more complete my relation to
    men is.  I can conceive of many circumstances where I would live
    alone, celibate, and enjoy it  But I can't conceive of a world
    where there were no men to relate to.  Groups of women can be
    energizing and loving and valuing (they can be devaluing and
    draining, too) but for me there wouldn't be any energy if women's
    energy was all I had.
    
    --bonnie

I have been following this string for the last few days and have
thought how I would respond.  I am a lesbian.

There are many variables inherent in relationships.  The main reason
that I am a lesbian is because I can bond emotionally with a woman
and not with a man.  For me, it is now a simple distinction...several
years ago (more than 10), it wasn't that easy.  I was dating and
sleeping with men, always (from the time I was young) wanted to be
with women, and did what my parents and society expected me to do, be
a heterosexual.

Finally, I decided to act on what I wanted, started dating and having
sex with women and I felt comfortable with myself.  I found myself
and life has not been confusing since (not necessarily easier because
people are people and that is not gender specific!).

I spend 28 years being confused.  I find that sex is the least common
determinant to my orientation, because I can have sex with either men
or women; however, emotional connection is the most important aspect
of a relationship to me, and I can only connect emotionally with women.

In my personal opinion, saying that all women have the potential to be
lesbians is like saying that all men have the potential to be gay.  I
only know how I am myself, and have a tendency to let everyone else
go their own way too.

I have some more thoughts, which I will enter later on.
                           
Sue

re: .48 

Sorry, Bonnie, I misunderstood.

I think we may define "the patriarchy" differently.  If I want the
patriarchy changed, I don't want violence done to those in power now,
I just want the power structure equalized to include the poor, to
include women, to include gays/lesbians, to include people of color.
(I don't advocate substituting another small group as the rulers
either.)  

Just like eliminating mysogyny does not mean eliminating men
(because mysogynist <> man), eliminating the patriarchy does not mean
eliminating men -- the patriarchy in my mind is a societal structure
wherein the power is held by, for the most part, rich white males, 
where the rules and institutions were formed by one group and are
upheld by that group.  I think most of us in this file who advocate
equality for women are advocating a little less "patriarch" in the
system.

    
>    But I'm also saying that sayings such as "Smash the patriarchy"
>    are not just political slogans.  They wound.  They offer violence
>    to one whole half of the human race.  They preach separateness and
>    an eye-for-an-eye cruelty where I see the need for the
>    heterosexual portions of the two halves to admit they love each
>    other and need each other and aren't complete without each other.

I disagree that they preach separateness or cruelty -- I think they
propose a different model, where people approach each other as equals,
from equal starting points, with no assumed power imbalance.
I don't think they imply violence to individuals, but rather to
a structure, a bunch of laws and institutions.
    
(Sure, there are separatists, who I believe prefer to
not relate to men at all -- as opposed to spending energy doing
violence to men.  I don't know of groups (umm, except like armies
and stuff) that are dedicated to the latter, though 
among the revolutionary circles, there may have been/be some that might.)

>    But I can't conceive of a world
>    where there were no men to relate to.  Groups of women can be
>    energizing and loving and valuing (they can be devaluing and
>    draining, too) but for me there wouldn't be any energy if women's
>    energy was all I had.

But I don't advocate a world with no men to relate to.  I relate to
lots of men, just not sexually.  I wouldn't want a world without my
brothers, without my male friends, without my father.
Just as I wouldn't want a world where I couldn't make the choice to
spend some amount of my time only among women.

Sorry for the long digression, 

	MKV

    Mary,
    
    Lots of men interpret "the patriarchy" as "men" so statements
    like "smash the patriarchy" or "down with the partriarchy" are
    heard by them as "down with male humans", not "down with the
    established way of doing/running things".
    
    For those of us who value men in their lives, then, such statements
    are very difficult - possibly because we infuse different meanings
    into them.
    
    Bonnie

    How odd that it's some of the het women who equate "the patriarchy"
    with "men" rather than the lesbians.  That's interesting!
    
    						=maggie

I would have responded sooner but there are a couple of things that 
prevented me from doing so.  First, I was out most of last week with a back 
injury and have been in and out of work this week (still nursing along the 
back injury with greater and lesser success) and second, I had to think 
about the question that was raised in the base note and decide for myself 
what added value this discussion would have for individual noters and the 
noting community as a whole.

When I first read the base note my immediate gut-level reaction was, "oh, 
no, another topic that could potentially create divisiveness among women 
(depending on how the discussion goes)."   As I have read through the responses
I see that this is not the case, and for that, I am pleased.

When I look at the base note question as a question that could really be an 
appropriate discussion topic in a valuing differences type framework, my 
initial reaction subsides and I realize that I am personally comfortable 
about the discussion in general, and comfortable in discussing the concept 
of differences.  

I can only speak from personal experience and the similarities and 
differences I have experienced in living my life as a lesbian.  The 
differences I see, other than the obvious that lesbians are sexually 
attuned to women and heterosexual women are sexually attuned to men, are 
differences that have much more to do with external pressures, attitudes, 
prejudices and societally enforced restrictions.

