Conference turris::womannotes-v3

Hal, I am bothered by your reply.  If I interpret right, it seems to be saying
that you can accept (but not understand) gay women, at least partly because the
idea is exciting -- but only if gay women continue to act heterosexual in
public.  I may be wrong but it seems that this requirement, that lesbians
pretend to be straight, is part of what gay men and women object to.  They
object to _having_ to hide their nature; you say you will accept them only if
they do hide.

These sentiments also bother me -- correct me if I have misinterpreted --

lesbians shouldn't hold hands or kiss in public, because it is both exciting and
indecent.

the idea of gay men is revolting, but it is so sad that the friend
killed himself without revealing how different he was.

These sentiments are contradictions in themselves, I think.

            <<< IKE22::$1$DKB100:[NOTESFILES]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 700.15                   The Lesbian Lifestyle                     15 of 16
ROULET::WHITEHAIR "Don't just sit there.......Do it" 75 lines  20-FEB-1991 12:40
                         -< Don't let it bother you. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    	I'm not sure if my note should go here or somewhere else...if it
    belongs somewhere else, feel free to move it.
    
    	I've just started reading in this notefile a short time ago.  I've
    even wrote in here a few times, but, this will be my first major note
    in this file.  I've got some questions that maybe can be answered and
    I also have somethings that can be shared.
    
    	First off, I have to say that I think it is great that the lesbian
    group of women can feel at ease to write in this notesfile!  After
    reading some of the responces, I feel very badly for those on the topic
    of "comming out".  It really must be tough.  I personnally feel that
    you shouldn't have to "come out".  To me, it is who you are!  The only
    thing I can say is that, by "comming out", does this mean you want to
    be able to hold hands, kiss or something infront of other people.  If
    not, then why bother "comming out" at all?  
    	I can see wanting to tell your parents about it though....It would
    be really too bad if they wern't willing to understand and still love
    you for who you are.  I would say SCREW everyone else who is bothered
    by it.  I wouldn't let it bother you.  
    	Now, one thing I would say though, is that I don't think holding
    hands, kissing, pinching eachothers butts, etc in public would be
    right.  I figure you would have to be willing to take the glare of
    others.  I look at it like I would look at the teenagers "first love"
    type of thing.  Ya know, seeing two kids petting eachother in public.
    A person would glare at them, sort of saying with their eyes....stop
    it.  But, if two women act like normal....whats the problem?  I don't
    see one.
    	I am very interested in lesbians.  They have allways made me
    wonder.  It sort of gets me exceited.  I want to ask a couple of 
    questions though.....it is just hard for me to understand why you
    would not want a man.  Is there some bad experience?  Is it hormonal?
    I could understand being with a man and wanting a woman every so often.
    Is it just better?  Its hard for me to understand.  Does it bother you
    not to be able to have children?  or  is it that you don't want
    children?  Some other things that I wonder.....is one woman more
    dominerring than the other or does that mater?  
    	On the other side of things....the gay guy.....for some reason,
    this really bothers me.  I guess its mainly the sexual thing....I see
    no problem with two guys loving eachother, but the sex act itself, I 
    just can't handle.  It even bothers me to think of two grown men
    kissing each other.  I don't see it the same when its a father/son kiss
    goodnight thing.  I kissed my dad good night for quite some time but,
    I can still remember the day when I told him I just wanted to shake his
    hand goodnight.  At the time, I felt I must have hurt his feelings. 
    I'll never know now, because he has died.....I wish I would have given
    him more hugs and kisses than I did.
    
    	Now for a little story about a gay guy I knew....I'll keep it short 
    and hopefully to the point.  I first met this guy when I was in the Air
    Force.  He never ever told me he was gay.  A friend of mine did mention
    one time that he knew there was a gay guy in our dorm.  I asked him how
    he knew?  He told me that when he was in the shower the other day, that
    this other guy got a BIG hard on.  He never told me who this other guy
    was.  When I was in the service...you could be tossed out for being
    gay.  Well, as time went by, I got out of the service and moved out of
    the state.  The state and town I moved to happened to be the same one
    that this gay guy lived in.  We were pretty good friends in the
    service.  We played cards, went to bars, watched TV....etc..together,
    but, I had no idea he was gay.  Anyway, we got together several times
    and had dinner together (my wife/he and I).  He was a good friend.  I 
    would say he got along better with my wife than he did with me though.
    It just seemed like he and her had more things in common.  Then, one
    day, he killed himself.  I couldn't beleive it.  It wasn't untill the
    funeral that we really found out why.  He just couldn't handle being
    different.  I still don't know what I would have done had he told me
    he was gay before he killed himself.  I'd hate to think that I would 
    have strayed away from him.....he was a good friend.
    
    	So, hopefully, you will all know where I'm comming from...
    
    
    	Hal
    

            <<< IKE22::$1$DKB100:[NOTESFILES]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 700.16                   The Lesbian Lifestyle                     16 of 17
REFINE::BARTOO "Put this in your queue & print it"   14 lines  20-FEB-1991 13:06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   RE:  .15
    
    
    > I first met this guy when I was in the Air
    > Force.  He never ever told me he was gay.  A friend of mine did mention
    > one time that he knew there was a gay guy in our dorm.  I asked him how
    > he knew?  He told me that when he was in the shower the other day, that
    > this other guy got a BIG hard on. 
    
    
    Hal, do you have any other reason to believe the guy was gay?  This
    reason that you gave is meaningless.
    
    NICK

    
    	>>First off, I have to say that I think it is great that the lesbian
    >>group of women can feel at ease to write in this notesfile!  

Yes, it is great that the =wn community is so supportive.  But please don't 
underestimate the risks that gay men and lesbians take when we come out in 
such a public forum.  

    >>I personnally feel that
    >>you shouldn't have to "come out".  

And yet, the default assumption for this society is that men will date 
women and women will date men.  What happens when your are in your 30's or 
40's and your friends, parents, relatives are still asking you..."when are 
you going to meet mr./ms. right and get married?"  

    >>The only
    >>thing I can say is that, by "comming out", does this mean you want to
    >>be able to hold hands, kiss or something infront of other people.  If
    >>not, then why bother "comming out" at all?  
    
Because of the automatic assumptions that people make about sexual 
orientation, unless we want to be totally invisible, coming out is the only 
avenue open to us right now.

    >>I would say SCREW everyone else who is bothered
    >>by it.  I wouldn't let it bother you.  
    
Not quite that simple.  People get beat up/killed/discriminated against 
because of who and how they love.  We are talking about a civil rights 
issue here.

	>>Now, one thing I would say though, is that I don't think holding
    >>hands, kissing, pinching eachothers butts, etc in public would be
    >>right.  

I don't think most mature adults feel the need to pinch butts in public.  
However, do you think it is wrong when a heterosexual couple hold hands 
while walking through the park on a spring day?  Do you think it is wrong 
that heterosexual couples hug/kiss each other when they greet each other or 
when the little wife drops her executive hubby at the train station in the 
morning?  If you don't think that this level of public display of affection 
is wrong between heterosexual couples, why should it be any different for 
same sex couples?

    >>I figure you would have to be willing to take the glare of
    >>others.  

Why?  Heterosexuals don't have to be willing to take the glare of others.

    >>But, if two women act like normal....whats the problem?  I don't
    >>see one.

What is normal?  I think that I act normal.  I wear the requisite boring 
business suit with the matching sensible one-inch pumps with the executive 
looking briefcase.  I don't have multi-colored hair, or an extra ear 
sticking out the top of my head.  However, I wear a gold wedding band on my 
finger.  I bet if you saw my you would assume that I'm married to a man.

    	>>I am very interested in lesbians.  They have allways made me
    >>wonder.  It sort of gets me exceited.  

How come the above sounds like it should be in the note discussing the 
1-900 numbers?  

    >>I want to ask a couple of 
    >>questions though.....it is just hard for me to understand why you
    >>would not want a man.  Is there some bad experience?  Is it hormonal?
    >>I could understand being with a man and wanting a woman every so often.
    >>Is it just better?  Its hard for me to understand.  Does it bother you
    >>not to be able to have children?  or  is it that you don't want
    >>children?  

There are many, many theories on why a person is gay or lesbian.  It seems 
rather a moot point to debate the why.  I don't think that being with a 
woman vs. being with a man can be categorized as better/less than/equal.  
It is just different.  Who says lesbians can't have children?  Many do.  

It is hard for me to understand the assumptions that you are making.  Do 
you not ever watch tv or read Newsweek/Time or other current event 
publications.  Many of these issues have been addressed on the tv, in the 
newspapers, on radio.  There are many books available that might help you 
sort some of this out. 
    

    I will never understand why so many straight men find the idea of two
    women making love exciting, and for some reason I find it very
    offensive.  I mean, I find the thought that some straight men get
    excited by seeing two women make love offensive.  I don't find the
    thought of two women making love to be offensive.
    
    But, I'm a straight woman and I'm not at all excited about the thought
    of two *men* making love.  I'm not offended by it either, but why
    should I be excited about it?  It has nothing to do with me.  They're
    not interested in me because I'm a woman, so I feel like it's not
    exciting because they only like other men and wouldn't be interested in
    me.  So, I just don't understand why straight men should be excited by
    the opposite scenario.
    
    Also, I have never understood why so many other straight people are
    bothered by seeing gay men and lesbians show affection in public.  I
    don't see it as any different than a man and woman showing affection. 
    Obviously, I don't expect to see any combination begin to have sex in
    public, but I don't see anything offensive about kissing or hand
    holding.  
    
    Lorna
    
    
    

    re: 700.15

    I would like to answer some of your questions, Hal, and also make
    some comments about your comments.
    
    "I personnally feel that you shouldn't have to "come out".  To me, 
    it is who you are!  The only thing I can say is that, by "comming out", 
    does this mean you want to be able to hold hands, kiss or something 
    infront of other people.  If not, then why bother "comming out" at all?"

    First of all, the phrase is "coming out" not "comming out".  It is a
    process by which people who interact with you are given information
    about your private life so the lesbian doesn't have to hide who their
    affectational partner is.  In other words, in the course of our daily
    activities, we talk about our weekend plans, our partner etc without
    hiding that we love someone of the same sex.  In my work group, we have
    a gathering on Fridays called "Weekend Check" where we each talk about
    what we are doing that weekend.  Sort of team building.  If I couldn't
    talk about my SO Diane, I would have almost nothing to say, or I would
    have to speak in generalities etc.  It is much better to be open about
    this.  I wish more people would come out, and show the rest of the 
    world how many of us there are.
  
    "I can see wanting to tell your parents about it though....It would
    be really too bad if they wern't willing to understand and still love
    you for who you are."

    Unfortunately, rejection is all to frequently the case.  Imagine if all
    your life you were told that heterosexuals were dirty, unacceptable,
    nasty.  This is what my parents taught me.  So for many years I tried
    to be someone I'm not because I didn't feel dirty, unacceptable, nasty.
    Telling the parents is probably one of the hardest things gay folks
    have to do.
  
    "Now, one thing I would say though, is that I don't think holding
    hands, kissing, pinching eachothers butts, etc in public would be
    right."
  
    How many times do you see adults kissing at the shopping mall?  Even
    if it's just a kiss hello or goodby.  How many adults do you see holding
    hands?  I for one like to see this.  There is too much hate in this
    world, so what's wrong with seeing some affection?  This is what Diane
    and I want.  But what if we were to hold hands in the mall?  Is that so
    offensive?  I don't think so.  We want to get legally married, so we can
    have the same benefits as legally married people, i.e. health insurance
    benefits, right of surviorship without the estate being taxed, family
    car insurance policies to get discounted rates, family memberships, tax
    advantages, next of kin status, and the list goes on and on.  We've been
    together almost 2 years now, we are soulmates, we are making a life
    for ourselves, but we have no legal status.  We're not allowed.  It's
    not like unmarried heterosexuals who choose to remain unmarried, they
    can make it legal whenever they want.    

    "But, if two women act like normal....whats the problem?"

    Who is going to define "normal".  You?  Are you to decide how I should
    conduct my life?  I think not.

    "I am very interested in lesbians.  They have allways made me
    wonder.  It sort of gets me exceited."
 
    Lesbians DO NOT exist to excite men.  In fact, men do not really figure
    into lesbianism.  Lesbianism is women loving women.  Not man-hating.
    There is a difference.

    "I want to ask a couple of questions though.....it is just hard for 
    me to understand why you would not want a man.  Is there some bad 
    experience?  Is it hormonal?  I could understand being with a man 
    and wanting a woman every so often.  Is it just better?  Its hard for 
    me to understand.  Does it bother you not to be able to have children? 
    or  is it that you don't want children?  Some other things that I 
    wonder.....is one woman more dominerring than the other or does 
    that mater?"

    Most lesbians do not want a man because he is not a woman.  Lesbians
    want to express their love and affection for women, not men.  It may not
    have anything to do with prior experience, it could be hormonal, I
    believe that it's genetic.  I was born this way, not environmentally
    influenced or a choice on my part.  I have a child, when I was trying to
    be a good heterosexual.  Some lesbians use artificial insemination.  If
    a lesbian wants a child, she can usually get one.  As in most of life,
    one partner may be more domineering, or they can be egalitarian in their
    relationship.  
    
    I was sorry to hear about your friend.  I'm sure he appreciated your
    friendship, but chose not to tell you about himself out of fear of
    rejection.  Homophobic jokes and comments can be very off putting,
    especially if someone doesn't realize that some of their audience 
    might be gay or lesbian or bisexual.  I'm not saying this is what
    you did, but you can never tell who we are unless we say something,
    i.e. coming out.  Nowadays, you rarely hear negative racial comments,
    but lesbigays are invisible, we are everywhere.  Something to
    think about.
    
    sue

    
    re: .2
    
    		Like I said, I didn't really know he was actually gay
    untill the funeral.  At the funeral, his brother got up and read a
    letter about his brother, in the letter, he mentioned some things 
    about how hard things have been for him.  Also, after his death, I
    talked with his mother and brother....evidently there was a letter
    left at the scene saying how tough it was for him.  Other than that,
    I would not have known.  Now after knowing now, I could probibly pick
    him out, just by the way he did certain things.
    
    	Hal
    

    The so-called "lesbianism" in men's porn is anything but.  It is almost
    always made clear to the audience that the situation has arisen because
    *there were no men around*.  It is important to convey the idea that
    these women will and do turn their attentions immediately to a man when 
    one happens on the scene.  And this is generally the kind of fantasy
    men have - lovemaking between women who are man-oriented, and who are
    displaying all the male-targetted symbols such as makeup, high heels, 
    flimsy underwear, etc).  Genuine lesbianism however, which excludes men 
    and generally eschews the male-targetted symbols of desire and 
    availability, usually triggers a different response in men.  As with
    heterosexual women, men's porn has painted a completely artifical
    picture.

    re:.3
    
    	Let me explain myself....what I was trying to say....you don't
    usually see two married people holding hands, kissing, pinching, etc...
    if you do, it is pretty rare, unless your at some resort.  
    	I really don't want to offend anybody by what I wrote and to tell
    you the truth, seeing two women hold hands or even kiss eachother in
    public wouldn't bother me in the least...two women together just
    doesn't bother me!  There are alot of other people out there though
    who don't think like me and I *do* understand where you are comming
    from.  Still, its hard for me to understand why.
    	About gay guys though.....it would and does bother me to see two
    guys smooching or whatever.  As far as them being a friend of mine, I
    don't see a problem in that.  I would just hope that they would *never*
    try anything on me!  If that friend ever did, I know things would
    change.
    
    	Hal
    

    	Let me explain myself....what I was trying to say....you don't
    usually see two married people holding hands, kissing, pinching, etc...
    if you do, it is pretty rare, unless your at some resort.

Sounds like you have a problem with "public displays of affection" regardless
of the sex(es) of the participants. That's ok - but please don't assume it's
a universally held attitude. I know it's not a common one among my circle of
friends, and it's certainly not the one my sweetie and I hold.

    	I really don't want to offend anybody by what I wrote and to tell
    you the truth, seeing two women hold hands or even kiss eachother in
    public wouldn't bother me in the least...two women together just
    doesn't bother me!  There are alot of other people out there though
    who don't think like me and I *do* understand where you are comming
    from.  Still, its hard for me to understand why.

Ok - but you do realize that your lack of understanding is *your* problem not
theirs? I'm sure that a number of us would be happy to help you with your
difficulty in understanding, we can be very sensitive about explaining
ourselves, but please also respect our feelings too. You seem to be trying, I'd
just like to encourage it.

    	About gay guys though.....it would and does bother me to see two
    guys smooching or whatever.  

Why? You do realize that this attitude is inconsistent with the one you express
above about women?

    As far as them being a friend of mine, I
    don't see a problem in that.  I would just hope that they would *never*
    try anything on me!  If that friend ever did, I know things would
    change.

Why? Would it be different if your friend was a woman? I assume that if a woman
friend "tried anything on you" that your relationship would change, would it
change in the same way?