For 7+ years I was in relationship with a woman.  I was the sole financial 
support for this woman.  I was not eligible to elect "family" benefit 
coverage.  Although we had powers of attorney drawn up, her "authority" to 
make decisions regarding me would not carry over to certain decision areas 
in the event that I died.  For example, power of attorney does not include 
making the decision about carrying out my wishes for funeral arrangements 
(or lack of funeral arrangements).  Under law, decisions about how my 
funeral would be conducted (if there were a conflict between what I had 
instructed my partner to do and what my legal family wanted to do) would be 
chosen by my parents, since they are still living.  Power of attorney does 
not govern the decisions about the disposition of my dead body (I don't 
mean to be morose, just pointing out some fundamental differences that are 
legal or based on societal attitudes).  

For years and years I have attended family bridal showers, weddings, etc. 
and have given my cousins presents to acknowledge their relationships or 
additions to their families.  Generally, the aunts of the family organize 
these gatherings.  Five years ago when we had a house fire the family did 
not help us out.  We lost stereo equipment, kitchen appliances, towels, 
sheets, all those nice things that my cousins loaded up on at the time they 
got married.  We could have used the help, it would have been appreciated.  
We would have sent out the appropriate Miss Manners thank you note for 
their generosity (just like my cousins have done), but there was no help, 
they could not find a way to be generous because of the nature of our 
relationship.  Did this hurt?  Yes.  Did it make me feel like a 
disenfranchised part of the family?  Yes.

Recently, I left this relationship.  To her credit, one cousin sent me a 
Christmas card and actually acknowledged that what I was going through now 
must be sad and painful.  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."  I hadn't remembered that until 
she wrote it in her card to me.  Did her brief note make me feel supported 
and truly seen?  Yes.  

I read through the responses in this note string, and what we, as women 
seem to be saying are similar things.  We are satisfied to varying degrees 
on an emotional/physical level by the person(s) with whom we choose to be 
intimate.  Where we differ has to do with gender of the person with whom we 
find this varying degree of emotional/physical satisfaction.

Some of us feel more comfortable in jeans, sneakers and flannel shirts, others
choose or are compelled by job expectations to wear skirt-suits, dresses, etc.
Some of us feel comfortable in make-up, others don't like it.  It doesn't seem
to me from the notes that are being entered here that these choices are being 
made based on who we go to bed with.
    
I grow weary of assumptions and stereotypes (still perpetuated by media):
    
o that lesbians hate men or want a world/society without men  
o that lesbians dress in blue jeans and flannel shirts (winter) 
  T-shirts (summer)
o that lesbians really want to be men
o that lesbians become lesbians because they were victims of child sexual 
  abuse or have been raped or battered by men as adults
o that lesbians "settle" for relationships with women because they can't 
  "get" a man

The list could probably go on for miles.  The simple fact is this: there is 
nothing wrong with difference.  Difference becomes a right/wrong issue 
because it is learned, it is fostered in blatant and subtle ways.  If we 
are talking about differences in sexual orientation, the "wrongness" of it is 
preached from most of the pulpits of most of the mainline religions (and I do 
acknowledge that there are denominations that don't do this, but a majority 
do).  The "wrongness" of sexual orientation is reinforced by insurance law, tax
law, and every institution in our current society that legally gives the 
message that same sex relationships are less than and are not given full 
protection under current law and legal status in our culture.

Although men and women who live together do not have any of the "legal" 
benefits, they do have the *choice* to make the relationship "legal" and 
recognized.  Men and women in same-sex relationships do not have this 
choice.  I also think that culturally, there is little shock value left 
when unmarried heterosexual couples decide to live together (organized 
religions may still condemn this but I don't know since I don't participate 
in any organized religion).  And even with organized religions or various 
state laws, male/female cohabitation is considered emotionally/physically 
o.k. whereas male/male female/female cohabitation is considered 
emotionally/physically sick, wrong, etc.

So, in this frame of reference, there certainly is heterosexual 
privilege that one "gives up" in same-sex relationships.  Discrimination 
against "queers" is not a figment of the imagination.  Discrimination won't 
go away even with laws on the books.  We already know this if we look at 
the Civil Rights Act...it did not end discrimination, it just made it 
technically illegal.
  
The differences have little to do with hearts/bodies/emotions.  The bigger 
issue is that attitudes and biases have been carefully taught and 
fostered.  How unfortunate it is that we, as members of this community called 
earth, have not put this kind of energy into fostering better communication, 
harmony and respect for *all* people.

Laura
                                                              

    =maggie, I guess I'm naive, I felt that some women used it as a code
    word for men.
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .53
    Laura,
    What a wonderful note!  I too have been reading this string with
    interest and struggling over a reply.  It's as if you reached in my
    mind and were able to crystalize a lot of my thoughts and experiences
    into your note!  BTW, I hope you recover soon from your injury.
    
    MY .02 cents:
    
    I grew up with 100% het orientation, and was married to a caring,
    sensitive man.  For the past 10 years, my SO's have been women,
    and I'm currently enjoying a peaceful, enjoyable
    relationship with a woman now.  In the past year and a half my sisters
    and brother have gotten married, and it really hit home, as Laura
    mentioned, how their relationships are publicly acknowledged, and how my
    relationship with Yvonne is not.  I must say however, that all the
    wedding photos included Yvonne, which made us both happy; my
    family accepts Yvonne as readily they did my ex into the family.
    
    As far as dress is concerned, I just don't feel the stereotype is
    applicable to most lesbians I know and associate with.  I have some
    friends who identify as separatists and "look butch" to make a
    statement, but for the most part, my gay friends' dress is as varied
    as my straight friend's. I feel comfortable wearing jeans, dresses, or
    gowns, depending on the situation and the way I feel.  It was really
    fun to wear a gown, hat and long gloves for my sister's wedding.
    
    I've had more men come onto me after I've played football, and I'm
    in the local hangout near the football field, relaxing with friends, 
    covered with mud in sweats and cleats, then when I was dressed up. 
    So much for dressing to keep unwanted attentions away!
    
    I think what's important is that the way we choose lifestyles is as
    varied as we are.  There's a natural curiosity to explore these
    differences, to understand them, and most of all to value them.
      
    For me, this note has been stimulating and enlightning!
                                 
     
    

	About the dress issue - My thoughts only.

	Women who dress in slacks (pants, jeans, etc.) are seen by
	some as wanting to be men.

	My mother has worn pants since the 1940's (she also wears
	skirts and dresses but prefers pants), she has taken flack
	for this for over 50 years.  My parents have been married
	for almost that long, they have 7 children.  My mother wears
	flannel shirts and t-shirts but does not chew glass.  In many
	ways she is very traditional about her views on the way the
	world should be.

	I wear what I want to wear (if it fits me) and have always
	done so.  For a long time I wore jeans and flannel
	shirts all the time, but then I was a school bus driver and
	heels and nylons didn't make sense.

	It is my opinion that people make toooooooooooo much about
	styles of dress - though some things do offend me but if I
	don't have to wear them I don't really care enought to make
	a big issue over it.

	Back to the issue of women wearing pants wanting to be men.
	It is not the fact that a woman wants to be a man, for me,
	it has been that I want the freedom of movement that pants
	gives me.  (Last year I set up a Workstation, wires and all
	in a silk dress, heels and nylons, I will never do it again.)

	A friend of mine told me that at MIT you could always tell 
	who was an engineer, they had a mix of any two of the following
	charateristics:

			glasses	(since age 4.5)
			plaid shirt (about 5 of these)
			being Jewish (not quite)

	I fit two of the above.  Does that make me an engineer at
	MIT - I doubt it.  But the sterotype does fit for most of
	the engineers I know who graduated from MIT so it is based
	on a real situation.  The difference is that not all x are
	y but a lot of y are x.

		(x(y)y)

	I think I drew that correctly.

	My reaction to the issue of dress is that it is a way of 
	dismissing all women who dress a certain way since some of
	them clearing don't want anything to do with men, society
	as it is currently structured or any of the traditional
	roles of women.  This is mathematically incorrect.

	One of the most radical feminist I know, dyes her hair, wear
	make-up and jewerly and almost never wears pants.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			The Goddess is within each of us.

    The following response is from a member of our community who wishes
    to remain anonymous at this time.

    						=maggie

    ===================================================================
                                                                       

>The 
>differences I see, other than the obvious that lesbians are sexually 
>attuned to women and heterosexual women are sexually attuned to men, are 
>differences that have much more to do with external pressures, attitudes, 
>prejudices and societally enforced restrictions.

    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.

    I also think there is a difference between the degree of social
    acceptance that lesbians experience while living in the more
    `cultured' cities of our  country versus living in Anytown, USA. In
    cities like Boston, or San Francisco,  or Minneapolis, or Washington
    DC, or... there appears to be very  well connected networks of
    support and activities for lesbians.  In this environment, one would
    not necessarily recognize the difference that exists between strate
    women and lesbian dating.   The potential of finding a partner is
    much more limited in Anytown, USA.  I mean, you can't just walk up
    to every woman on the street who is in flannel and jeans and ask
    them  if they'd like to take in dinner and a movie ;-)

    I think the differences between lesbians and strate women, based on
    social  acceptance, is much more evident to those lesbians who live
    outside of an area that has a strong lesbian community present.

re: patriarchy

    My interpretation of this term is similar to Mary V.'s. not an
    elimination of  MEN...but an elimination of the power structure
    built by MEN.

                                                              
                                

<    =maggie, I guess I'm naive, I felt that some women used it as a code
<    word for men.
    
Bonnie, I've never heard it used that way before.  Maybe some men just 
interpret it that way, and have gotten the word out that this is what it
"really means"?

            Carol

    Well, I always interpreted "patriarchy" as a society-ruled-by-men.
    Patri- is masculine, matri- is feminine.
    
    Since it is men who rule it and it is men who run it and it is men who
    have the power to perpetuate it, it doesn't seem like a crazy,
    far-fetched assumption to think that people use patriarchy as a
    code-word for men.  ("if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck,
    and talks like a duck, chances are it's a duck")  
    
    I do agree, though, that the patriarchy is both more and less than
    "men" -- men do run it (but not all men agree with it); women do
    collude to perpetuate it in various ways (but not always, and many
    women work to create a different vision of society than patriarchy).
    It's a system.  
    