One thing you might consider, gays and bis hear the kind of thing you're
saying all the time. We're very familiar with the attitudes you are expressing,
and it's neither new, nor particularly interesting to most of us. So please
be understanding if some people get a little "short" about it.

	-- Charles

	Here's a bit of a response to the base note.  
    
	First off, I'm glad you shared your thoughts and that you're being
    open minded.  Some of your statements/questions were kind of offensive,
    to me at least, but you are obviously trying to do the right thing.  We
    can all be offensive when ignorant.
    	That's one of the most important reasons, to me, for coming out.  I
    could probably hold hands with my lover most anywhere and people
    wouldn't even notice, as she has short hair and people will go a long
    ways to see us like they assume the world is.  However, as long as
    people do not know we exist, they will continue to do things that hurt
    us.  Some things by accident, some on purpose.  But, if everyone was
    able to say, oh yeah, I know so and so and they're gay, and it's not a
    big deal, then we would have more impact in resolving our problems in
    society.  
    	Most people who know me think gays should be allowed to be legally
    married.  Because they know my wife, they know I can't get benefits for
    her, they know we had a very hard time getting a joint credit card.  If
    I were offered a job in another country, I couldn't take it, since I
    couldn't bring her.  But before they knew me, they had never even
    thought about it.  Most were surprised, they thought for sure we could
    get married somewhere, like Nevada or San Francisco.  But now that they
    know me, and they know I'm gay, they are realizing things that would
    previously gone unnoticed.  Like sexist and bigotted remarks made every
    day here in valuing-differences land. 
    	There is so much legal discrimination against gays, not to mention
    violence, including murder.  Only a few months ago did the US decide
    they couldn't keep people out of the country for being gay.  When I
    went to Europe a year ago, I had to make sure I packed carefully, so I
    wouldn't be refused readmittance into the country.
	If we could just ignore anyone who bothers us and still lead safe,
    fair lives, we would love to do so.  But we can't, we must fight for
    equal rights.    	                                 
    	And don't bother being sexually interested in lesbians.  We are not
    interested in men when it comes to that.  And no, it's not some bad
    experience.  I had lots of boyfriends when I was younger.  Some good,
    some bad.  A few of whom I'm still very close to.  It's not really
    relavent.  It's something I did before I realized there was a better
    choice for me. 
    	As for why we wouldn't want a man, just think of why you wouldn't
    want one.  It's probably a lot of the same reasons.  (Simply put,
    because we want women, silly.)
	Is is just better?  For me, infinitely so.  It's a personal choice
    everyone should make.   
    	Some relationships have a more domineering spouse, the same as for
    straight people.  For us, the one who has the most experience in a
    particular situation will usually "lead".  Kind of makes sense, huh? 
    That's what I used to do with my boyfriends also, I don't think it's a
    gay thing.
	A lot of men have more trouble dealing with gay men.  Maybe it's
    because in society, men are set up to "take" sex, and women to "give",
    even if they don't want to.  So, if you know another man likes to have
    sex with men, and it is his stereotypical role to just take or at least
    be extremely pushy... I've found that men who tend to be a little pushy
    sexually are the ones most worried about gay men.  
	I don't know where you've been, but guys seem to be able to get
    hard ons with very little provocation.  A guy in the  shower could very
    easily be thinking of the last time he showered with his girlfriend. 
    Or in the case of your friend, maybe he was thinking of the last time
    he showered with his boyfriend.  Perhaps your other friend was
    flattering themself.
    
    	It's very difficult to be in a straight locker room with
    semi-strangers if you're gay.  Personally, I've yet to see a straight
    woman who I've been attracted to.  I don't really like that look.  I
    know straight women who I think are absolutely beautiful, but they
    don't get me all fired up.  I'm happy for them that they've developed a
    look they feel good about.  But I spend a lot of time looking at the
    floor in the old locker-rooms here at DEC, because most of my running
    buddies know I'm gay and the last thing I need is for them to think I'm
    scoping them.   It's hard to talk to someone and not look at them, but
    I try to do it.
    
    	More about coming out.  This is not really very important (to me),
    but it bugs me a little when I am mistaken for being straight.  How
    many straight people would feel comfortable if taken for gay?

    	About Penthouse, I used to look at the two-women pictorials. (I
    should have realized something was up, but I was well conditioned by
    society.)  I've never seen two of them that look like they're
    interested in each other.  They always look like they're trying to look
    exciting for men.  I doubt any lesbians feel any ties to those sorts of
    things, or find them very interesting.
    
    
    Rachael
    

    Hal, you seem to be equating Lesbianism with what you see in men's
    porno mags and porno films. This is not what it is all about. The same
    goes for Gay men or so I'm assuming. I believe that the only difference
    is that Homosexual women and men ( term used to include both) choose
    partners of the same sex, because they are attracted to those people.
    There is nothing wrong with it and I believe some of it may be
    hormonal. I'm not sure. If there wasn't some part of it biological,
    then I feel we would all be bisexual. Of course, I may be all wet with
    my reasoning. Anyway the point here is that the situation is the same.
    Les/Bi/Gays seek out partners they're comfortable with and are seeking
    what hets are seeking, someone that they can share every aspect of
    their lives with. Someone who will not only bring physical
    gratification, which anyone can get anywhere from most anyone or even
    alone, but also strong emotional interchange between the couple. 
    
    Hal, it's called love and everyone should be grateful just to know
    someone who can reach such a deep emotionally satisfying state. The
    fact that it's with a member of the same sex is just incidental to the
    fact of the LOVE.
    
    Phil

    
    
    >>What could possibly be attractive about hairy buttocks and dangling 
    >>genitalia, anyway?
    
           Where do you want me to start?  (-8
    
           (Sorry, couldn't resist!)
    
    By the way, I'm so proud of the lesbians in this conference who choose
    to be "out" in their noting.  You see far fewer gay men being "out" in
    MENNOTES.
    
    	Greg -- who's out to the world!
    
    
    

    
    >>	About gay guys though.....it would and does bother me to see two
    >>guys smooching or whatever.  As far as them being a friend of mine, I
    >>don't see a problem in that.  I would just hope that they would *never*
    >>try anything on me!  If that friend ever did, I know things would
    >>change.
    
    What is it about two men kissing that bothers you?  Does it threaten
    your "idea" of what masculinity is all about?
    
    I also get the idea (only reading between the lines here) that you're
    somewhat frighted by the thought of a gay man "putting the moves" on
    you.  Most gay men that I know (and I know a lot of them, being one
    myself) DON'T make it a practice of attempting to bed straight men.
    Further, most gay men DO know the meaning of the word "NO!!".  
    
    	Greg

*AAAaaarrrrrrrrggggggggggg*

i didn't need to ready this today.

All I can say is - how can y'all be so calm and reasonable about this?  How
do you nod and say "Yes, but let me carefully point out your misconceptions..."
and "I know you are trying..."  however do you fight the urge (or do you 
even feel it) to throttle someone when you read something like this?

Me, I avoid flaming by chanting to myself
"We're here, we're queer, we're fabulous, get used to it!"

Riled up,
D!

    D!
    	To be perfectly honest, that about sums up my initial reaction. 
    Along with, I thought it was 1991.  But hey, I tried to picture myself
    in his shoes.  He obviously doesn't know any better, and unlike many
    men in his situation, is willing to learn.  There is a time and a place
    to fight for our rights, but why do it that way when something more
    peaceful will work?
    
    Rachael

And another thing...

I get riled up when I hear "I wouldn't want some {fag|dyke|queer} puttin'
the moves on {me|my daughter|son|brother|sister|friend}."  

First: why not, what's the big deal?  Didn't you learn the word "no" in
kindergarten?

Second: don't flatter yourselves. Why are you so sure we would even *want* to
put the moves on you.

Third: most Lesbians (gay men, too?  I dunno...) aren't particularly attracted
to straight people.  Partially it is the "straight mindset" that is unappealing,
partly it is that who wants to get worked up over someone totally unavailable?
Hell, even in movie stars and other crushes-from-afar, women who are known to
be (or at least rumoured to be) Lesbians are more popular with Lesbians than
others who might be just as attractive.  

fourth: I live in dread fear of coming on to a straight woman.  No one wants
to get rejected!  To get rejected with an "Ick that is *soo* disgusting" would
be even worse. If I am attracted to someone (straight or otherwise) the last
thing I want to do is produce a fear or disgust reaction in them.  I have to
be practically 100% sure that a woman is interested in women to even get up
the guts to *think* about asking her out.  Do you have any idea how many
potential dates I missed because I was so cautious about making absolutely
100% sure she was a Lesbian or bisexual before I talked to her?  Attitudes
like "Gays are fine as long as they don't come on to *me*" are a major part of
the problem.

D!

    
    
    D!
    
    But you can't and won't help people understand by yelling at them and
    being intolerant of their niavet�.
    
    Take a calm breath and help EDUCATE.
    
    How can you expect someone to be tolerant of you if you're not being
    tolerant of them?
    
    
    It has to start SOMEWHERE.
    
    kath

    re .20 Your statement implies (I assume unintentionally) that those
    of us for whom 'homo lovesex' simply holds no interest have no
    chance of learning 'what it is to be fully human...'. I would 
    dispute that. One could as easily say the same re. those who
    reject 'vive la difference'. And be as wrong. Whatever being
    'fully human' is, it probably has more to do with _self_ acceptance
    than ones choice of emotional/sexual partner(s).
    

    
    
    re .17
    
    I'm straight
    I'm great
    only men
    will I date
    
    get used to it!
    
    bonnie

    re .23
    
    Why are you attacking D!?  She wasn't having a problem with people
    being straight, just people saying rude things to us?
    
    Rachael

>Take a calm breath and help EDUCATE.

yeah.  Right.  Kath, I have taken many, many, many calm breaths, to get down
to the work of educating.  Sometimes taking a calm breath isn't enough.
Sometimes it doesn't help.  

>How can you expect someone to be tolerant of you if you're not being
>    tolerant of them?

Ya know, I see this argument so often!  "If you want this you have to do that."
But if "this" is a fundamental human right, then there is no "that" you should
have to do to get it.  I *should* be tolerant of others.  Others *should* be
tolerant of me.  both those statements are true, but they have nothing to
do with eachother.  They are not linked, and one doesn't have to happen for
the other to be right.  I refer you to the infinitely wise Judith Martin
(aka Miss Manners) who always says that rudeness is no justification for
rudeness.  I don't attempt to justify *my* rudeness/intolerance by saying
"s/he was rude/intolerant first", nor will I accept justifications of other
people's rudeness or intolerance with a "Well you were rude first, what do
you expect?"

Also, I do *not* believe that all differences must be tolerated.  I feel no need
to tolerate prejudice.

>    But you can't and won't help people understand by yelling at them and
>    being intolerant of their niavet�.

Who says my goal is to help them understand?  Sometimes I am unabashedly
selfish - my goal is to make myself feel better.  *gasp*  

I have yelled at nobody.  My "arg" was just frustration at having to deal
with reading this.  I haven't addressed any comments at all to the person who
caused me consternation in this note.

>It has to start SOMEWHERE.

But not here, and not with me.

D!

    re: .23
    
    Unfortunately, we are used to it.  It gets shoved down our throats
    every day, in every conceivable manner possible.  Just how many ads in
    magazines or on TV do you see that feature lesbigays?  Zero.
    
    sue

>   I'm straight
>    I'm great
>    only men
>    will I date
    
>    get used to it!

I'm quite used to it, thanks.  My mother, most of my female friends, almost
all of the women I meet at work and in on the street date only men.  If
I weren't used to it, I'd be leading a very unhappy life right now.

>I'm proud too

That's great.  I don't think anyone should be ashamed of hir sexuality, or
in fact, of being who they are.  You should be proud of who you are, and if
anybody else can't deal with it, they have a problem.  Straights are 
fortunate enough that in most situations, no one teaches them to feel ashamed
of their straightness, and therefore it never occurs to them. 

Bonnie, I might be misinterpretting your note, but the fact that you addressed
your chant to *me* seems to imply that you are defensive about the chant
I posted, and I don't understand why.

D!

    
    re .23 -- Made me grin!  I think everyone should be proud of who they
              are and whom they love.
    
    D!  I felt some of your anger, too, and I think it's fine to say you're
    angry (as you did), but I'm glad that folks are able to listen to each
    other and respond calmly, too -- I think both are possible:
    authenticity and peace!
    
    The "... get used to it!" quotation D! cited comes from Queer Nation,
    a radical gay-rights/visibility group.
    
    Justine
           

    re .17, .18
    
    agreed. I found myslef squirming at the base note, but, I found myslef
    harkening back to a note entered earlier, by, I believe, Peggy:
    
    - Do not attribute to malice, what can be attributed to stupidity
    - Do not attribute to stupidity, what can be attributed to ignorance
    and
    - Do not attribute to ignorance what can be attributed to a moment of
        inattention.
    
    IMO, the basenoter has a long way to go, but ignorance is curable.
    
    And as, usual, this noting community has given me much to consider in
    my OWN attitudes and outlooks.

    
    
    re .28
    
    I've seen you post that "chant" before... I just wanted to share mine
    
    
    bonnie

    
    
                 Uh......I don't want to derail this topic but I was
    wondering.....Is 700 just for Women?  And is this one only for Men?
    
    
    Dave

    
    
    RE:   .33
    
    It is very hard to maintain one train of thought over two topics.  Many
    conferences have tried, few have succeeded.
    
    
    I have a question!  When a lesbian gets hit on by a man, does she feel
    comfortable "coming out" to him right on the spot or does she just say
    "Buzz off bozo?"
    
    N
    

    in re .33
    
    no dave, it just sort of evolved that way
    
    bj

    Heh heh.  Usually I will come out to a man who asks me out or
    otherwises expressed interest in me.  If figure, if he is a nice guy, I
    want him to understand that it isn't him personally, but his gender,
    that I object to going out with; and if he is icky, then I want him to
    leave me alone for once and for all.  Coming out generally achieves
    both these aims.
    
    When I was in Las Vegas for DECUS last December, a really slimy fellow
    started following me and asking me personal questions, which I answered
    in a curt and evasive but polite way.  He didn't get the hint when I
    was cool to him, and eventually worked up to "Do you want to get
    together later this evening?"  I said "No, thank you, I'm a Lesbian." 
    He looked stunned!  Then he started asking me questions: "Does that
    mean you don't sleep with men?"  "Yes".  ("yes, you Moron, what do you
    think it means???")  "Do you hate men?"  "No." ("Well, maybe *some*
    men....")  "Have you ever had sex with a man?" "Yes".  ("What, are you
    volunteering?  As if having sex with a man would suddenly make me
    straight???  You jerk!")  "And you like women better?"  "Yes.  Don't
    you?"  ("I've been waiting *months* to use that line!!!")  :-)  [No, he
    didn't go away, I eventually had to literally walk away and ignore him
    totally.]
    
    D!

    oh D!  is it kosher for a het woman to use those lines??? :-) :-)
    
    ok, ok, so it's been years since I've had the, uh, opportunity to
    employ such wit on the unwelcome attentions of such a one...  still, it
    gives one a certain sense of satisfaction to imagine the expression on
    his face...
    
    we married het women who don't travel for business, we live such a
    sheltered life...
    
    Sara

RE: basenote-Hal

Hal,when I first read your note I was pissed off and angry and had to walk
away from it for a few minutes to re-collect my thoughts.  The first
thought that went through my mind was "oh no, another heterosexual man
wanting to get off by hearing about women making love to women".   Since I
don't know you, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're
just trying to better understand lesbians and the lifestyle we lead. 
    
>>>    	First off, I have to say that I think it is great that the lesbian
>>>    group of women can feel at ease to write in this notesfile!  

I think it's great too!!!

>>>    After
>>>    reading some of the responces, I feel very badly for those on the topic
>>>    of "comming out".  It really must be tough.  I personnally feel that
>>>    you shouldn't have to "come out".  To me, it is who you are!  The only
>>>    thing I can say is that, by "comming out", does this mean you want to
>>>    be able to hold hands, kiss or something infront of other people.  If
>>>    not, then why bother "comming out" at all?  

First of all, coming is spelled c-o-m-i-n-g and "coming out" is spelled
"c-o-m-i-n-g  o-u-t". I don't know if this was a typo or if you were trying 
to make a statement by misspelling the term.

There are many levels to "Coming out". It can mean coming out to oneself,
coming out to friends,family,co-workers and coming out publicly. It can
happen at any age and a homosexual person can be in denial for many years
before coming out to oneself. You're right, it is tough but I won't feel so
badly for homosexuals coming out. It can also be a very joyous and peaceful
time. A time to love and accept yourself for who you are. I think coming
out is a never-ending process. I think it's something I'll be doing for the
rest of my life at one level or another. It's stressful but the more I come
out, the easier it gets. 

And don't think because someone is coming out that they're a depressed,
suicidal person that you should have pity on.  I'm the happiest I've ever 
been right now! 


>>>   I would say SCREW everyone else who is bothered
>>>    by it.  I wouldn't let it bother you.  