    Pam

    Carol,
    
    Perhaps, but I'd never heard of it that way. My impression of the
    use of the word was from being around women and the look on their
    faces when they used the term. I just assumed under the circumstances
    that while they liked individual men, that the term 'patriarchy' was
    an in 'code word' to refer to all the rest of the men, especially
    the older ones, those in power, and those who lacked sensitivity.
    I never particularly thought to question the assumption. It seemed
    to fit into the conversation at hand and it didn't seem significant
    or important. 
    
    Bonnie

    I haven't read the 60 replies prior to this, so please forgive me if
    this is out of context.  The topic question about differences between
    strate women and lesbians is pertinent in my life.  I have four
    sisters, three of whom are strate and one of whom is lesbian.  I have 
    a niece and a cousin who are also lesbian.
    
    Each of these women is in a commited relationship of one sort or
    another.  Two of my strate sisters are married and the third is a
    Catholic nun.  My lesbian sister, my cousin, and my niece are each in a
    commited relationship with another woman and, in fact, my cousin and
    her lover have each adopted a child to form a loving family.  
    
    The only difference I see between these women is the level of torment
    they are subjected to and the results of it.  My sister is a recovering
    alcoholic and is in therapy.  My niece is a state trooper and
    underground narcotics agent and feels it's in her best interests to
    keep her sexual identity quiet at work.  I do not believe that their
    being lesbian has caused them problems, but certainly society's general
    homophobia has caused them problems.  My hope for the '90s is that we
    can begin to become more accepting of one another.
    
    Marge

    re: .61
    
    >>The only difference I see between these women is the level of torment
    >>they are subjected to and the results of it.  My sister is a recovering
    >>alcoholic and is in therapy.  
    
    I would want to make mention here that alcoholism can be caused by
    outside factors, such as stress, oppression, etc.  It can also be
    genetic (hard-wired so to speak) and has nothing to do with external
    factors.  In the case of your sister, Marge, I don't know if there is a
    family history of alcoholism or if she is the only one in the family.  
    
    I think that lesbians and gay men can fall into the addiction to
    alcohol due to outside pressures because the social life for gay men
    and lesbians so often revolves around the bar scene.  This kind of
    environment might make it easier for someone who is not genetically an
    alcoholic to fall over the line into "socially" induced alcoholism.  I
    really don't know what the label is for alcoholism that is not caused
    by genetics.
    
    >>My niece is a state trooper and underground narcotics agent and feels 
    >>it's in her best interests to keep her sexual identity quiet at work.  
    
    No kidding!  I think we've all had jobs or situations where we *had* to
    stay in the closet for to do otherwise would have had very negative
    impact on job opportunities or personal safety.
    
    >>I do not believe that their being lesbian has caused them problems, but 
    >>certainly society's general homophobia has caused them problems.
    
    And I think that a lot of lesbians/gay men/bi-sexuals feel that way,
    that they don't have problems with who they are, but the "problems"
    encountered have been imposed from the outside.
    
    Laura
     

An addendum to Laura's comments...

According to my SDSU class in the Psychology of Alcoholism, alcoholism is
passed on through a gene that makes the person predispositioned to alcoholism.
Whether they actually become an alcoholic is based then on environmental
reasons.  Hence, identical twins born with the predisposition may both be
alcoholic, may neither be alcoholic, or one may be while the other isn't.
On the other hand, if you are born without the gene, then you will not be
an alcoholic.

It is possible for alcohol to be psychologically addictive, however, where
the person does not have a physical need for it, but feels emotionally that
s/he cannot function without it.  This may be what Laura was referring to.

My class was around 1981.  My B.A. in 1982 was in Psychology, with a minor
in Business Administration, Management.  I don't know what new things may
have been discovered about alcoholism since then (and which may refute
the information I have just given).

As to the Gay Community, I agree that much of the social life is centered
around the bars, but I believe that this is mostly for people when they
are just coming out (the first few YEARS, often) and that the bar usually
becomes less important as they develop friendships elsewhere.  This is 
not true in every case, of course, but it does seem to me that the majority
of the Lesbian Community rarely go to bars.

This is not to say that there is not a large degree of alcoholism in the
Gay Community.  It disturbs me how much there is.  I agree with Laura that
much of the cause seems to be social intolerence (and internalized homophobia)
as well as the bar environment.

         Carol

    The following response is from a member of our community who wishes to
    remain anonymous at this time.

    						=maggie
    
    ===================================================================

    Yes, I think there is a difference, both in looks and behavior.  I can
    almost always pick gay women out of a crowd, certainly if I get a
    chance to talk to them.  (disclaimer:  of course, you never know about
    the really closeted types.)

    When you're gay, you've had to really take stock of who you are and
    what your needs are.  You have to throw away a lot of things that most
    people take for granted.  Like a legal marriage.  Like health benefits
    for your spouse.  Like joining some conversations, if it would not be
    good to mention your SO.  Like holding hands in certain neighborhoods.

    It's a totally different kind of fear to be caught necking in a place
    where it's illegal to park after dark when you're with your girlfriend.
    There's no telling how much hassle a redneck cop could give you.  And
    yes, I know there's a gay rights bill.  But tell that to the cop.

    Once life has taken on this shape, other decisions are weighed
    differently, also.  There's less of a chance that you'll just do the
    normal thing, more likely you'll just do what you want.

    Example: Ask a woman if she wants to play high-contact football.  I've
    asked about a million.  Most of the straight women I ask *immediately*
    say something like "no", or "I couldn't possibly do that", or "you've
    got to be kidding".  It's not even in their sphere, they don't even
    give it a moment's thought.  Ask gay women, and they think about it
    before they answer.  They may or may not want to play, but at least
    they weigh it against themselves, and not what's expected of them.  A
    lot of straight women don't think they could, gay women are generally
    much more aware that their bodies could do it.

    I think a lot of the differences between straight women and gay women
    are much more obvious to lesbians.  After all, we have to think about
    it, straight women rarely do.  For example, I look butch as butch can
    be.  My girlfriend could tell I was a lesbian by the way I walk.  But
    most straight people probably wouldn't notice, and even if they thought
    about it, might not be able to tell.  Just having long hair makes most
    straight people think I'm straight.  I've asked straight people if they
    think I look gay, and they say no.  But I'm very obvious to other gay
    women.

    The gay community tends to have a different standard of attractive than
    the straight community does.  For example, I don't find most straight
    women to be all that attractive.  I think most of them look fine and
    whatever makes them happy is the best, but they don't catch my eye.  And
    I've never wanted to date one.

    I'm trying to come up with something concrete, and am having a hard
    time.  Gay women come in all types, and so do straight ones.  Gay women
    tend to be more butch, but not all of them are.  Some straight women are
    quite butch.  Some lesbians can't deal with a hair out of place, some
    straight women don't care.

    The only generalization I can come up with is:

    Gay women tend to make more conscious decisions in their life on every
    level than straight women.  This is reflected most obviously in how many
    of us dress, less obviously in a million different ways that I could go
    on and on about.

    My instant disclaimer is that in the DEC community, a much higher
    percentage of straight women are really very self-identified and
    following their own hearts.  I think this would be true in most
    professional environments.

    And no, I don't believe all women are lesbians at heart, although I
    have seen a few straight women that I honestly believe would be happier
    with a girlfriend.  Some women don't really like women at all, they are
    so indoctrinated by society that they end up isolated from other women.

    My final comment.  I am reading this over, wondering if it sounds
    condescending.  Like "gay women think more than straight women,
    therefore we're better." I mean what I wrote, I think in general we are
    forced to weigh decisions more.  But I don't think a woman who carefully
    weighs every decision is any better than one who just does what's
    expected of her.  I think the important thing for all women is to just
    be happy, no matter how you do it, just don't hurt anyone else
    unnecessarily.

    re: .64
    
    This touches on one of the things I've noticed in talking to the
    gay men and women I know.  This is a generalization, but it seems
    that more often than not, what makes a man attractive to another
    man is quite similar to what makes a man attractive to a woman,
    while what makes a woman attractive to another woman is quite
    different than what makes her attractive to a man.
    
    Is there any truth to this, or is it a statistical fault stemming
    from a very very small sample?  I have no idea why this would be
    the case, either.  The obvious answer is that it's caused by
    social conditioning, but it has seemed to hold true even for men
    whose taste in women is not particularly conditioned by social
    values.  
    
    --bonnie

    The following response is also from the author of .64, who still wishes
    to remain anonymous at this time.

    In general, when I post a note anonymously I put it through a sort of
    "homogeniser"...run the spell checker, reformat the lines, and change
    any terms or phrases that seem to me to be unusually identifiable.  My
    goal, of course, is that the author remain truly anonymous.

    In the case of .64, I used the phrase "high-contact football" rather
    than the author's "rugby"; not really knowing too much about the sport,
    it seemed an acceptable substitute for an unusual term that might
    trigger recognition of the person who used it.  As you'll read below, I
    blew it.  As I've explained to the author by mail, my change was not
    meant as a definition but rather as a disguise, and I apologise to
    everyone for the confusion.

    						=maggie

    ====================================================================

    Maggie,
    	
    Thanks for adding my note.  Can you add this, too?
    	
    I noticed when I read over the note that I sent you, you changed the
    wording from "rugby", to "high-contact football".  I'm assuming you did
    this because you think a lot of the readers won't know what rugby is. 
    But to me, that's an important change and alters the meaning of what I
    wrote.  First, I'll describe rugby briefly, and then explain why it
    makes a difference to me.	First off, rugby is not football.  People
    who play rugby and think football are dangerous.  They are both derived
    from soccer; I think rugby was derived first, and football was derived
    from rugby.  Basically, it's a game where the players try to kick or
    carry the ball down to the opponent's end zone (try zone), and, with
    control, touch the ball down to the ground.  The other team tries to
    stop them.  It is a full contact sport, with tackling and some other
    techniques which I won't bother to describe here.   Most players wear a
    mouthguard.  Most don't wear any other protective equipment, except
    neoprene knee braces and the like.  No helmets, no pads. As Maggie
    indicated, it's a high contact sport, and we like it that way.  The
    reason it makes a big difference to me is that I used to play 
    semi-tackle football with guys when I was in high school, and it was
    very different.  I played with my boyfriend and his friends.  I knew
    about women's rugby and I thought "No way!  They're probably all huge
    and have very short hair".  It was kind of exciting to go out and play
    a tackle game with the guys.  But you couldn't get me near a group of
    women doing that.  I thought it was fine for them, but I would never do
    it.  (Play rugby or date women.)   
    	