That's not easy to do when homosexuals are being bashed and treated like
sick, disguisting creatures. You may not have a problem with it but a lot
of people do and they won't mind if homosexuals were put in front of a
firing squad.  In WWII homosexuals were put in the gas chambers along side
Jewish people. This is true although it's not in a lot of history books.
Lec Walenza (sp?) of Poland made a comment last summer ago about
homosexuals. He said that we should all be "exterminated". My reaction when
someone is attacking me is to fight back. So I will let it bother me and I
will fight back.

>>>    	Now, one thing I would say though, is that I don't think holding
>>>    hands, kissing, pinching eachothers butts, etc in public would be
>>>    right.  I figure you would have to be willing to take the glare of
>>>    others.  

Hetereosexuals don't need to worry about being stared out if they hold 
hands in public so why should homosexuals?  

>>>	I look at it like I would look at the teenagers "first love"
>>>    type of thing.  Ya know, seeing two kids petting eachother in public.

Huh? What are you saying here? Are you trying to say that homosexuals just
haven't grown up yet? Well, I've lived 27 years and I've been a lot
of places,seen a lot of things, done a lot of things and I consider myself
mature. So this isn't a phase I'm going through. 

>>>    A person would glare at them, sort of saying with their eyes....stop
>>>    it.  But, if two women act like normal....whats the problem?  I don't
>>>    see one.

How are women supposed to act normal? Are we supposed to never touch each 
other or sit closer than two inches to each other? I'll decide what's 
normal for me. I don't need someone else to tell what's normal.

>>>    	I am very interested in lesbians.  

So am I %-) :-) Bisexual women too %-) :-)

>>>   They have allways made me wonder.  It sort of gets me exceited.  

Always is spelled a-l-w-a-y-s and excited is spelled e-x-c-i-t-e-d. I 
suggest you use the DEC speller for your notes.

I'm very annoyed by men getting off on women-to-women sex. Lesbians don't 
have sex with each other for the pleasure of men. 

>>>	I want to ask a couple of questions though.....it is just hard for me to
>>>	understand why you would not want a man. 

Well, it's hard for me to understand why a woman won't want to be in a
relationship with another woman :-) Do you think that men are so superior
to women that women just can't live without a man? This is an insult not 
just to lesbians but to women in general. Women are wonderful human beings 
whose qualities and strenghts often times get belittled by society!

What's so dirty and disguisting about woman-to-woman relationships? In my
experience women are cleaner than men, smell nicer and taste better! They
also give much better massages :-) 

>>> Is there some bad experience?  Is it hormonal?

Sexuality really fascinates me. I don't really know what makes some people 
homosexual, others hetereosexual and still others bisexuals. And I think 
there are others who don't fit into any of those labels but just fit
somewhere between them.

I think some homosexuals are oriented that way (i.e. they were born that
way) and some others may *prefer* to live the lifestyle for whatever
reason.  There may be lesbians who live the lifestyle out of curiousity.
There may be lesbians who live the lifestyle because of a bad experience
such as rape or sexual/physical abuse. But rape and abuse aren't just
problems that lesbians have or have had. These are problems that affect
*everyone*, hetereosexual,homosexual,bisexual,men,women,childern. Lesbians
may be more vocal about these problems but it doesn't mean that the
hetereosexual population hasn't experienced these problems too.

And then there are lesbians who were just born lesbians. I've never been
raped or sexually/physically abused. I've been with some really decent men.
I've dated some men who were jerks but then again I've dated some women who 
were jerks. So it works both ways.

>>>    I could understand being with a man and wanting a woman every so often.

Huh? I don't understand this thought at all. A women's sexual and/or 
emotional experience doesn't have to revolve around a man. If a woman 
chooses to be with a man that's fine. I don't have a problem with that at 
all. But a woman can be sexually and emotionally fulfilled with another 
woman.

>>>    Is it just better?  Its hard for me to understand.  

I assume you're talking about sex here. I won't say that women-to-women sex
is better than women-to-man sex. It's different and for some folks it may
be better and for other folks women-to-man sex may be better. I think the
level of satisfaction one gets from sex has to do with the people involved
rather than whether it's a homosexual or hetereosexual act.  For me,
emotional closeness and sexual satisfaction are tied together. So when I'm
feeling close to someone my sexual experience is much better. Of the
relationships I've had, I've felt more emotional bonding towards my women
lovers so my sexual experiences there have been more enjoyable. 

There are times when I just want to be sensual without sex and I have found 
this easier and more enjoyable with women than men.

>>> Does it bother you not to be able to have children?  or  is it that you 
>>>  don't want children?  

Lesbians can get pregnant and have childern. I'm not interested in getting 
pregnant. I like kids and if I ever decided to have some I'd adopt. Even if 
I was hetereosexual I think I'd still feel the same way.  There are a lot 
of homeless childern in the world that don't have parents.

>>> Some other things that I wonder.....is one woman more
>>> dominerring than the other or does that mater?  

No, not necessary. Lesbians can have multiple orgasms either way %-0

>>>    	On the other side of things....the gay guy.....for some reason,
>>>    this really bothers me.  I guess its mainly the sexual thing....I see
>>>    no problem with two guys loving eachother, but the sex act itself, I 
>>>    just can't handle.  It even bothers me to think of two grown men
>>>    kissing each other.

Why do you think it's OK for two women to sometimes have sex together but 
not two men? What's wrong with two men loving each other? I love gay men!
I wish there were more of them in the world. Most of the ones I know are 
very loving and sensitive and many are also good cooks ;-)

>>>  	I still don't know what I would have done had he told me
>>>	he was gay before he killed himself.

Listening is a start, even if you couldn't have understood it or accepted 
him for the way he was.

Peace to you Hal.  I hoped you've learned a few things here. At least 
you've learned how to spell "coming" ;-)

Laurie    

    
>>> By the way, I'm so proud of the lesbians in this conference who choose
>>> to be "out" in their noting.  You see far fewer gay men being "out" in
>>> MENNOTES.
    
    Thanks Greg! 
    
>>>    	Greg -- who's out to the world!
    
    Bravo!!!!
    
    Laurie

    
    
    I've been tempted, but I don't think I would ever come out as a lesbian
    as a way of saying no to a man who expressed interest in me.  For one
    thing, if he's coming on to me, he must have a thing for dyke-ey women,
    so coming out may not have the impact I'm hoping for.  Plus, if the guy
    is really invading my boundaries, giving him personal information about
    me is likely to make me feel more creepy, not more empowered.  The best
    I ever felt in a situation like that was when a man was hanging around
    a friend and me.  He actually put his hands on our table and started 
    talking to my friend.  I said "excuse me" to get him to look at me, and 
    then I looked him right in the eye and said, "We don't want to talk to 
    you."  He left.
    
    Of course, I'm talking about dealing with strangers that you have no
    interest in spending time with for any reason (which is what I assumed
    D! was talking about).  If I had a friendship with a man and he
    expressed romantic interest in me, I might come out to him, but that 
    would feel more like sharing that part of my life with him than an
    attempt to turn him off.
    
    Also, one of the things I hope for is that orientation will stop being
    such a big deal.  You ask someone out on a date, and s/he says yes or
    no, and it's about you and him/her, not about orientation at all.  I
    suspect that if there were no stigma attached to what gender your
    partner is, many more people would experience same-sex (romantic)
    relationships at some point in their life.  I've known women who have
    wished their dear woman-friend were a man, so she could marry her!
    Why wait?  :-)
    
    Justine       

    I *love* your P_N, Justine!  (*8
    
    E Grace

    Re: .25
    
    > my goal is to make myself feel better
    
    A noble goal indeed, D!  Unfortunately there are those who put this
    goal into practice by making themselves feel better than the other person.
    
    Mary

RE: .19

>>>	fourth: I live in dread fear of coming on to a straight woman. 
>>>	No one wants to get rejected!  To get rejected with an "Ick that
>>>	is *soo* disgusting" would be even worse. If I am attracted to
>>>	someone (straight or otherwise) the last thing I want to do is
>>>	produce a fear or disgust reaction in them.  I have to be
>>>	practically 100% sure that a woman is interested in women to even
>>>	get up the guts to *think* about asking her out.  Do you have any
>>>	idea how many potential dates I missed because I was so cautious
>>>	about making absolutely 100% sure she was a Lesbian or bisexual
>>>	before I talked to her?  Attitudes like "Gays are fine as long as
>>>>	they don't come on to *me*" are a major part of the problem. 


AHHH!!! I have enough trouble asking out someone I know is a lesbian
or a bisexual woman :-) Nevermind asking out someone I'm not real sure
about. I still feel somewhat uncomfortable around a lot of
hetereosexual women regardless of whether or not they know I'm a
lesbian. I'm real careful about what I say around them and would only
flirt with them if they started to flirt with me and I was interested
in them. I wish this wasn't the case because I'm probably missing out
on making a lot of nice friends. Maybe as I come out more I'll get 
more relaxed about this.

RE: .32 (bisexuality)

>>>    	Somehow the idea of intimate relationship (for many of us) starts
>>>    with strong pair-bonding that most people feel is threatened by another
>>>    equally strong pair-bond ...  Many men tend to feel "threatened" more
>>>    by an attraction of their mate toward the female gender because they
>>>    don't feel they can effectively "compete" with female pair-bonding.
    
Excellent point! Female pair-bonding can create very strong ties.

RE: .36

I think it's flattering that a man would ask me out. I might come out
to him if I felt comfortable enough with him knowing. If I didn't feel
comfortable enough then I'd just say something like "I'm not dating
men right now" or if I had a lover then I'd just say "I'm involved
with someone else". My sexuality is my own business and I'm really
only open about it to promote lesbian visibility not because I think
everyone needs to know. 


Laurie

    After reading the basenote, I think that as a straight woman I must
    respond.
    
    The thought of 2 men together doesn't do much for me either. The sight
    of 2 men hugging or kissing does not leave me with a warm and fuzzy
    feeling. I might add that there are plenty of sights that do not leave 
    me with a warm and fuzzy feeling... Eating liver for instance. I don't
    see how anyone could eat that stuff. I mean it just isn't natural to
    me. I'd rather not see anyone do it and I'd rather not hear anyone talk 
    about doing. And take football, for instance. Take it...please. That 
    doesn't warm the cockles of my heart either. How coud anyone perform
    such a barbaric ritual?
    
    I guess there are plenty of things that people do that don't tickle
    my fancy. But If I'm going to spend all my time and effort putting down
    people who like to do things that I don't like to do, I don't think I'd
    have a minute's peace. Because I don't like it and I don't do it doesn't
    mean that it isn't right for someone else. Some of my best friends are
    liver-eaters.
    
    Kate 
    

    re.700.38
    
    [I'm rather obviously not male, but this is certainly a
    reaction/response, so it's here rather 700.n]
    
    I must say that I read the article you posted with mixed feelings.
    
    Pride of self and the obvious answers to dumb stupid questions had me
    going "YES!"  Certainly, I don't think that lesbians & gays want -- way
    down deep -- to be heterosexual; de-bunking of this myth is long
    overdue.
    
    But then the article seemed to take a rather smug turn [for lack of a
    better word].  It even hurt my feelings a little [although I know I
    wasn't its specific target]  The implication seemed to be that, really,
    gay people were 'better' at the things that mattered -- perhaps I
    should prefer to be a lesbian.
    
    As a woman in a 'man's field of endeavour', I am very familiar with the
    group validating behaviours and their positive re-inforcing effects
    when one feels under siege.  I believe that it is good, but that
    someday I must discard this and move into 'Annie does this better than
    XXX' on my own merits.
    
    I'm not critical of the article or posting it; I'm giving my response
    from the heart.
    
      Annie

    Another opinion on turning down men who are interested.
    
    I believe that I have the right to say "no" to whoever asks me out, and 
    I shouldn't have to give a reason.  Obviously, if I say no, it's
    because that's my answer.
    
    We do not owe an explanation to others for refusing to become their
    girlfriend or date them.  Same way we shouldn't have to carry a gun to
    prevent rape.  "No" should be enough.  Any further explanations depend
    on your relationship to the person asking, and how you want them to
    feel about your answer.  
    
    I've always thought that saying "I've got an xfriend" is lying when you
    are really saying no because you wouldn't date them even if you were
    single.  It's just a shelter to hide behind, and I'd rather stand on my
    own.   Same way for being gay and/or married.  I don't tell a prospect
    no, I can't date you because I'm gay or married.  I don't have an 
    electronic collar on that will shock me if I get too close to another
    person who's not my wife, even if they're male.  I don't date men 
    because I don't want to, same as I don't date other women anymore.
    
    Rachael

    Rachel, you are right.  I have been bothered by my earlier, flip reply,
    since almost as soon as I entered it (and have been too lazy to go back
    and find it, too :'} ).
    
    It doesn't happen to me much anymore, but I remember so clearly how
    wearying it is to be hassled by a man (in my case) who just can't
    believe that you would turn him down!  Maybe it shouldn't have to be
    anything more than "no", or "no thanks"; but sooner or later I'd get to
    the point that I just wanted to blast away at such unwelcome
    attentions.  (This happens in lots of kinds of human interactions, btw;
    you don't want to be around when my kids whine for the 14th time in an
    hour that it's not FAIR that they can't have FunFruits EVERYday!)
    
    Sara
    

Well, I certainly don't feel uncomfortable just saying "no", especially 
if the person is just a random person (as opposed to a friend.) However,
in the previously mentioned interest of Lesbian visibility, I do usually
come out to people who ask me out.  In fact, I try to come out to everyone
I ppossible can - asking me out just gives me an easier lead-in than 
some others.

Also, if I can't say "No, I'm taken" because I wouldn't date that person 
even if I wasn't, then I can't say "No, I'm a Lesbian" if I wouldn't date
that person even if I wasn't.  If we follow that rule, then the only possible
reason you can give (if you indeed want to give a reason) to not date someone
you aren't attracted to is "No, I'm not attracted to you."  While that might
be the perfectly honest answer, it somehow seems needlessly cruel.  If
the person asking is someone I expect never to see nor hear from again, why
not just say something "nice" so they can leave feeling good about themselves
and not too rejected?  While it isn't *as* honest as saying, perhaps, "No,
I think you look like the creature from the black lagoon" it isn't lying 
either, and seems more friendly.

I know how hard it is (for most people) to ask other people out and face
rejection.  So many people spend so much time *not* being straightforward
that I want to encourage those who get up the guts.  I do so by, in general
(unless the person is being a jerk) by being very nice and nonjudgemental
in my rejection.  For me, this means giving *some* sort of reason - a bare
"no" is bound to leave the person confused and questioning themselves.

A "No thank you, I'm not available" is basically universally true.  Whether
you aren't available because you have a lover, or because the person is of
the wrong gender, or because they aren't attractive to you - either way, it is
true and a nice way of saying no.

D!

    Re .48: Well, actually, Miss Manners says you *don't* need to provide
    an explanation. "No," or "No, thank you," or (for those who find "No"
    too terse) "No, thank you, I'd just love to if it were at all possible,
    but I simply can't." (Although, now that I think of it, "I'm not
    available" certainly sounds very much like "Madame is not at home,"
    which is perfectly legal Mannerese for "Madame is not receiving
    visitors, and it's none of your business whether it's because she's in
    the bathtub, in a solitary mood, or in Venice".)
    
    She also says you should just keep repeating the above if the inviter
    demands a reason why you're refusing a date/dessert/drink/extra helping
    of Liver au Velveeta, but I figure that anyone who keeps asking after a
    couple of polite "No"s deserves whatever brutal honesty or flippant
    remark you choose to give. ;-)
    
    -b

    
    It seemed to me, though, D! that you ended up answering a lot of
    personal questions (so you don't sleep with men, have you ever slept
    with men, etc.), and that would make me feel icky... to have such
    a personal conversation with a stranger I was trying to get away from.
    I think it's a personal decision how to handle these things.  I'm just
    finding that it's more important to me (especially lately) to
    establish and defend clearer boundaries for myself, and talking about
    my sexual history with some guy I didn't want to talk to would
    definitely cross the line for me.
    
    Justine

    
    Personnally, I have had a few men here at work, say how interested they
    were in getting involved.  Now, everyone here knows my sexual
    preference, and, with some, it's talked about and no hard feelings. 
    BUT, with others, the attitudes are, "Why not, I have what all wymyn
    want".  Then I pewk.....well, not really, but, guffaw with them.
    
    I've had experiences in a bar where a man would by me a drink, (without
    asking btw) and all of a sudden, the drink is in front of me, the first
    sip I take, and the guy is sitting next to me.  I'll talk to anyone
    about anything and when the conversation turns to going out with this
    guy, my answer is, "Thank you, but, you're really not built right."
    Some get it, some don't.  All end up hurt because I accepted the drink
    and had no intentions of anything else.  I assume this happens in the 
    heterosexual world, and I guess if you accept the drink, that means
    you're interested?  I've never had any trouble relating to men as far
    as explaining my preferences.  Either they understand, or they don't.
    It usually ends up in a heavy-duty conversation and pleasant "hello's"
    the next time we may run into each other.
    