    In reply to .65, about liking women who men like or not, I have a
    slightly irreverent comment.  One of my favorite things about being gay
    is that you can have your cake and be it, too.  My girlfriend and I
    often have this discussion:  

    	"You're so butch"
    	"No, no, you're so butch"
    	"No, really, you are so butch"

    Etc etc.  We are complimenting each other.

    I used to think I liked the difference that some of the strate women
    have mentioned as part of the attraction to men.  I've since changed my
    mind.

    re .65, it does sort of *seem* that way to me, too, Bonnie.  I've
    often been attracted to gay men, and tend to think that, in general,
    they are the most stylish and attractive looking group - (straight
    men/straight women/gay men/ lesbians) - of all.  (which is rather
    ironic since I'm a straight woman)  I wish more straight men took
    as much care with their appearance as most gay men seem to.  But,
    that may be another false generalization based on a small sample.
    
    Also, whenever I've heard straight men say "What a waste" in reference
    to lesbians it's been when two very feminine looking women were
    holding hands in Provincetown.  (whereas my girlfriend and I have
    said it a million times about gay men in P-town, I admit!)
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .67 (Lorna)

	Conversely, I've seen attractive straight women and commented,
	"Gee, what a waste."  =8-)

	I, too, have been attracted to gay men not only because many
	seem to take better care of their appearance, but they're not
	afraid to wear exciting clothes, make bold fashion statements,
	and/or pierce their ears, three big turn-ons for me.

	That's one of the many reasons I so love European men.

	Carla

>	I, too, have been attracted to gay men not only because many
>	seem to take better care of their appearance, but they're not
>	afraid to wear exciting clothes, make bold fashion statements,
>	and/or pierce their ears, three big turn-ons for me.


	 That's EXACTLY why I find my hairstylist so attractive!


	 kath

    Re .68, .70, I find those to be three big turn-ons for me, too!
    :-) *sigh*
    
    Lorna
    

    The following response is from a member of our community who wishes
    to remain anonymous at this time.

    						=maggie

    ===================================================================

    Getting back to the discussion about Lesbian <> Strate ...
                             
    In reply to the base note:

    There definitely is a common bond among women throughout the world.
    *However* that is very different from the issue at hand.  
                                                                   
    To me, there are inherent differences between lesbians, bisexual
    wimmin and strate wimmin. The spiritual, physical, and emotional
    energies are very different. It's hard to explain in words, but I
    feel it. 

    From personal experience,  my perceptions, expectations, dreams, and
    goals are very different from my het. sisters, friends, and
    acquaintances.  Also, my definition of terms such as family or what
    constitutes "everyday" stuff sometimes differs on a very basic
    level.  They (most of the hets in my life) assume/expect that I'm
    living a heterosexual lifestyle with a womyn partner.  That's not
    true!  I have **no** interest in copying anyone else's lifestyle.
    Living my own is rich and rewarding in and of itself! 

    Sure, there will be some things that overlap, where we can find a
    common ground (such as having children), but the premise for these
    decisions/actions are not the same. 

    Also, IMO, the inequalities and injustices that Laura spoke of in
    .53 are all the more reason to smash the patriarchal system. 

    The way a person dresses is not indicative of her sexuality.  Also,
    the "gauge" of determining what constitutes dressing up or down
    varies from country to country, culture to culture, town to town,
    city to city...           
                                 

    Thank you (whomever) for .72.  I was beginning to think that
    we were once again going to define or differences by the fashion
    of our dress.
    
    The lives of lesbians I know (including me) revolve around women.
    The lives of the het women I know revolve around the men in their
    lives, with women taking a back seat.  Anybody women out there remember
    the first time your best female friend canceled an activity with
    you so that she could go on a date with a guy?
    
    
    

    re: .73
    
    No.  Quite frankly, it's never happened to me.  
    
    --bonnie

re: .73 Maureen
yes,yes,yes!

But the straight women that have remained my friends don't, I'm
glad to say.  The women who seem most comfortable and confident seem
to me to value friendship as much as romance.

(I also remember, back in my (what-I-thought)obligatory dating (males)
days, friends being shocked that I would cancel dates because
friends were going through crises, or whatever, and I thought it
was obvious that I should stay and help.  Of course, I'd cancel on
just about any excuse :-), but what struck me was the assumption that
I wouldn't/shouldn't.)

Over the holidays I saw a friend I've know for about 20 years, who
always struck me as one of the most strong, confident, independent
women I'd known.  Her husband died a couple of years ago, and she 
mentioned in conversation last month that she was just starting, for
the first time, to not feel like something was wrong with her if
she didn't have a man in her life.  I was totally surprised (and
disillusioned), seeing this glimpse into a mindset so different than
both mine, and what I considered hers (as an independent, straight
woman) to be.

	MKV

    
   >>Are lesbians "different" from het women in important ways?

I decided to have some fun with this question by flip-flopping it
to read:

   Are het women "different" from lesbians in important ways?

The emphasis on the word "different" is now directed toward het
women. 

To launch my brainstorming on how het women differ from other
women, maybe it would be helpful to identify some baseline stereotypes
that apply to "most" or "many" het women. Hmmmm, lets see....
How about:

    - Most het women I know seem to be attracted to men with small buns,
      skinny legs, and pot bellies. I base that assumption on the fact
      that so many women are legally married to men that fit that description.

    - Most het women wear dresses and high heels. I base that
      assumption on the pictures of women in dresses and high
      heels that I see in magazines directed to het women.

    - Het women often signal their sexual orientation to men
      via long hair and long, painted fingernails. I base that
      assumption on the women who caress washing machines on t.v. game
      shows to appeal to the subconscious of the men watching
      the show.

    - Het women seem to have a difficult time maintaining long-term
      relationships. I base this assumption on the high divorce
      rate among heterosexuals (and keep in mind that the divorce rate
      doesn't even take into account the number of breakups among live-in
      lovers).

My point, you ask? I have a few: ;-)

- Stereotypes are sometimes silly and sometimes dangerous,
  and they more easily go unrecognized as stereotypes when
  they are about minorities.

- It is a good idea to examine assumptions and stereotypes for judgmental
  content.

- I suspect we all (women and men, homosexual and heterosexual, liberal
  and conservative and middle-of-the-road) operate from stereotypes
  and assumptions a lot more often than we think we do.

- The diversity among lesbian women is as great as the diversity among
  heterosexual women.

- The diversity among heterosexual women is as great as the diversity
  among lesbian women.

- It is difficult to be "different" in this culture. It is especially
  difficult for some of us to be "different" when our "differences"
  ain't *as* different as some people would think!

- However enlightened we may be, we're still at a very awkward stage
  when it comes to accepting relationships between people of the same
  sex. I'm glad to see that the people of this noting community are
  willing to discuss issues even when the issues produce some discomfort.

Of course, everything I have written reflects *my opinion only*. It is
written from the viewpoint of one individual who is "different."

P.S. Within this note, I have purposely chosen to refer to "lesbian
     women" rather than "lesbians." In "mixed company," I think use of
     the noun lesbian promotes the notion that "lesbians" are
     a separate species.

re: .78 (MAXHAM::SANDS)

Good points, great note.

D!

    re: discussion on dating
    
    The discussion in 931 is important - and FWIW I was raised to honor
    my friendships and not abandon them for casual dates.  Perhaps it's
    easier for lesbians to merge friendships/dating because of shared
    interests.  I certainly wouldn't have invited a man I was dating
    to go clothes shopping with my friends :>)
    
    
    But aside from dating, i think we've missed the point  of my "dating"
    note.  It's very simple really - for het women, men play a much
    more important part in their lives.  For lesbians, men may at best
    be their friends., so there isn't much reason to defer to them.
    
    I suspect this may ruffle a few feathers, but I predict I can tell
    if a woman is lesbia or straight in a social/business situation
    not by how she's dressed, but by how she interacts with men.
    
    -maureen
    

    This is a pseudo-hot button for me, but instead of reacting
    maybe a bit of explanation is in order...
    
    Lesbian culture does not parallel gay male culture.  They are as
    different as night and day - with the only common ground being
    our same sex preferences.  Most of the lesbians I know identify
    more closely with the women's movement rather than the gay
    movements.  It's a bit irritating to have how the gay guys dress/behave
    brought into this discussion as examples of "our" culture. What
    does this have to do with straight and gay women?
    
 
    
    

    re. 80
    
    Interesting prespective regarding how a lesbian would interact with
    a man.  I guess my own experience has been that I have had good 
    relationships with the men that I work with.
     
    Outside of work, the men I deal with the relationships are very easy
    going and equal to a great extent.
    
    I guess my point is that I don't know if how I deal with men would
    suggest that I am a lesbian.
    
    

    .82
    
    Well, I doubt that you flirt or engage in sexual innuendos with men.
    Many straight women, even those quite monogamously paired with SOs
    will still engage in this type of teasing behavior with close male 
    friends. (Tho I am well aware this is not by any means universal with
    straight women.)
    
    Bonnie

    bonnie,
    
    to tell you the truth I think I have flirted with a male coworker now
    and then. I flirt with men and wimmin.  But I think that is just how I
    have also been with people I have some sort of attraction too.
    
    Denise
    

    The behavior difference is much more subtle than flirting.  Heck,
    even I've been known to flirt occasionally.  Oops, there goes the
    old image :>)
    
    -maureen
    

    I agree with Maureen, and I'll bet it's infinitely more subtle
    than anything as conscious as flirting.