    My feelings are, I'm honest with myself first, then, I can be honest
    with the world....I love to talk about my gaeity and have found that
    most guys are willing although not liking it as much as I.
    
    Nancy
    
    

    Justine, I agree. I think having to go into my sex life with someone
    just to let them know I wasn't interested would make me feel very
    strange. It ain't nobody's business but your's, your partner's and
    whoever you might feel comfortable talking about it with, and hboth
    should agree that it's alright. If a man cannot accept a gracefully,
    politely done "no", then he has a real problem. Same for a woman.
    I sure some of the our les/bi/gay contributors have had to turn down a
    member of the same sex because that particular individual didn't appeal
    to them personally or else you were in a monogamous relationship at the
    time.
    
    Nancy, those particular men are lewd, disgusting, and are leaving
    themselves open for career destroying sexual harassment charges.
    I, being somewhat innocent, pure, and underexposed to the world, (yeah
    right sure Phil. No, really.)might not understand the phrase; "You're
    not built right" I've never heard it used in this context. So, others
    might not understand it either. I might take it as an affront to my
    physical nonperfectness. (All right. All right. My gut. OK satisfied)
    :-) I'll tell you what, though. I absolutely love the term "gaiety"
    that you used to describe you're preference. I believe I have only
    heard the term gayness and didn't really care for that. Although, it's
    not my choice because I'm not gay and don't and shouldn't have a say in
    that. It's just that gaiety sounds to me, in this context to have both
    meanings of the word. One your own chosen sexual preference and also a
    happy acceptance of it. I smile just thinking of the term used that
    way.
    
    OK folks. Here's where he rambles. A term I do have some trouble with,
    and if others want to use that's their business and their right, is
    preference used as in sexual preference. It just sounds like first
    choice and if not available will take whatever else is handy. I think I
    like the word choice. Not 1st choice, but only choice, accept no
    substitutes. This doesn't apply to bisexuals, of course. If I'm wrong
    here and anger anyone, my apologies up front. Preference has been used
    in this context for a long time, if memory serves and may be the words
    of..... choice. (AAAARRRRGGGGHHH He said it folks, choice. POW! BLAM!
    Shoot to kill) Ok enough.
    
    SET MODE=Shut up for now.
    
    Phil

>    preference used as in sexual preference. It just sounds like first
>    choice and if not available will take whatever else is handy.

Yes, Phil, a lot of gay folk feel the same way, and it is currently
unPC to use "preference" in the gay community, ofr just the reasons 
that you mention.

I, as a bisexual dyke, like to say that my orientation is bi but my preference
is Lesbian.

in my more ranchy moods, I say my orientation is Lesbian, and my preference
is for leather and whipped cream.

In my totally ridiculous moods I say my orientation is horizontal and my
preference is RIGHT NOW. 

:-)

D!

>in my more ranchy moods, I say my orientation is Lesbian, and my preference
>is for leather and whipped cream.

    Ranchy?  Leather?  Sounds like you should find yourself a
    permanent relationship with a cowgirl.
    
    --bonnie

    RE: .53 (D!!)
    
    >>> leather and whipped cream
    
    So where was the whipped cream last Sunday night at Man Rey ;-)?
    I mean you had on all that (well, actually not all *that* much)
    leather.
    
    Laurie

    I thought D! meant to say ranchy.  I don't understand why she
    misspelled "salad dressing" as "whipped cream."
    
    Jim

    Just some thoughts in response to much of what has been read
    here...
    
    First of all, I am straight and I can say I understand the plight
    of the gay person, but I really don't.  I don't really understand
    gay rights, but then read about things like life-threatening bashing,
    lack of legally recognized marriage, the issues around adoption and
    on and on.  Then I kind of get a click and say "yeah, there is a need
    here for recognition of this group of people and their rights", but on
    the other hand, I'm very turned off by extremely radical
    groups/displays (btw-this turn off applies to anything radical on
    display, not just this issue).  Sometimes I feel like a ping-pong
    ball.
    
    Of course, I had mixed reactions about the basenote and while I
    wasnt' insulted by it per se, (I interpreted Hal as being brave
    enough to ask about something he understood in order to learn, not
    to put down, devalue or get off on hearing of lesbian experiences.)
    as I'm not a member of the group which may have felt <whatever> in
    reading his questions.  But, then, I get upset when I read a note
    like D!'s.  I can understand anger and I can even understand that
    it's not your job to educate people.  However, I do feel that the
    only way some misconceptions hets have of les/bis/gays will only 
    be cleared up if people who are les/bi/gay are willing to talk about 
    their experiences instead of saying, too bad, get used to it.  I mean,
    yeah, there's a lot of anger there for the way society treats you
    (generic) in the gay community, but if somebody isn['t gay and is
    truely trying to learn and value you for your difference, can they
    be blamed for their ignorance?  How can I KNOW what it's like to
    be gay if I'm not, and how do I know if I'm being unintentionlly
    offensive if I'm not involved in that community?  
    
    About men getting into the lesbian sex fantasies:
    
    I do agree that the mag pictorials in mens' mags are geared to the
    man and that he figures in the picutre eventually.  I don['t think
    it's so much that the men think women are lesbian to excite them,
    but that they don't actually really think of the women in such 
    pictures as BEING lesbian.
    
    RE:  being hit on my a same sex person
    
    Yes, it probably would make me feel uncomfortable or feel awkward
    if a woman hit on me, but no more so than if a man I didn't find
    attractive did so too.  For me anyway, it's kind of hard to resume
    even banal conversation after rejection.  Do I live in fear of a
    lesbian hitting on me---no ( but then again  a lot of men don't
    either! )
    
    A few (hopefully non-offensive questions) on the flaunting issues...
    
    Do people really feel that a het woman wearing a wedding band/
    engagement ring or referring to their husbands or kissing spouse
    hello/good bye is truely flaunting, or does this reaction come 
    from the frustration that les/bi/gays experience at being so 
    limited in the way society will recognize them?  I realize there
    are many who raise a stink about the gay community flaunting 
    their gaiety (I liked that term too), I'm not one of them, so
    I don[t really understand this flaunting business.  When it comes
    to PDA's I personally consider it tacky if ANY couple is really
    getting hot and heavy, but hey, I think that problem does exist
    more in the teenage world.  The "normal stuff"  holding hands,
    a peck here in there, no big deal.  But, yes it is because it
    opens you (generic) up to possible harm.  Would I hurt you, no,
    but not everyone else would feel that way.  Do I think you shouldn't
    behave affectionate in public, no, but I don't know how to keep
    you from being persecuted by people who would harm you.
    
    I'm just really confused by this whole issue, and as I said
    earlier, I'm not les/gay/bi and therefore this subject isnt'
    (on rights) necessarily something I would put my energies into
    in the same way because it isnt' my lifestyle (hate that word,
    but couldnt' think of another)
    
    Just a note, this is probably a little unfair, but I did it anyway.
    I've recently taken new responsibilities here at work and have
    very little time for noting.  If people want to flame me, I may
    not be able to respond for some days.  If people want to contact
    me by mail (ASABET::RAINEY) that's easier as it wouldnt' involve
    reading through X# of notes to follow this string, but my time 
    is still limited.
    
    Christine

    re .57, Christine, and others, notably in regard to D!-
    
    Just using your words for springboard, no intent to flame.
    
    > Of course, I had mixed reactions about the basenote and while I
    > wasnt' insulted by it per se, (I interpreted Hal as being brave
    > enough to ask about something he understood in order to learn, not
    > to put down, devalue or get off on hearing of lesbian experiences.)
    > as I'm not a member of the group which may have felt <whatever> in
    > reading his questions.
    
    Yes to mixed reactions.  I rather felt that Hal *didn't* understand,
    which is why he asked.  He gets points for asking, rather than (as so
    many have done (not here, but in our society)) blindly condemning.
    
    >                         But, then, I get upset when I read a note
    > like D!'s.  I can understand anger and I can even understand that
    > it's not your job to educate people.  However, I do feel that the
    > only way some misconceptions hets have of les/bis/gays will only 
    > be cleared up if people who are les/bi/gay are willing to talk about 
    > their experiences instead of saying, too bad, get used to it.  
    
    
    My reactions don't match yours.  As a "het" (your term), I think I learn
    just as much, if not more, from seeing an honest, hurt, emotional
    reaction to such ignorant questions, as I do from the careful answers.  
    [I don't mean "ignorant" as an insult to Hal; but as a descriptive term.  
    He didn't know, ie, he was ignorant, about the emotional sensitivities 
    of the people he was asking about.]  Anyway, D!'s reaction teaches me 
    just as much as those careful, oh-so-cool replies, from people who 
    restrained themselves, bore the emotional cost internally, and answered 
    Hal's questions.  I give substantial credit to the folks who did so 
    restrain themselves in the name of Hal's education; and I similarly value 
    D!'s contribution, which was also an education, for those with the eyes 
    to understand a person by witnessing how they could be hurt, what makes
    them angry.
    
    > I mean, yeah, there's a lot of anger there for the way society treats 
    > you (generic) in the gay community, but if somebody isn['t gay and is
    > truely trying to learn and value you for your difference, can they be 
    > blamed for their ignorance?  How can I KNOW what it's like to be gay 
    > if I'm not, and how do I know if I'm being unintentionlly offensive 
    > if I'm not involved in that community?
    
    I don't see where "blame" has to enter into it.  Hal asked ignorant
    questions; D! reacted emotionally and with hurt.  Both are honest; both
    can be understood; neither needs to be forgiven.  As long as Hal shows
    some process towards education, towards learning how his questions did
    do some damage, then nobody needs to worry about blame.  We learn from
    each other, and we carry on.  D! needs no forgiveness for being hurt
    and saying so; she deserves credit for her honesty.  In my eyes.
    
    DougO

    re .57
    
    >> life-threatening bashing
    
    I just wanted to point out that it's not just life-threatening.  It's
    life-taking, we are being murdered for no other reason then our
    sexuality.  It's not just a threat, it's reality.  I have a letter at
    home which I'll type in on this later.
    
    Rachael

    rep:
    
    Rachel-
    
    Thank you for pointing that out, I did indeed look over the fact
    that it's gone beyond threats of harm to ones life, but loss of
    it as well
    
    Doug
    
    You were correct, I meant to say something about Hal not understanding
    rather than understanding.
    
    I see your point on reaction to D!'s note.  I still don't agree share
    your reaction.  I agree that she's brave to show the hurt etc and value
    what she has to say.  It's good to express the hurt, but if I
    unintentionally do//say something which is considered insulting and
    I get a response of I'm hurt, those things aren't true, you are
    ignorant, I'm gay/les/bi, get used to it and no explanation as to what
    I said that offended, then, I'M sorry, but I won't get used to it.
    
    Christine

Re: .57


Is a woman wearing a wedding band flaunting? Talking about her husband? Saying
how cute the guy who just walked by is, or that Patrick Swayze is to die for?

No, that's not really flaunting, but if a gay person does the corresponding
things, they get shocked stares, snide remarks, and they're told that they're
flaunting their sexuality.

That's where the remarks come from - there is a double standard and we're tired
of it. *I* want to be able to kiss a man in public and draw only smiles.

	-- Charles

    re .61
    
    I think I'm the one who brought up a wedding/engagement ring set as
    flaunting.  I meant exactly what Charles says.   If I wore a shirt that
    had a pink triangle on it, I would be accused (have been accused) of
    flaunting my sexuality.  Heaven forbid I should mention my *WIFE*!!! to
    some people.  The reaction is "I don't want to know about what you do
    in bed."  Trust me, if I was telling people what I do in bed, they'd
    know it...  
    ...I just want to be able to speak in a conversation with the
    same rights as straight people, without people reacting to my lifestyle.
    I generally tend to do it anyways, for the same reason I have been
    writing in notes lately, but it's not a comfortable situation and I
    don't always feel safe doing it...         
    ...For example, I cannot chit-chat in a business  meeting the same as
    others, because if the people present are strangers I don't want them
    to be so hung up on the fact that I'm gay that they can't concentrate
    on the technical aspects of our conversation. 
    ...And yes, I know, not everybody mentions their SO by name or gender
    in corporate chit-chat, but many people do and I would probably be one
    of them if I could.  I am not cagey by nature...
    
    Rachael                       

	There was a time when I thought that the world pretty much fit
	my smug sexual categorizations. In my map of reality you were gay,bi
	or hetro with a lot of subcatagories within all that, for flavors
	of leather to lace, choices to obsessions. From my smug frame of 
	reference I would then layer on my expectations of what behaviors 
	would naturally be exhibited by the person I had so categorized.

	Looking back now I knew that my whole 'house of cards' was based on the 
	assumption that there existed such a thing as a 'sexual norm'. From my
	perception of that norm all my judgments would flow.

	Silly me.

	I have since cast off this myth and have enriched my relationships
	with others somewhat. Not too bad, it only took me thirty plus years
	or so...and now approaching forty I wonder what other silliness I'm 
	operating from?

	My humble reaction to the interesting discussion at hand.

	MAC

	

>if I
>    unintentionally do//say something which is considered insulting and
>    I get a response of I'm hurt, those things aren't true, you are
>    ignorant, I'm gay/les/bi, get used to it and no explanation as to what
>    I said that offended, then, I'M sorry, but I won't get used to it.

Why not?  Why do you need to *understand* to get used to it?  The whole
point of "get used to it" is: you don't have to love us, you don't have
to understand us, and whatever you do to us, we are here, we have always
been here and we will always be here, and we will continue living, loving
and fighting as long as we are, *regardless*!  Since we will be here 
forever, any problems you have are yours, so...get used to it.

I have no obligation to explain anything.  99 times out of a hundred, I
*will* explain - I have gotten involved in many long dialogs with ignorant
people and homophobes. Some days, however, I don't have the time or energy.
The day I wrote the note in question, I just didn't *feel* like dealing with
another phobe.

And the note *was* phobic.  It was *not* innocently ignorant.  It was *not*
unjudgementally questioning.  In fact, it was hardly questioning at all.
The basenote author *said* he had a problem with male homosexuality, and
that female homosexuality excited him.  Both of those things are offensive -
they weren't questions, they were statements.  Maybe education would help, maybe
it wouldn't.  I educate, every day.  I educate implicitly everytime I kiss
a woman in public, explicitly whenever I engage a homophobe - do you have any
idea what a burden it is to be an educator, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?
Do you have any idea what it is like to *live* your politics??

You have said, and the basenoter said, and other people have said that you 
don't "understand" homosexuality.  SO THE F*CK WHAT?!?!  I might, out of the
kindness of my heart, see fit to grant you knowledge, but if I don't, that
doesn't mean my rights should be abridged. I don't understand why people play
golf, I don't understand why people drive Cadillacs, I don't understand why
people watch wrestling on TV and I don't understand why people like green 
peppers.  But I don't have to understand *why* or *how* or even *who* to support
the right of these people to do these things.  Why do you need to "understand"
to not be 'phobic? 

re:the "flaunting" question....it is just a matter of double standards. many
people claim that when gays hold hands or kiss in public that they are
"flaunting", and yet they themselves do the same things.  Either kissing
and holding hands *is* flaunting for both orientations, or it is for neither.
I don't care which you define it as, just be consistent.

As a sex-positive person, I think it *isn't* flaunting, I think it is a natural
expression of human closeness.  I think if more people showed affection and
love in public, the world would be a better place.

Also, imagine being very hungry for ice cream, but not having any money to
buy any.   But everyone around you is eating ice creams cones, making noises
about how delicious it is, etc.  that is how many gay people feel - hetero
sexuals have the support of society, they get all the fringe benefits, and
we don't.  So it is easy to resent those who have those benefits when I don't.
I'm not saying the reaction is *right*, but it is natural.  Sometimes,
when I see a straight couple in club or walking down the street, gazing
into each others eyes, cooing at eachother, holding hands and being cutesy
I want to go up to them and shake them and yell  "You have no idea that you
are being cute with the permission and support of society, do you?  If I
did the same things you are doing, I would risk getting bashed, and at 
very least I would be accused of 'flaunting'.  Why can't *I* do it?  And
you don't even appreciate how privileged you are in being able to do that!!"
I never do, but the urge definitely hits.

D!

    Rachael, if you wore a shirt with a pink triangle, most heterosexuals
    wouldn't even understand the  significance!
    

    
    The whole "get used to it" stance smacks of an incredible arrogance
    that most people in the majority certainly aren't used to from a
    minority group.
    
    If you were over 7 feet tall, you would not tell car manufacturers and 
    door carpenters to "get used to it". If you were left-handed, you would
    not call up scissors manufacturers, and desk makers, and say "get used
    to it". It is their loss, indeed, for not recognizing a new market, but
    its not their problem for being different, its yours. And if you are
    *choosing* to be different, then it is all the more ridiculous to
    expect to be accomodated. It is more reasonable to make the choice
    based on the real liabilities of minority status which will come with
    the real joys of your difference.
    
    After over 400 years in this country, there are plenty of white folks
    who aren't used to black people. There are plenty of Christians who
    don't tolerate Jews. Midgets and dwarves get stared at on streets, even
    though Danny DeVito has made his money.
    
    I seriously believe that there are positive and negative ways to go
    about establishing rights, as a minority. Saying "get used to it"
    doesn't sound like one of those positive ways. To me, it sounds like
    someone who is momentarily in a position of power, pretending that
    minority status is not a position of weakness.
    
    D!, in this conference, the lesbian community is very strong. Strong
    enough to exert power. And I think you're letting it go to your head.
    I honestly don't believe that you would say "I'm a Lesbian by choice,
    get used to it!" in the middle of a crowded homophobic bar. However, if
    you truly believe that your right to be different is so important that
    you'd willingly be beaten up for it, then I have you pegged wrong.
    
    ... Fact is, I've pretended to by in a position of power plenty of
    times in Blacknotes. So I guess I should shut up.
    

This morning I got that stupid Tony Orlando and Dawn song
stuck in my head, and now I have a craving for an ice cream
cone!!!


Kathy

    But the 7-foot tall person, and the dwarf, and the left-handed person
    DON'T have a choice.  That's HOW THEY ARE.  Just like lesbians and
    gays.  It's NOT a choice.  
    
    I guess hearing "get used to it" goes hand in hand with "we've always
    been here and we'll always be here", which is to say "hey, you are not
    going to change us, and your shutting us out is not a good thing. 
    We're on this earth, and we'd really like to be accepted and have the
    rights and privileges that people who are different from us have."  But
    it is a demand, not a request, which may turn a lot of people off. 
    Then again, those people who might be turned off by "get used to it"
    could well be the same people who got turned off by a more gentle
    request, so there may be no big loss there.  
    
    -Jody
    

    
    re .64
    
    
    
    
    
    No, I don't have to *understand* to accept, but I do have to
    understand to change.  
    
    I don't have to 'grok' (any fans of R Bradbury out there?) you or your
    life to rationally confirm your right to personal freedoms, but it does
    help to have my ignorance illuminated and understand how the *normal*
    (highlighted because it is not normal, just common) way of treatment is 
    hurtful.
    
    ==jamd

    Jody, I agree!  I can understand being tired of feeling devalued for
    what one's choices are in life.  It's very sad that people are made to
    feel that way for any reason.  I understand perfectly what would bring
    a person to say "get used to it!".  I am not offended or taken aback
    by this, and would hope others could understand as well.  I couldn't
    even begin to imagine what life would be like with all the issues that
    are involved here, to have to worry about what I say for fear of
    reprisals, which could even be life threatening!  I stand in support
    of many of the people who have written here, and just wish that could
    be enough, but it isn't.  I do offer my support, for what that is worth
    though!
    
    -HA

    re .65, regarding the pink triangle, last summer I helped a friend of
    mine who is an antique dealer do some shows.  He specializes in
    selling glass and also sells contemporary jewelry made out of blown
    glass.  Anyway, last summer he had a pair of earrings where one earring
    was a large pink triangle and the matching earring was a pink triangle
    with a person hanging from it.  I asked him if he knew what pink
    triangles stand for and he had never heard about it before!  He had
    bought these earrings to resell and had no idea there could be any
    significance to the pink triangle.  I wondered who would buy the
    earrings, and they were eventually purchased by a young girl about 12
    yrs. old, who was with her mother, and I don't think they had any idea
    that there was any special meaning to the pink triangle.  I wondered if
    I should mention it to them, to avoid any potential embarrassment for
    the girl in case she wasn't a Lesbian, which I doubted at her age, but
    didn't think my friend would appreciate missing out on a sale, so I
    didn't say anything.  Sometimes when certain groups choose a certain
    symbol for their case it can be potentially embarrassing for other
    people who don't know about it!  I saw a beautiful pink rhinestone
    triangle pin in P-town last summer, that I would have loved to have
    bought to wear on my denim jacket but, not wanting to give the wrong
    impression and dissapoint anyone (just kidding!) :-), I passed it up.
    
    Lorna
      

    in re .69
    
    'grok' is from Robert Heinlien not Ray Bradbury! ;-)
    
    Bonnie

    
    Jody, I cannot believe that there is NEVER an element of choice in a
    sexual partner. My understanding is that lots of people are in the
    middle on "orientation". People for whom sex with a person of the
    either gender is not repulsive, and is possibly welcome. These people
    are making choices.
    
    But the point is not relevant. And I certainly chose examples to side
    with the people who have no choice. That was my point, to illustrate
    that people who are different don't usually SAY "get used to it".
    I think there are many more "borderline" people than you think. People
    without a strong opinion, who will be influenced by their own
    experiences. Imagine the difference in their perceptions of lesbians if
    they meet Justine vs. D!  From noting style alone, I can't imagine
    Justine ever saying "I'm Lesbian, GET USED TO IT!" Even if she's
    thinking it.
    
    Then again, maybe its my socially-training: "A woman should not be
    strident" alarm going off. I am a firm believer in valuing differences.
    But I don't think it includes unnecessary offensive/confrontative 
    positioning on the parts of the people with difference. Maybe its
    because I've been black longer that D! has been a lesbian. Maybe its
    because I come from a family of black people. But I just don't think
    that confrontational behavior accomplishes much in the long run. I
    think it forces the pendulum forward until opposing forces bring it
    back to smack you in the face.
    
    The late sixties is a perfect example of offensive/confrontative
    positioning. Take a look around, look at Bensonhurst, etc., and realize
    that the pendulum has swung back, and hard. Reagan repealed civil
    rights bills, busing is being re-examined as a negative influence,
    Affirmative Action is being scrapped away to nothing, and not nearly as
    fast as most white male conservatives would like to see it go. But ON
    TOP OF THAT: black people now have a new reputation as an ugly brute
    force which can turn on society. We are Willie Horton.
    
    Offensive/confrontative positioning wins short-term battles, and it
    feels good, too! But as a long-term strategy, it sucks.

    Lorna, most of the pink triangles I've seen have a black border, or are
    on round buttons which are black.  I think its still safe to wear the
    pink triangle alone as a simple fashion statement, especially if you're
    12.

    
    Just to interject a little something here....
    
    I recently was fortunate enough to pay a visit to San Francisco and
    The Castro.  I was *finally* able to enjoy ALL the priveleges that
    "staight" folks enjoy EVERY day of their life.  That is being able
    to go into restaurants, theatres, drug stores, gas stations, all the
    daily routines we *all* do and hold hands, arm-in-arm, kiss, an
    affectionate hug from and S/O.  All those things I don't get to enjoy
    on a daily basis.  Nobody laughed, made faces, no remarks and I truly
    felt free.  It felt soooooo good, I'm moving there.  On Apr. 1st
    I will be on the road to a more freedom orientated life.
    
    How many times has your husbands or wives leaned over in the car and
    given you a kiss, or a hug, held your hand while walking down a street.
    Those are things that gays cannot not enjoy without fearing a life
    threatening situation.  It's just affection for two people.  That's
    all.  We have to gather enmass with "our own kind" in order to enjoy
    those privileges.
    
    .02
    Nancy
    
    

    
    With regard to how les-bi-gays (ought to?) respond to homophobia they
    encounter... I'm really glad for the diversity in responses.  I can
    respect that some straights are turned off by the "arrogance" of Queer
    Nation's "get used to it" chant (some les-bi-gays are offended by it,
    too).  But I'm glad that some of us are willing to be out on the edge,
    leading the parade.  I'm also glad that some of us are willing and able
    to answer the questions (questions that sometimes really sting and annoy) 
    with openness and patience.  It's just that we can't all be there all
    the time.  Some of us are tired, angry, hurt, bored, afraid, whatever.  
    And if this society is really going to accept us as full human beings, then
    that means that we can be tired, cranky... sometimes, too.  And, just
    like straights, we bear the responsibility for the consequences of our
    'attitudes.' -- but no more than anyone else should.
    
    I acknowledge and admire the courage it takes for lesbigays to attend
    pride marches and rallies, but think about the courage that it took for
    the very first man or woman to call up city hall and ask for a permit
    to hold the very first rally?  I think it would take a great deal of 
    self confidence, pride, even arrogance to do what would be a tiny
    administrative detail for a mainstream group.  I may not always be
    comfortable out on the fringe, and I may even disapprove of some of
    what the radicals do to gain visibility and recognition for our right
    to exist, but I am grateful for the work they do, and I think the
    discomfort we all feel from time to time is good; it challenges us
    and makes us think about things we might not think about otherwise.
    
    I don't owe anyone an education (anymore than anyone owes me one), but
    sometimes I can listen and stop and respond gently, and I wish more
    people could see that the time I spend educating them is a gift and not
    an entitlement.
    
    Justine                                                           

    D!
    
    I dont have to understand to accept, I dont' even have to get used to
    it.  I can ignore the entire situation since it doesn't affect my life. 
    I won't, but neither will the issue become something I'll passionately
    lobby for.  But I will not be railed at by somebody for a
    misunderstanding when that person hasn't got the courtesy to tell me
    why they may be upset with me.  That I won't get used to because to me
    it's rude no matter what your culture/creed/race or orientation is.
    I also get the feeling that you were implying that I'm homophobic
    since I can't accept without understanding.  I never said I didn't
    understand why people are gay.  As many have said, they just are, so
    I have not problem with that.  I don't understand why this is such a
    hard thing for many people to deal with, the fact that you (generic)
    exist.  There are people who do need to understand, I don't think
    that's such a bad thing, obviously you do.  Thats not my problem, it's
    yours.  Just a different perspective.  
    
    Christine

    re .74, well, Lauren, I didn't say that it wasn't "safe" for a 12 yr.
    old girl to wear a pink triangle.  I just felt that it was sort of
    ironic that she was buying it and that neither she nor her mother
    seemed aware of the significance.  I'm sure it was "safe" in that I
    don't think she would come to any harm by wearing it.
    
    However, I'm sure it wasn't a coincidence that the pink rhinestone
    triangle pin I liked was for sale in P-town!  I'm sure it was
    eventually purchased by some trendy young dyke (if I can use that word
    not being one myself).  I just don't feel right about wearing jewelry
    that has a symbolic meaning that doesn't apply to myself.  I don't wear
    crosses, either, because I don't think of myself as Christian, and I
    don't wear a star of David because I'm not Jewish.  So, I wouldn't wear
    a pink triangle either.
    
    Lorna
    

Part of the difference between being gay, and being seven feet tall, a dwarf, or
black, is that being gay doesn't show. It's not that car manufacturers don't
know about tall people or dwarfs, it's not that all white organizations don't
know about blacks.

But gays, bis, and ESPECIALLY lesbians are "invisible." That is a large part of
what we're fighting for - visibility. That's what "We're here, we're queer, get
used to it" means. Just what it says - we're here, we aren't going to go away,
we are no longer content to be invisible. When we die, we want our life
partner's name in our obituaries - and not as "longtime companion." We want the
right to get life and health insurance for our spouses. We want the right to
not be discriminated against. We want the society to acknowlege our right to
simply exist. That means stopping people from killing us just for what we are.
Simple things. Basic things. Important things.

	-- Charles

    Congratulations, Nancy, and welcome to Northern California.
    
    DougO

    
    
    re .72  OUCH!  you're right!  sorry. Monday morning brain problems

    Personally, I would imagine a rhinestone pink triangle would more
    likely be bought by a middle-aged queen then most trendy young dykes 
    I know, but that's a whole separate issue.  Let's not pursue it.

    You people (writing about the triangle) completely missed my point. 
    It wasn't the triangle that mattered.  OK, say I'm wearing a shirt with
    a pink triangle under which it says, in small but not tiny letters, Gay
    Pride 1990.  That, to me, is about as subtle as a "rock" set.  But
    people can wear their rocks to work.  Somehow, I think if I wore such a
    shirt to work, a prohibitively large number of people would think I was 
    flaunting, thus making it inappropriate.  But my 10K and rugby
    tournament T-shirts, the same genre but different events, are "OK".  
    	
    I object, with much sincerity and having been hurt daily by it, to the 
    double standard.  I hope people will see beyond the semantics to get my
    meaning this time.

    Rachael

    re .82, why do you say "Let's not pursue it" in regard to the pink
    rhinestone triange business, after dismissively making the comment that
    you think it would be more likely bought by a middle-aged queen?  It
    seems to me that you want to make certain that I don't know what I'm
    talking about.  I get the feeling that you want to make me feel like a
    kid who said something wrong without knowing any better.  I find this
    defensiveness difficult to understand.  (So, I guess my taste is more
    in common with middle-aged queens than trendy young dykes.  Well,
    frankly I suspected as much anyway.  At least we both like men and
    feminine clothes.  But, so what?  Why the need to put me down?  And,
    what's wrong with middle-aged queens anyway?)
    
    I get a mixed message from some Lesbians.  First of all you accuse
    straights of not wanting to accept you, but then when we ask questions
    or show any sign of ignorance you leap down our throats.  It's like, on
    the one hand, you accuse us of not wanting to accept, but then when we
    make an attempt to connect, it seems as if you say things to make me,
    anyway, feel as though it would be hopeless for me to ever even attempt
    to understand.  Anything I say is wrong.  I've had this feeling before
    in relation to blacks and Jews, too.  
    
    I consider myself to be as open minded as people get, but I was born
    white, straight and protestant, and I can't help that anymore than
    anybody else can help what they were born.  I'd like to understand
    people who are different from me, but if I am immediately dismissed
    because a middle-aged, straigt, WASP, I'll never have a chance to
    understand anything.
    
    For what it's worth, the phrase "Get Used To It" didn't offend me at
    all.  I think I am used to it, and what's more I could care less what
    other people's sexual orientation is.  I just think it's nice when
    people have options.  I think it's nice that men can date other men and
    that women can date other women.  I like the idea of people having
    choices.
    
    Lorna
    

    being lesbian is NOT a choice, no more than being black is a choice.
    
    where choice comes into play is whether an individual, after
    identifying their orientation for themselves (a very difficult
    process), chooses to act on that realization, either overtly or
    covertly.
    
    I tried for years to be straight, i had countless boyfriends and even
    had a child as a result of one "friendship", all in an effort to be
    straight.  But I wasn't straight.  I could "pass" but i still wasn't. 
    At age 28, i identified myself as bisexual, at 30 a lesbian.  It was
    then that i "chose" to live as a lesbian full time, no more hiding, no
    more lies, no more inner turmoil.  i finally felt like the real me for
    the first time in my life.  What a relief!  What freedom!
    
    I have found my soulmate, we will be married, not legally but there are
    things we can do to legally bind ourselves together, but still not to
    the extent that heterosexuals have access to.  We really wish we could
    be legally married.  i can't say anything more now, the pain is getting
    to me again.
    
    sue

    re: .83
    
    Lorna,
    
    i think the pink triangle is associated with the "silence=death"
    statement, the symbol comes from the holocost where it was an
    identifier of gay men.  lesbians wore black triangles.  anyone can wear
    the pink triangle as a supportive gesture, not as an identifier as to
    orientation.
    
    i don't have one because i hate the color pink and do not own anything
    pink.  but i support the symbol.  i sometimes think "gay-identified"
    when i see it, but not always.  if you want to make a fashion statement
    and a political one, feel free to wear it.
    
    sue

    re .84, that isn't what I meant by choice.  I don't really know how to
    explain what I meant.  I guess the closest I can get to it is that even
    though most Lesbians may not consider it a choice, the fact is that if
    homosexuality becomes widely accepted as a valid way of life then it
    could be viewed as a choice for some people.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re: Lorna (.83)
    
    I think I understand your frustration at the defensive tone of 
    some recent notes.  One thing I'd like to clarify is that in the
    Real World, lesbigays must defend our orientation, choices, love,
    sexuality, short hair, hairy legs, fashion, symbols, our *lives* 
    much of the time.  It is second nature, unless we are somewhere 
    safe like P-town or San Francisco or at a lesbigay rally.  We 
    have to defend ourselves to straight, misunderstanding friends, 
    to our (oftentimes condemning) parents, to society in general.
    Please understand that sometimes it just can be too much.  We're
    here, we're queer, but we're also human, with shortcomings, short
    fuses, bad days, and fluctuating emotions.
    
    Now, if only the world were as accepting as you are ...
    