    When you're heterosexual, any man could conceivably be a sex
    partner.  You might not be attracted to a particular man at a
    particular moment, or to men in general while you're deeply
    involved with your mate, but at the back of your mind somewhere,
    or maybe down in your body, there's an awareness that the man
    you're talking to, the man making fresh coffee at the coffee
    station, the man delivering your package, might be a sexual
    partner under different circumstances.  The woman you're talking
    to or who's delivering a package at your door might be a good
    friend, even a sister in arms, but there's not that other little
    possibility.
    
    It seems like that undertone of possibility wouldn't be there for
    a lesbian dealing with men in general, even if she likes men in
    general, even if she happened to be sexually interested in a
    particular man.  Is it there in encounters with women in general? 
    Or only with women you know or suspect are lesbians?
    
    --bonnie

    Oh Bonnie,
    
    Did you HAVE to ask those last two questions? :>)
    
    For me, the attraction is only to those women who might be
    willing to return the attentions (i.e. lesbian or bi).  Course
    I will admit to sometime having an intense "Is she or isn't she?"
    preoccupation.
    
    But if all women were attractive to all us dykes... gawd, this is
    getting confusing!
    
    
    

    Bonnie 
    
    That awareness of 'la difference' is actually what I was trying to
    get at in my note.
    
    Bonnie J

Bonnie:
>    When you're heterosexual, any man could conceivably be a sex partner. 
>[...] at the back of your mind somewhere,  there's an awareness
>that the man you're talking to [...] might be a sexual partner under
>different circumstances.  

Wow.  Boom.  (Sound of the "I coulda had a V8" pop.)  Yeah.

I never thought of it that way.  To me, *everyone* I meet falls into that
category, just about.  (With the exception of the *very* old and the *very*
young.)  That no matter how platonic or professional the relationship,
no matter how uninterested I am in the person or they in me, no matter how
much it *hasn't* occured to me on a concious level, everyone I meet is a
"potential" sex partner, somewhere, sometime, in some universe.  So every
relationship has some undercurrent of sexuality.

And you are suggesting that the vast majority of people don't share this
with me (those who are either homosexual or heterosexual.)

This fundamental difference in perception and interaction could explain a 
lot.

I think you've hit on something here.  This will require more thought.
If most people deal with half the population on a very basic, 
fudamental level differently than others, the effects might be subtle but
they'd be incredibly pervasive and farreaching.

D!

    D!
    
    What you have said makes sense to me in that there are many many
    different types of people that I may view as a potential sexual
    partner.  I can look at strate wimmin and see a potential sexual
    partner.  Sometimes a man that I work with is interesting a flirt with
    the idea of what if.  
    
    There is always something in the back on my mind on this.
    
    However, I do agree that there are alot of other subtleties in my
    interactions with me.  I would most definately would want to talk with
    another woman over a man for advice.  I would enjoy being them at a
    party more so than a man.  I would tend to listen more to what a woman
    was saying.  My attention would be more towards a woman.
    
    I feel that I don't keep back any feelings I have for a man if they are
    there.  I will feel as strong about a friendship I have with a man as I
    do with a woman.
    
    denise

    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

    
    Honestly, I don't think this would be so strange. Marriage is not an
    equal partnership for all couples. For many, there are defined roles
    with a superior and a subordinate partner. And thus, some things that a
    man would look for in a woman would be based on this expectation. 
    
    I sense (and could be WRONG) that the roles are not as clear for
    lesbian partnerships, and therefore, the choice of a compatible mate
    may mean an entirely different set of desirable characteristics.
    
    On the other hand, I really don't think that the average gay male is
    looking for what I'm looking for in a man. If part of what I want is
    "validation", i.e. someone to make me feel acceptably mated in society,
    or if what I want is a good father for my children, I'm not so sure
    that such requirements carry over into the gay community at all.

    I made the original remark as an aside to another observation.  It
    wasn't referring to the totality of personal characteristics that
    make a successful marriage, only to the aspects of physical
    appearance that lead one person to consider another as a possible
    sexual partner -- dress, style, physique, smile, fit of jeans on
    behind, etc. 
    
    It was based on a *very* limited number of experiences going
    places with gay friends and noticing that they tended to pick the
    same men to ogle as I did, while the women a lesbian friend (not a
    DECcie) identifies as 'hot' weren't judged attractive by her het
    brother, who was with us.
    
    --bonnie

    Nusrat,
    
    but in so far as I am unique and different from the ordinary
    and a man finds me attractive for that reason, then I find him
    someone that I want to get to know (as I also do with women btw).
    
    One reason that I feel in love with and married the man that I did
    was that both of us were 'weird' by society's standards..
    
    
    and I am apt to make friends with other people who are the same.
    especially women...
    
    women who go against the 'standards' are the ones I'm most apt
    to find freinds among.
    
    Bonnie��

    You know how it ok for straight women to be uncomfortable around
    us dykes?  Well this morning I reremember it works the other way,
    too.  There I was a physical theraphy, having my back rubbed by
    this nice woman, discussing her husband and family, when out of
    the blue she comments on my "adorable" panties.  Can you spell
    "embarassed"  :>)
    
    		-maureen