    Carla
    

    re: last
    
    i suppose i should have addressed my reply to Lauren as she was making
    some assumptions regarding choice.  I guess it could be a choice for
    some, like when some feminists in the 60's and 70's chose to be lesbian
    for "political" reasons.  But most of those women went back to men.  I
    would like to see homosexuality widely accepted as a valid way of life,
    i don't feel invalid, i feel like me.
    
    i would have liked to see positive role models when i was growing up, i
    might not have had the painful life i did.  it's hard to hear that a
    lesbian is dirty, sick, mentally ill, gross, nasty and so on and to
    know that's what you are from the time you are young, but you don't
    feel that way but you must be because everyone says that.  can you
    understand?  my mother thought that all black people were communists
    because of Paul Robeson.  that wasn't true either.
    
    i could say that i describe myself many ways:
    
    i work at dec
    i own my home (me and the bank) :)
    i have a daughter
    i own two cars
    i am in a relationship
    i pay taxes
    i pay my bills
    
    without saying anything more, most may say that i am a successful
    responsible person.
    
    now add lesbian
    
    how many think that, ugh! a man hater, sicko, perverted, child molester
    
    does one thing negate all the rest?
    
    my mother still thinks so, my life would be perfect if only i met a
    nice man and married him and provided a father for my child.  nevermind
    that i could never be happy with any man, that my SO and i are showing
    my child a healthy emotional relationship and how happiness can be
    achieved with the right "person".
    
    sue

    
    re .88
    
    I don't think my assumptions are so wrong. SOME women are Lesbian by
    choice. Some women are NOT.
    
    Is there a problem with me saying this? Does it cause problems for the
    women who are NOT Lesbian by choice? I have tried not to make a
    generalization. Where did I miss?
    
    If I am bisexual, and choose never to date women, then I am "het" by
    choice. If, on the other hand, I choose to date only women, even though
    men are very sexually attractive to me, then I am Lesbian by choice.
    
    Now, this is the message I'm getting, where did I go wrong???
                                     

    
    Hey, Lorna.
    
    Just when I was feeling comfortable about having said that I hope
    straight folks will consider our (lesbigay) hurt feelings, anger, etc.
    as part of their education, you make me sit up straight with your
    comments about how we sometimes assume that straights couldn't possibly
    understand, so don't even bother.  I think I understand some of where
    my own defensiveness about that comes from, but I appreciated
    hearing your response to it.  Thanks.
    
    About the issue of choice v. not a choice, I think that's fuzzy because
    while it is necessary to _choose_ to acknowledge to ourselves that we
    are lesbigay, our feelings: our love of women or men or women_and_men,
    just are; they're not chosen anymore than any other feelings (anger,
    sadness, joy) are chosen.  Sometimes I think my own defensiveness
    around the word choice or preference comes from some of my internalized 
    homophobia.  It's not my fault; I didn't choose to be this way.  But how 
    I'm feeling now about it is: Well, if I didn't choose it, I certainly would 
    if I could.  To some extent, we all choose our lives (gay, bi,
    straight), but because of the stigma around homosexuality, most folks
    don't consider all the options before they make their choice.  I'm not
    saying that every woman would be a lesbian if she could, but I bet more
    would.
    
    Justine                       

Does anyone really need to *understand* Lesbians ?

Can we ever get past worrying about the differences,
and just accept the fact that inside everyone is a person
that deserves respect, and requires acceptance ?

    re.91
    
    thankyou!thankyou!thankyou!thankyou!thankyou!thankyou!thankyou!thankyou!
    
    does everyone need to understand?
    hardly!
    
    when someone wants to open up to me and help bridge some gap, I listen
    as carefully as I can ... but often I still don't understand.
    
    and then sometimes I get laughed at because I don't understand ... it
    sort of hurts my feelings; because I do try to, I just don't
    
      Annie

    re .91  This is really the whole point:  accept everyone.
    
    I'll take it one step further.  If you can't accept *the idea* of
    homosexuality (or heterosexuality or sexuality of any kind), you'll
    never know whether or not it applies to you.  I've turned that idea
    inward on yourself--the homophobe can never know whether s/he is
    is gay or not!
    
    The person who cannot embrace a universe of sexual posibilities can
    never discover their own sexuality.
    
    I as an individual need to be open to others, so I can be open to
    myself.
    
    Elaine

    Is there a difference between being offended by seeing two men kissing
    and being offended by someone saying that female homosexuality excites
    him?  Why did I get the impression from this discussion that the latter
    offense was justified and the former not?
    
    I fully agree that "getting used to it" is a good strategy, but I think
    it applies equally to both sides of the fence. I have found that it is
    more effective to get used to others than to get all upset because others
    will not get used to you.
    
    -Mary (who wishes people would accept each other, but for survival
           reasons has accepted that some will not)

    .91 No, I don't need to understand Lesbians. I do need to accept them.
    I don't have to accept them, but I need to because they are here and
    they are human beings, and many of them (most of whom I know from this
    file, but one or two that I know from outside of work) if not all, are
    very much worth getting to know as people. I don't feel threatened, not
    because I understand, I don't totally understand and can't ever expect
    to, but because I want to and am making the attempt. Just about the
    only way I can see where it makes a difference what a person's
    orientation is, is if I'm in the company of a gay man and I don't know
    he's gay. I might make some damn foolish comment about a attractive
    woman we see and it might make him feel uncomfortable. He might not
    show it as he might not be out, but it would make him uncomfortable
    anyway. It's just a dirty rotten shame that there are people in this
    world that will cause harm to another person because they are different
    in some aspect of their behavioral makeup or physical being. If we
    could only see it from that persons point of view, then maybe we
    wouldn't have all the problems that we do in this country. I know that
    this is an idealist attitude, trust me, it's not a naive attitude. I
    know that there are people and always will be people who fear the
    unknown so much that they will never take the oppurtunity to get to
    know a person for what they are. Justine, if I couldn't get past you're
    being a Lesbian, I would never know what a magnificent singing talent
    you are. I thank the creator for allowing me to accept and by doing so
    giving me the oppurtunity to experience that talent. I use you here
    Justine, because you are the only Lesbian in this file that I have met
    in person, that I was aware of their orientation. (I hate that word,
    but don't have a better one at hand.)  I'm never sure if all that I
    write makes sense but I'm trying. Thanks for listening.
    
    Phil

    re: .89
    
    Lauren,
    
    you ask some good questions regarding choice.  i'll try to answer if i
    can.  if you need more clarification, please feel free to continue to
    ask questions. :)
    
    this is how i view the heterosexual to lesbian world.  i personally
    think that people fall into categories, but make choices based what
    they want to do.  9that sounds mixed up even to me)  let me try to
    describe:
    
    heterosexual woman who never has emotional or sexual attachment to any
    other woman.
    
    heterosexual woman who sometimes has emotional or sexual attachment to
    any other woman.
    
    bisexual woman who never has emotional or sexual attachment to any
    other woman.
    
    bisexual woman who sometimes has emotional or sexual attachment to any
    other woman.
    
    bisexual woman who always has emotional or sexual attachment to any
    other woman.
    
    lesbian who always has emotional or sexual attachment to any other
    woman.
    
    lesbian who sometimes has emotional or sexual attachment to any other
    woman.
    
    lesbian who never has emotional or sexual attachment to any other
    woman.
    
    Now, the above operate on the assumption that women are born in one of
    those 3 categories, heterosexual, bisexual, or lesbian.  That is the
    assumption i operate on, that we are all born with an innate
    orientation.  how we individually choose to act on our innate
    orientation is where choice comes in.  so, Lauren, i think we are
    actually saying the same thing, but are coming from maybe different
    starting assumptions.
    
    if sexuality in all its forms was treated as a natural occurance,
    instead of some "right" and some "wrong", then it wouldn't matter so
    much how we define things.
    
    i just wanted to set the record straight for those who think that
    homosexuals could be straight if they really wanted to and really tried
    to, to understand that who we are is not a choice, but how we act on it
    is our choice.
    
    wow, so much stuff so early in the morning.  braindead!
    
    yours for understanding,
    
    sue

    Sue,
    
    maybe it was a problem with my choice of words. I was calling all women
    who love women lesbians. I guess in my mind, some are "part-time" and
    some are "full-time". You only named two categories of women as
    lesbians. One of those categories still has some measure of "choice"
    without being completely repulsed. The other doesn't.
    
    You yourself spoke of women who dated other women during the height of
    the feminist movement, and then went back to dating men. You don't seem
    to consider those women lesbians. But to me, they chose a lesbian
    life-style, even if it was only a temporary one.
    
    I also get the feeling that the existence of these women who "choose"
    annoys a lot of lesbians who are not choosing, but are simply trying to
    be themselves.
    
    I sense that this is a semantics rathole, and to continue with it would
    be antagonistic. So, I'll bow out. At best, I can only have an outsider
    view, and I'll bet that if I *chose* the lesbian lifestyle tomorrow, it
    wouldn't go over so well. However, I'm very well aware that the choice
    is open to me. I guess its because I'm not on the sexual orientation
    fringe, but a bit more in the middle. 
    
    I also get the feeling that bisexuals often tell the "non-choice"
    lesbian/gay community to "get used to it" and that its a sore spot.
    It makes some sense that people who aren't choosing would be
    uncomfortable with people who are. 
    
    Reminds me of some of these up and coming white bands who have black
    sounds. The number of blacks in the music industry who hate those
    bands, or feel threatened by them, and are antagonistic toward them is
    huge.  Its a feeling of "we have enough to deal with in being a
    minority and not choosing to live our lives branded as lazy-scufflebutts, 
    poor druggies, and Willie Horton look-alikes, without having to watch
    as some bunch of privileged snot-nosed white kids come along and try to
    mimic the few positive things that we feel are OURS, without having to
    take the Sh*t that goes along with it!"
    
    Okay, okay, I'll be quiet now.

    
    It's like, nobody asks to be born.  In the same sense, nobody asks to
    be born gay.  BUT, here comes this child, boy or girl, treated like a
    boy or girl, and all of a sudden, this boy or girl realizes that they
    are different.  When a couple has a baby, (be honest now), is there
    ever a thought that this child may grow up to be gay.  I doubt it.
    The furthest thing from a parents mind is that this child could be gay.
    There's a very real possibility that that child could be gay.  How
    will you deal with this?  Will you deal with it?
    
    As far as choosing to be gay, I didn't.  I didn't ask or choose to be
    born gay.  Here I am.  I'm gay.  Now, how do I deal with it.  I'm just
    me.  I'm easy to deal with.  What the hardest part of my being gay, is
    dealing with society's feelings towards my being gay.  It's not a 
    problem for me, why has society *chosen* to make it a problem?
    
    Through this file, the male/female couples out there, planning a
    family, can learn to deal with their child being gay.  Understand, it's
    the same child you loved as a baby, nurtured and taught lessons of the
    world to.  Finding out your child is gay does not change that child
    into somebody else.  They are the same human beings YOU brought into
    this world.  We are ALL products of a heterosexual relationship.  All
    in the same boat if  you ask me....
    
    WHEW!
    Nancy
    

    re .98, I find it interesting that you assume that all heterosexual
    couples would be upset if they had a child who turned out to be gay or
    Lesbian.  It wouldn't bother me in the least if I had a child who
    turned out to be gay or Lesbian.  So far my 17 yr. old daughter has
    shown a rather strong (to put it mildly) interest in males, but if she
    should later on realize that she is bi or Lesbian I don't think it will
    upset me at all.  I would find it interesting and want to discuss with
    her how it all came about.  
    
    I *would* be very upset if my daughter decided to enlist in the
    military, become a policewoman, or a member of the clergy, but those
    are my own personal hangups.  But, Lesbian, no problem.
    
    As far as choosing sexual orientation goes, I think that everyone is
    born with a certain sexual orientation and then can make certain
    choices based on that.  But, in a way, it would really make sense to me if
    everyone were bi-sexual because when I really stop and think about it
    it seems restrictive to limit romantic partners to a certain sex, in
    the same sense that I've always found it restrictive to limit romantic
    partners to a certain race.  People are individuals regardless of sex
    or race.  I was brought up to think that my romantic choices were
    limited to white men, and I don't see why society should have the right
    to impose a rule like that on me.  I don't see why I shouldn't have
    grown up thinking I could date anyone I wanted (as long as it was
    mutual) regardless of race or sex.  I guess this is what I mean when I
    say that I like knowing that I have options.
    
    Also, I was thinking that just as there may be some Lesbians who living
    a straight life style because of the difficulty of being homosexual in
    our society, there maybe some straight women who choose to be Lesbians
    because they are sick of trying to deal with men.  I wouldn't really think
    of this as a political choice but more as a personal choice.
    
    Lorna
    

re .94

�   Is there a difference between being offended by seeing two men kissing
�   and being offended by someone saying that female homosexuality excites
�   him?  Why did I get the impression from this discussion that the latter
�   offense was justified and the former not?
 
I think this is gender specific: a *man* may be offended by seeing two men
kissing and excited by two women kissing.

What would be the situation for a female viewer?

/. Ian .\

    In defense of Nancy's position, I think its wonderful when people not
    confronted with the experience had given it some thought, and felt that
    it would have been, or would be, okay. Its even MORE wonderful when
    people who ARE confronted with the experience can embrace their
    children accept their orientation, and respect their lifestyle.
    
    But, there are so many lesbigays out there who have to deal with
    ostracism from their families, its small wonder that there would be
    some generalization about it. In womannotes, its probably a bit like
    preaching to the choir. Sometimes I forget just how conservative the rest
    of the world can be when I stay in here too long...
    
    and then Tom Krupinski goes into Blacknotes and announces that Ronald
    Reagan was one of the greatest presidents we ever had, and I'm brought
    back to reality.

    
    I have to believe that the folks here in notes are unique, as they
    obviously have gone off and made themselves aware of differences.
    This is not true as a whole in our society.  If it was true, that
    people thought about this issue, gays would not be in the position
    they are in.  We would be accepted by all.  This is not the case.
    Folks here at DEC have super insights and are much more acceptable
    to mother nature's work.  I am speaking totally generic when I say
    that parents do not think that their child is gay.  
    
    Sorry for any confusion as to what I meant.  Parents do not think
    their child will be gay or heterosexual.    

    re: .100
    
    Ian,
    
    I think you may have missed the point.  It was about how people deal
    with being offended.  It was not about gender or sexuality.  I was just
    using a specific example from earlier in this string.  In a more
    abstract sense, I observed that behaviour X offended person A and
    behaviour Y offended person B.  Then I got the impression that
    people were saying that person A is justified in being offended, but
    person B will just have to get used to it.  I may have been incorrect
    in my impression, but that's how it looked to me.
    
    And, BTW, there are also *women* who are offended by seeing two men
    kissing and excited by seeing two women kissing.
    
    -Mary

Actually Nancy, one of the reasons I'm strongly in favor of Gay rights is
*because* Kai may be Gay. I just have no idea at this point and it doesn't
really matter to me - except that if he *is* Gay, I want to make sure that
the world is a better place for him.

But that's not the only reason, nor even the strongest. I have, shall we say,
a certain personal interest in the subject as well...

	-- Charles

    I'm not a man, so maybe this is the wrong note, but I have some
    questions.  Several people stated the point of view that each of us is
    born with a sexual orientation that cannot be changed by choice.  Is
    this the view of most Lesbians/Gays?  Perhaps my reasoning is incorrect,
    but doesn't that mean its genetic?  Does anyone know of any identical
    twins studies on sexual orientation?
    
    -Mary

>I observed that behaviour X offended person A and
>    behaviour Y offended person B.  Then I got the impression that
>    people were saying that person A is justified in being offended, but
>    person B will just have to get used to it.

Yup.

If person A gets offended at something that is bigotted and prejudiced,
then person A is justified in being offended.

If person B gets offended at something that is none of their business and
isn't wrong, then it is their problem and they better get used to it.

The above is known as a value judgement. Specifically, I think that
homophobia and stereotyping LesBiGays is WRONG, therefore offense is
justified.  Homosexuality and expressions thereof are *not* wrong, therefore
offenses at it are not justified.

So, I believe that homophobia is WRONG. That's a value judgement.  You are
free to disagree, of course.  If you do, I will find it offensive, and, 
depending on my mood, will try and convince you to my side, yell at you
or ignore you.

>And, BTW, there are also *women* who are offended by seeing two men
>kissing and excited by seeing two women kissing.

Yeah, so?  Your point?

D!

re. 83
    	
   | re .82, why do you say "Let's not pursue it" in regard to the pink
   | rhinestone triangle business, after dismissively making the comment that
   | you think it would be more likely bought by a middle-aged queen?  It
   | seems to me that you want to make certain that I don't know what I'm
   | talking about.  I get the feeling that you want to make me feel like a
   | kid who said something wrong without knowing any better.  

        Oh, I supposed my frustration peeked through.  Don't take it
    personally, Lorna, it wasn't meant at you.  I was annoyed because I was
    trying to use a well-known example  to illustrate a point, and the
    following responses delved into situations where the example might not
    be well known rather then discussing the point.  

    Often, with work and social issues, people will argue side issues with
    you rather then addressing the matter at hand.   As if mentioning  a
    million other issues will show you that there's no point to even trying
    to fix anything. 
                      
   | And, what's wrong with middle-aged queens anyway?)
    
    I've got nothing against middle-aged queens and I don't know why you
    think I do.

    |I get a mixed message from some Lesbians.  First of all you accuse
    |straights of not wanting to accept you, but then when we ask questions
    |or show any sign of ignorance you leap down our throats.  It's like, on
    |the one hand, you accuse us of not wanting to accept, but then when we
    |make an attempt to connect, it seems as if you say things to make me,
    |anyway, feel as though it would be hopeless for me to ever even attempt
    |to understand.  Anything I say is wrong.  I've had this feeling before
    |in relation to blacks and Jews, too.  
    
    I think you're being too sensitive.  If I was leaping down your throat,
    it'd be a lot less subtle.  If you're going to try to connect on
    someone else's ground, where you don't know the rules and the people in
    question are being abused, it's not always going to be easy.  I answer
    a lot of personal questions here and I don't mind, in order to help
    others understand our needs.  I think most of the readers in this
    conference put out.  But I am putting my career on the line, here. 
    What if the wrong manager sees this?  And I know some of my co-workers
    see this, and it's probably not helping there, either.  I reserve the
    right not to be nicey-nicey all the time.  I don't think I was rude,
    just blunt.  I said exactly what I meant, and didn't make any
    accusations, other then I thought people had missed my point.  Which I
    still think they had, at least those that discussed the pink triangle
    and whether or not it is a recognizable symbol.

    |I consider myself to be as open minded as people get, but I was born
    |white, straight and protestant, and I can't help that anymore than
    |anybody else can help what they were born.  I'd like to understand
    |people who are different from me, but if I am immediately dismissed
    |because a middle-aged, straigt, WASP, I'll never have a chance to
    |understand anything.
    
    I know what you mean. I, too, am white and from the upper classes.  It
    was only very recently that I stopped being embarrassed about that and
    started telling people "Get used to it".  I still think you're being
    too sensitive.  I certainly wasn't thinking anything personal when I
    wrote it.  As I said, I was just annoyed that people had entirely
    missed my point.  What's wrong with addressing that?  Is the truth to
    ugly to be said as is?  Personally, I think some things are worth
    careful phrasing, but I don't think that's one of them.

    And, as to shutting you down on the triangle issue, I didn't want to
    talk about that.  So, I said so.  If you want to talk about it
    sometime, even now, that's fine.  But, it has nothing to do with what I
    was trying to express.
                         
    Rachael

    
    re .107
    
    D!, I think Mary was responding to Ian's comment about some men being
    offended to see 2 men kissing and excited to see 2 women kissing.
           I guess both excite me but in different ways :-)
    
    'Ren, I have to tell you that I was actually a little sad when you
    suggested that D!'s notes seem angrier than mine.  It made me want
    to change my personal name to "get used to it" or more appropriately...
    "If you only knew how angry I am."  I mean, I am angry; I'm just
    repressed :-), and I often wish that I could be more authentic and express
    the anger that I feel (more like D! - hope it's ok with you if I hold
    you up as an example).  The point I'm trying to make is that a lot of
    us lesbigays feel angry and hurt, but we have a hard time expressing
    it.  I appreciate it when other folks can.
    
    Justine
                                                        

    re .105
    
    yuh, your 'personal interest' is what caught my attention.
    
    I read .61 and then much more clearly .79 to be saying that you are
    gay.
    
    And yet 3.10, describes you as a man living with a woman for 16 years
    and married for 6.
    
    That is outside of my world of understanding. Could you explain?

    re .108, I've been told I'm too sensitive many times by many people so
    I suppose it's true.  Maybe you're too sensitive in regard to your
    sexual orientation, too, though.  Maybe not as many of your co-workers
    care what you do as you think.
    
    BTW, I said I was white, but I'm not from the Upper Classes.  I'm from
    the Lower Classes.  Amazingly enough, all WASPs are not rich!  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

Nancy:

> <<< Note 702.103 by WFOV11::BRENNAN_N "Dykes 'R Us" >>>
>    
> I have to believe that the folks here in notes are unique, as they
> obviously have gone off and made themselves aware of differences.
> This is not true as a whole in our society.  If it was true, that
> people thought about this issue, gays would not be in the position
> they are in.  We would be accepted by all.  This is not the case.
> Folks here at DEC have super insights and are much more acceptable
> to mother nature's work.  ...
    
  You're setting yourself up to be hurt if you believe that DECcies
  are in any way smarter, more liberal, more insightful, or more ac-
  cepting of differences than the "outside world".  I know.  I used
  to believe DECcies were in some way special.  DECcies can be just
  as bigotted, stupid, fanatically religious, racist, sexist, xeno-
  phobic, or possessing of any other disease as anyone else.  If you
  don't believe me, read some of the other "valuing differences"
  notesfiles.  (Based on their content, "valuing differences" rings
  incredibly ironic.)

  I'll provide citations any time you feel like you want to get
  depressed.  You can even find some prominent =WN=ers who sound
  a whole lot different when they're out "among the boys".

                                   Atlant

    I'm very sensitive, too.  That's another thing that I've come to the
    conclusion "Deal with it".  My being sensitive can be a problem
    sometimes, but it's also part of my charm.  ie, I'm sensitive to nice
    and un-nice things.  
    
    Most of my co-workers are not bigotted.  The majority are slightly
    uncomfortable, but trying.  Some used to be uncomfortable, (as was I,
    talking to them about my life,) but have gotten more comfortable.  And
    some were always cool.  I have very rarely (but nonzero, I might add)
    met outright hostility.  And yes, that's better then a lot of people
    get.  But it's not enough.  I will continue to demand equal rights, and
    try to work to get them.  
    
    Silence = Death
    
    Rachael

    Justine,
    
    I remember once when Maggie told me that she assumed all black people
    are angry. She even said we ought to be; we have a lot to be angry
    about.
    
    There are a LOT of people in the world who have things that they have a
    right to be angry about. Not just collective groups of people who are
    victimized for one reason or another.
    
    I think there are a lot of people who will respect your anger, and even
    empathize, as long as you don't *aim* it. Justine, you don't aim your
    anger very often. And I think that helps make you more personable than
    someone who walks around with a chip on hir shoulder, daring people
    to knock it off.  Its true for any two people, no matter how
    justifyable the anger may be. Think about the Black Panther movement.
    Even if you respected the people for their goals, did you really want
    to get CLOSE to them? Want to get to know them? Do you think you would
    feel comfortable with all of their anger aimed at you, SOLELY because
    you're white? Its not a position I'd want to be in.
    
    When you make statements of ownership - I'm Lesbian, I'm tired of the
    way Lesbians are treated, I'm tired of invisibility, I'm angry at how
    often we are denied our rights, I'm angry at the people who feel that
    they have a right to injure and kill us - you're not aiming them at the
    world. But you're still speaking your mind, making your feelings known.
    
    When you make statements using imperative verbs: "get used to it!", you
    are telling me what to do. There is no negotiation, no request, no
    compromise. It is a tone of command.
    
    And its crossing a line into my space.
    
    I think the statement "get used to it" is quite implicit in cases where
    people have come out! But the more important statement is "I'm not
    going to keep my life in the closet, even if you want me to." You're
    telling someone that they can't tell YOU what to do and what not to do.
    
    I guess my point is, I don't think any of us would want the tables
    turned, would want to be told "Get used to it" about something that
    contradicts our values. If the right-to-life movement won a major
    settlement and had abortion declared murder, and then printed up
    buttons saying "Abortion is murder; get used to it!", I'd be pretty put
    out. Nor would the right to life group be happy seeing my button saying
    "I've had 10 abortions, and plan on having more; get used to it!"
    (NO, its not true.)
    
    But let me end here and say that if being more angry feels right for
    you, go with your heart.
                                                              

Re: .106

    Several people stated the point of view that each of us is
    born with a sexual orientation that cannot be changed by choice. Is
    this the view of most Lesbians/Gays?

Not just Lesbians and Gays, but all of the research to date points that
direction. It's generally accepted among professionals in the area.

    Perhaps my reasoning is incorrect, but doesn't that mean its genetic?

Your reasoning is indeed flawed. There are a number of possibilities besides
genetics. Sexual preference might be inherited, it might be determined in
utero by something in the intrauterine environment, or it might be innate but
not inherited (and we don't know why). My favorite analogy is to handedness. We
don't know what causes a person to be right or left handed, but it seems clear
that it is innate and not learned. Also lefties are approximately 10% of the
population - close to the percentage commonly believed to be gay. Finally there
is anecdotal evidence that a larger percentage of lefties are gay and gays are
lefties...

So gayness is innate, but not necessarily inherited.

Re: .110


    yuh, your 'personal interest' is what caught my attention.

Oh? :-)
    
    I read .61 and then much more clearly .79 to be saying that you are
    gay.

Nope - I just went back an re-read it, and I can see how you got that idea
though. I'm bi. Have been as long as I can remember.
    
    And yet 3.10, describes you as a man living with a woman for 16 years
    and married for 6.

Yep. <insert smug grin here>
    
    That is outside of my world of understanding. Could you explain?

Does this help?

For what it's worth, I know a lot of gay men who are married with children. I
know a lot of gay men who are divorced with children.

	-- Charles

    re: .107
    
    D!
    
    >>And, BTW, there are also *women* who are offended by seeing two men
    >>kissing and excited by seeing two women kissing.

    >Yeah, so?  Your point?

    In .100 Ian said the statement was gender specific to *men*.  My point
    is that I disagree with Ian.

    > depends on what X and Y are, doesn't it?

    Agreed.  X and Y were stated in my original reply .94

    >Is there a difference between being offended by seeing two men kissing
    >and being offended by someone saying that female homosexuality excites
    > him?

    I see both as a person taking offense at someone else's sexuality.  If
    a man is excited by female homosexuality that's part of his sexuality.

> So, I believe that homophobia is WRONG. That's a value judgement.  You are
> free to disagree, of course.  If you do, I will find it offensive, and, 
> depending on my mood, will try and convince you to my side, yell at you
> or ignore you.

    Fortunately for me, I agree with you that bigoted treatment of
    homosexuals is wrong, because I dislike it when people try to convince
    me that I am wrong, yell at me, or ignore me.  I much prefer to be
    listened to, respected and accepted for who I am.

    As I said in .94 ...

    -Mary (who wishes people would accept each other, but for survival
           reasons has accepted that some will not) 

I like how there has been a strong lesbian and bisexual presence here, so
that the questions have been answered and *I* haven't had to answer them.

I have only a few points, in no particular order.

Lorna: you are the first straight woman who (I think) has ever used the word
dyke in front of me where I have not been offended.  I loved how you referred
to some "trendy young dyke" buying that pin.  I found it very positive, very
descriptive, and cute.  :-)

All: I do not consider lesbianism a matter of choice at all.  To me, whether a
person is gay, bisexual, or straight depends on the *feelings* that they have,
not the sex of the person they are sleeping with.  I make only slight exception
in how I refer to them, which I will describe shortly.

   Kinsey's scale
0 = totally, absolutely heterosexual
1 = heterosexual with slight ability to be attracted to same sex
2 = bisexual with more orientation toward opposite sex
3 = totally bisexual, no inherent leanings to either direction
4 = bisexual with more orientation toward same sex
5 = gay with slight ability to be attracted to opposite sex
6 = totally, absolutely homosexual

Kinsey actually did his numbers on the basis of experience.  Now we understand
better that there are many gay people who are in heterosexual marriages,
denying their orientation (and often miserable) because of fear of rejection
and/or losing their children.  There have been some known cases of heterosexual
women who have chosen to be "political lesbians."  I consider them heterosexual
or bisexual.  If they have the ability to love the same sex then they are at
least "1's".  If they do not, they are straight, and shouldn't be doing that
to themselves (in my opinion).

Because of people's actions *tending* to be in line with their orientation, 
I occasionally make some groupings based on actions.  I typically refer to
0's and 1's as straight (although I might mentally file away that someone
is really bisexual if they seem to be a 1 - I will elaborate on this below).
I refer to 5's and 6's as gay (both sexes) or lesbian.  I refer to 2's, 3's,
and 4's as bisexual.

In my ratings, I am a lesbian (really, I'm a 5), Carla is...bisexual (but only
because I knew her with Kerry so long I placed her there then, so it may 
change), D! is bi (sounds like she is a 4 or 5, from her description), and
Bonnie Randall has now achieved the title of "mostly heterosexual".  :-}
I hope these people don't mind my using them as examples.  Since they have
been open here, most people (I think) have formed their own opinions, and
you can now see better how I view things.

My point is that all we choose is our actions.  Our orientation remains the
same.  Many of us start out thinking of ourselves as straight, because that
is the only option that we are allowed.  So, like I did, many of us date the
opposite sex, with varying degrees of happiness.  When I was 18, I realized
my attraction to the same sex.  It came as quite a surprise, since I had 
ignored all of the signs before then.  I called myself "bisexual" because
I didn't really know what my feelings were.  Most of what I had to go on was
my actions.  I had dated lots of guys.  I was attracted to one woman.  Ah,
I must be bisexual.  

After I got used to that idea, I found I was attracted to *lots* of women.
One day someone asked me why I called myself bisexual (they knew my attraction
to women, but had not seen any attraction to men), and I looked back at the
last year and realized that I had only been attracted to *one* man, and to
*many, many* women.  That's when I started calling myself gay.

So, I made a choice what to call myself.  I made a choice who I would date.
But I made no choice as to whom I was/am attracted.  I am a lesbian.  If I
never had sex again, I would still be a lesbian.  My feelings of love, warmth,
emotional attraction, as well as my sexual attraction, are toward women.

Peace.

     Carol

The other thing I wanted to say, is about people asking questions, and about
anger.

When I read the man's note which started much of this discussion, I did not
choose to respond.  I was angry.  The reason I was angry was one thing that
he said: that the idea of lesbians (kissing? making love?) got him excited.
I get angry when men say that.  It feels intrusive to me.  It was not necessary
for him to say, and I found it offensive and discussing something highly
personal to me.  If any man feels the need to say this in the future, I request
of that man to not do so.  I consider it rude, to say the least.

Those of you who have known me for a while, know that I am one of those who
educates.  However, as the years have gone by, I have learned many things.
One of those things is that sometimes I get *really* *tired* of trying to
educate people.  It is the same things over and over, and I get tired of trying
to justify my very existence.  This morning I read in the newspaper that the
Colorado Springs city council has decided to take "sexual orientation" out
of the proposed civil rights ordinance.  They haven't even had a hearing on
it yet.  Now I am considering writing them a letter to educate them.  The 
hardest part is that I know it will not do any good.  They have been swayed
by the voice of bigotry (dozens of letters opposing us).  The pain and the
poignancy for me is that the bigotry that has swayed them to take me out
of the list is the very bigotry that they would have been protecting me from.

Their reasoning was that they had received lots of letters saying that
homosexuality is a lifestyle, and they didn't think they should protect a
lifestyle.  They fail to see that there is no "lifestyle" that is specific
to gays, and that they already protect people based on lifestyle choices,
anyway: that of the choice of religion, and of the choice or marital status.
What is this "gay lifestyle" that they refer to??  Is it the way I come to work
for Digital every morning?  Is it the way I spend most of my time away from
work playing with and raising my son?  Is it the way I cook dinner, or eat
dinner, or perhaps my choice of flannel for my nightgowns and pajamas?
Even if they were just referring to sex, this doesn't apply, for if my spouse
were to die tomorrow, and I were to be single and celibate the rest of my
life, still they would consider that I was living this elusive "gay lifestyle"
and that I (and my son) should not be protected from being thrown out by
a bigotted landlord, or fired by a bigotted manager.

I get angry.

I get angry because of the injustices that I suffer, and the injustices that
I see.  I get angry when I hear of a young girl committing suicide, because
her parents found out she was a lesbian and threw her out of the house and
disowned her.  I get angry when I tell a man that I am not interested in him,
that I am a lesbian, and he gets sexually excited by that and tries even harder
to get me to go to bed with him, or (and yes, this has really happened) expects
me to bring him to my house to watch my spouse and I have sex and let him 
join in.  *God!*

Most of the time, when someone asks me questions about being gay, I answer 
them.  If I pick up a possible sexual interest, though, I back off.  If I
pick up that they are just looking for a fight, I back off.  If I am just
to tired to educate that day, after fighting the fight, sometimes I will
back off then, too.

I can understand the anger that has been expressed here.  After so many years
of answering the same questions, phrased in different ways, you can get a feel
for valid questions and ones that are not valid.  Sometimes we can be wrong,
or sometimes not, but it is always our choice whether to take the *energy*
to respond.  If we see something that maybe a straight person doesn't pick up,
that doesn't make it any less valid for us to be angry.  We are the experts
here.  And like Justine, though I may not have told anyone to "get used to it",
I feel it a LOT, and I am glad for the ones who do.  I have learned that 
though some straight people (and some gay people) may complain that we are
driving away people when we speak strongly, it doesn't appear that we are
driving away any different people than who would drive themselves away anyway.
People are offended by our very existance.  It is hurtful to hear over and over
that we should just be quiet and it will all work out. It didn't start to get
better for us until there were people who were brave enough to shout out about
the unfairness of it all, and though it may not be my typical style, I am
grateful for the ones who have made this path for us. 

       Carol

    re: .115
    
    Charles,
    
    Thanks,  I didn't know that it is now generally accepted that people
    are born gay.  I have always accepted that its not something people can
    change by choice. But I had heard another theory that infants are born
    self sexual, having no concept of "other" and their sexual orientation
    is something that is "set" in very early childhood after they develop a
    concept of "other".  After that it can't be changed.  I suppose it
    doesn't really matter whether its determined before birth or shortly
    afterwards.  I think the evidence is clear that it is part of normal
    human variation.
    
    Mary

> But I had heard another theory that infants are born
> self sexual, having no concept of "other" and their sexual orientation
> is something that is "set" in very early childhood after they develop a
> concept of "other".

While it's clear that infants are sexual creatures from the word "go" and even
before, it's less clear when orientation is determined. Again, going back to
my "handedness" example, infants are "by nature" ambidexterous, and eventually
differentiate a preferred hand (and dominant eye.) It's not clear whether that
differentiation "happens" in infancy or is predetermined. Likewise for sexual
orientation - we just don't have the tools to really tell if an infant has an
orientation. What is generally accepted is that orientation is not learned, and
not chosen.

Sorry for the lack of precision.

	-- Charles

Re: .118

>When I read the man's note which started much of this discussion, I did not
>choose to respond.  I was angry.  The reason I was angry was one thing that
>he said: that the idea of lesbians (kissing? making love?) got him excited.
>I get angry when men say that.  It feels intrusive to me.  It was not necessary
>for him to say, and I found it offensive and discussing something highly
>personal to me.  If any man feels the need to say this in the future, I request
>of that man to not do so.  I consider it rude, to say the least.

    Perhaps I am blind, but I am willing to listen with an open mind.
    I still see this as taking offense at someone else's sexuality.  If
    a man is excited by female homosexuality that's part of his sexuality.
    I realize this is a sensitive subject, and it is not my intent to step
    on anyones's toes.  I firmly believe that people should be accepting
    of each other's sexual differences.  Like I said, I may be blind, but
    the above appears to me to be an example of the same sexual intolerance
    that is being condemned.  Why is it rude for a man to talk openly about
    being excited by the idea of Lesbians and not rude for a Lesbian to talk
    openly about being excited by women?

    Mary
    

    
    re .121
    
    I'm guessing, but I think it may be that men are objectifying women
    when they get excited over the idea of two women having sex. Those
    women have no personality, no persona even, they are just women for him
    to watch. And I can see how this would be offensive to anyone, perhaps
    even more so to women who do not want to deal with male sexuality in
    their lives at all.
    
    Carol, you also have said that you're angry, without blasting people.
    
    Martin Luther King Jr. was angry. He had a righteous anger that people
    could respect. I am not saying that there's ANYTHING wrong with anger,
    or with demanding change in laws. I'm just not sure that the "get used
    to it" approach will have the long-term effect that you're understandably 
    hungry for.
    
    As for the Kinsey scale, I'm wondering if you put that there for my
    benefit, or so that others would be educated Or both. I'm familiar with
    it; its been in previous Womannotes volumes. But what I'm hearing is
    that you are assigning the labels: straight, bisexual, gay/lesbian
    based on a certain criteria; I don't know if you're leaving room for a
    different woman who is more of a 2 to label herself lesbian if she
    is dating a woman. Will you be upset if she calls herself a lesbian? Is
    it a problem?  Is she misusing the word?

    
    >I still see this as taking offense at someone else's sexuality.  If
    >a man is excited by female homosexuality that's part of his sexuality.
    
    Fine - he is entitled to be turned on by whatever he wants.
    
    I just don't want to hear about it. My choice. 
    
    Neither do I choose to have his fantasies directed at, expressed to, or 
    forced upon me or the group of wmn with which I identify.
    
    'gail
    
    I absolutely support Carol's view - and the way she expressed it.
    
    

    re:.5 (Lorna)
    
    	� I will never understand why so many straight men find
    	the idea of two women making love exciting, and for some
    	reason I find it very offensive. �
    
    Why do so many straight men enjoy "sapphic" imagery?  Damned if
    *I* know. The larger question is why does anyone find *any* given
    thing exciting. I think almost anyone here can probably think of
    something she finds exciting without ever being able to figure out
    why. It's a matter of "feelings" vs. "reason".
    
    There's something of the vice versa about. I think I mentioned this
    before, in one of the previous incarnations of =wn=, but there is
    a subgroup of fan-written-and-published Star Trek fiction that's
    based on the fanciful premise that Kirk and Spock are homosexual
    lovers (I'm *not* making this up!). And a lot of it is illustrated
    with quite explicit drawings. The thing of it is, is that this type
    of fiction (known as "K/S fiction") is quite popular with heterosexual
    women. Now, there are certainly other factors to consider here,
    like the fact that the majority of readers of Star Trek fan-fiction
    are probably women, or that it's the particular characters involved
    that's at issue, not the general issue of how women perceive male
    homosexuality in terms of sexually-oriented entertainment. Still,
    it's a point to be mentioned, since there are a number of readers
    who seem to have more interest in K/S fiction than non-K/S fiction.
    Why? Don't ask me.
    
    re:.22
    
    	� Your statement implies (I assume unintentionally) that
    	those of us for whom 'homo lovesex' simply holds no
    	interest have no chance of learning 'what it is to be
    	fully human...'. I would dispute that. �
    
    I dunno. There's a song sung by Mary Travers called "It's In Everyone
    of Us" that has the lines
    
    	"I feel like I've bought this ticket,
    	And I'm watching only half of the show."
    
    While the context of the song doesn't refer to sexuality, I've always
    applied this idea to the subject. That people base sexual interest
    (or lack thereof) on the sex of the other person seems as artificial
    as (as Lorna said elsewhere) as basing it on the person's skin color.
    In this respect, I *do* feel like I'm missing something by restricting
    my sexual interest to women. On the other hand, I'm just plain not
    sexually attracted to other men, so I don't worry about it. On the
    same token, I figure I'm probably missing out on some wonderfully
    exciting times by not having any interest in skiing or skydiving,
    but that's life. You pays your money, and you takes your interests.
    
    re: the concept of gays wanting to "hit" on straights
    
    ... is ludicrous. There's a popular image of the gay person who
    is just waiting with slavering jaws to pounce on some poor,
    unsuspecting het person (especially children), and it couldn't be
    further from the truth.
    
    I've known quite a number of gay men, or made their acquaintances
    (and likely that number is larger than I think, just because some
    are not "out" yet, at least to me), and none have ever made a pass
    at me. There's one that "flirts" in good fun (but then, he flirts
    with women even moreso). And there was another who had said to me
    (and this was specifically in response to a discussion that had come
    up in another forum in which we both participated) that he considered
    me "attractive", but respected the fact that I was only interested
    in women. OK, so I blushed, but then, I do that if a woman said the
    same thing. I can't say that I've ever had any occasion to feel
    uncomfortable around any gay men.
    
    On the other hand, unfortunately the same can't be said of some
    heterosexual women around some heterosexual men. Kinda says something
    right there, dunnit?
    
    --- jerry

    umm, isn't this sort of assuming that 'so many men' enjoy watching
    two women ? Just what percentage really likes this imagery ? Has
    this been surveyed ?
    
    Guess I'm wondering if 'men like watching lesbian sex' isn't too
    broad a generalization.

    re .125
    	For what's it's worth, consider that a (very straight-looking woman
    with really long nails) woman on (another of the same, neither of them
    looking very sincere,) woman pictorial is pretty standard in Penthouse. 
    At least it was last time I saw it, which was years ago.
    
    Rachael

    re:.126 re:.125
    
    I think that *is* the basis for the idea: the popularity of such
    pictorials, not just in PENTHOUSE, but in any number of "one-fisted"
    magazines. One assumes that the readership� likes this kind of
    material or there wouldn't be so much of it.
    
    --- jerry
    
    � Can you really call it a *reader*ship when they just look at the
    pictures? :-)

    OK, so _what_ percentage of males enjoy this stuff, is what I'm
    asking. (Didn't we elsewhere discuss the notion that 'Penthouse' 
    et al are trying to shove sexual preferences down our throats?)

Entered for a womannoter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Although I don't agree with everything the author expressed, 
a lot of it rings true, and has already been brought up by members
of this file.

I think this article is worth sharing.

                  --------------------


Copied Without permission from the Utne Reader March/April 1991

    WHY HETEROSEXUALS NEED TO SUPPORT GAY RIGHTS

	by Donna Minkowitz; Villiage Voice

This is an article addressed to heterosexuals. Almost all mainstream and
radical media are implicitly addressed to you, but this article has a more
urgent agenda than most hetero apostrophes. Twenty years after lesbians and gay
men threw coins, bottles, and an uprooted parking meter at the cops who were
attempting to arrest them for being queer, many of you still don't think our
rights are anything to fight for. Most of you still aren't by our side when we
need you.

There is a myth that the gay community isn't oppressed any more. On the TV
news, we are a powerful mnority beginning to flex its perversely huge muscles.
But that image ignores much of our experience. Young people, taught by their
pop culture heroes to hate fags and dykes, are beating gay men and lesbians in
the streets with a frightening frequency.

Beyond the violence and the hate-mongering, our enemies have used AIDS and an
infestation of Reaganite judges to deal us serious civil rights setbacks. If
you seen us putting our bodies on the line in increasingly brave and
confrontational street demonstrations, that's because there are almost as many
reasons for us to riot as there were 20 years ago. I am referring th much more
than AIDS.

Officially sanctioned homophobia is now more common and more vicious than when
I came out in the late '70's. The first rumbling of new exuberance in anti-gay
bigotry came in 1985, when syndicated columnists began to call for the
quarantining or tatooing of HIV+ gay men and the New York Post gleefully used
headlines like GAY AIDS DEN. Violence against us rose 41% that year in New
York, and there is a connection. When "progressive" shows like Sat. Nite Live
use anti-gay routines, when superstars like Eddie Murphy go on about how much
they hate bulldykes and fags, they send a message that we are expendable. So do
preachers who hurl concepts of sin with the overt intention to destroy. More
than one fundamentalist minister has called for the execution of homosexuals.
In a 1986 pastoral letter that declared homosexual desire intrinsically
immoral, the Vatican said that anti-gay violence was "only to be expected"
if we pressed for civil rights.

Even lesbians and gy men who have never been assulted are affected by the
threat of violence. It controls the way we dress, who we walk with, even
whether we feel free to hold hands inpublic. The thought tht someone might
sock me for looking too dykey used to make me throw on earrings whenever my
hair was clipped too short for Jerry Falwell's comfort. I don't wear earrings
anymore, but I spend a lot of time looking over my shoulder.

The Supreme Court did its share to legitmize gay-bashing by affirming
discrimination against us with its 1986 Hardwick ruling. Gays and lesbians, the
justices said, could be arrested for sex that involved the genitals of one
partner and the mouth or anus of the other. Although the ruling only addressed
the legal status of sodomy, many courts have interpreted Hardwick as denying
gays and lesbians the right to sue for equL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

If you're like most straight liberals, the phrase "lifestyle issues" began
springing to your lips several paragraphs ago. Straights have always used this
phrase to trivialize our movement, as though all we were fighting for were
better couches and end tables from Bloomingdale's. But when a woman is denied
to see her lover of five years, now incapacitated from a car accident, that
is not a lifestyle issue. When a man is thrown out of his apartment after the
death of his lover ofmany years (because NY's rent control laws do not consider
same-sex couples "family members") you should be out on the streets with us
calling it an outrage.

If you believe in civil rights, don't follow in the footsteps of the 
NAACP, whose chief lobbyist recently remarked that they had "no 
position" on the gay and lesbian rights; don't imitate the B'nai B'rith 
Anti-Defamation League, which insisted on keeping the issue of anti-gay 
discrimination out of its videos ostensibly documenting prejudice 
against all groups. If you're a human rights, don't pour shame on your 
cause like Amnesty International, which still refuses to plead the cases 
of gays and lesbians imprisoned or tortured for th��eir sexual 
preference.

There's another reason to help us win our liberation. Homophobia hurts 
you almost as much as it hurts us. Smears against "mannish women" played 
a large role in quelling the U.S. women's movement after the vote was 
won in 1920. Homophobia has been a weapon to enforce assigned gender 
roles;
that women submit to male perogatives, and that men exercise them. 
Feminists have sometimes been the last to understand this: In 1970, the 
National Organizaton for Women purged many dedicated activists after 
Betty Friedan sparked a "lavendar menace" scare. Mainstream feminism
is still noticably cool to gay and lesbian liberation. The inevitable 
result is a straight, white, male elite dividing and conquering us once 
again.

There's a lot you can do beyond refusing to bash us yourselves. Take to 
the streets whenever our rights are being threatened (which is 
frequently). Don't back local political candidates who oppose domestic 
partnership rights for gay and lesbian couples; that's like supporting a 
candidate who isn't sure if blacks should sit in front of them on the 
bus. If you have children, teach them from an early age that both 
homosexuality and heterosexuality are paths open to them, and that they 
will grow to be wonderful adults in either case. When a radio announcer 
or a  columnist or a politician says gays and lesbians should be 
punished, don't sit idly by. Don't sell us out.

    Re:130.. Oh.. its OK for a lesbian publication to show 2 women but
    a mail magazine can't..... What if the pictures were taken by a lesbian
    photographer? And sold to a male owned magazine? Is that OK?

    I have seen 2 women done by both males and females, there is a
    difference..... BUT can you tell is a pictorial was done by a lesbian?

    REK

    I think Justine has every right to say "get used to it."  Hiding
    lesbians and gays in the closet won't change the fact that they
    exist---indeed it only contributes to the homophobia of our culture.
    
    Instead, we need to see more lesbians and gays doing what everyone
    does...holding hands, wiping tears, and kissing hello and goodbye. 
    When that can happen in an open and public place without *anyone*
    taking any notice, then we will have achieved the kind of world that I
    want to live in.
    
    And as far as the abortion analogy goes, the same "get used to it"
    applies.  No matter how many laws are passed, there will still be
    abortions.  That's what we need to get used to.  We absolutely cannot
    legislate this, just as we cannot outlaw homosexuality.
    
    NOTE: I am only commenting on the analogy...let's not turn this into
    another abortion topic.
    
    judy

    
    RE what % of men turn on to this stuff....
    
    I have never yet discussed this subejct with a strate male without
    them saying "Wow - I like that idea". Every single one of them
    has said this.
    This leads me to believe (at a guess with absolutely no official
    figures to go on) that 50% or over find this idea exciting.
    Whether this is because they've had it spoon-fed to them in
    airbrushed form by "men's magazines" I wouldn't like to
    speculate..... 
    
    'gail

    re .131
    
    One way you might consider the remarks in .130 is that valuing
    differences is not necessarily uniformly applied. (Even by those who
    stridently insist on valuing differences). Or that perhaps the notion
    of deviant is a somewhat subjective one. Or that perhaps a prerequisite
    to using 'deviant' as a perjorative, is identification with some
    valuing difference movement.

    
    

    see also:
    
    MENNOTES
    455 - Female homosexuality and men
    
    -Jody
    

Re: straight men getting excited about two lesbians making love.

I'm sure there are men who find it exciting. I can't stop them
from feeling excited about it, and I'm not even interested in
trying to keep them from finding it exciting. But it's feels
creepy to hear about it. It sounds like a form of voyeurism.
It feels invasive. It feels icky. It seems inappropriate and
unnecessary to hear about when talking about lesbian issues in
a woman's forum.

That's my opinion, not law.

Kathy

    re: .135
    
    Yes, Herb, some differences are more valuable than others.

	This whole topic was brought home to me in a rather interesting way
this past weekend.  My sisters and I were discussing LA Law (the TV program
for you non-TV folks.)  [I meant to bring this episode up in here because I
saw it as a positive step - that TV admits that lesbigays exist, and could 
actually be high-powered lawyers, but I digress...]

	A couple of weeks back, CJ and Abbey (both female) kissed.  Both of my
sisters were absolutely disgusted by the scene.  My youngest sister tends to be
the prude in the family, so I wasn't as suprised by her reaction, though I
was surprised at *how* put off she was.  I expressed my feelings in more or
less the words "take a clue on what the world is like and get used to it" and
she responded with "I don't care what they do, but I don't want to watch it
on TV."  My other sister agreed with her.

	I'm going to have to think about ways to see if I can broaden their
thinking a bit...

						--Doug

    re .138
    
    yup

    > Yes, Herb, some differences are more valuable than others.

    	No. Rather - some people are more oppressed than others.

    	Except many times the least oppressed people don't like to hear
    	that. When the level of oppression for men_who_fantasize_about_
    	'lesbian_sex'_aka_Penthouse is anywhere near that of lesbians
    	perhaps I'll join your cause.

    
    
    RE:  .141
    
    In this conference the men_who_fantasize....  that you described are
    much more oppressed.
    
    NICK
    

    Nick,
    
    In what way are such men oppressed (burdened harshly in mind or
    spirit)?
    
    Are you still going back to school at the end of the week?
    
    					Ann B.

Nick, one of the goals of the moderators is to make this space
safe for lesbians and bixesual women to feel enough to talk about their
lives. From your comment, it appears you may disagree with that goal?

The conference exists to discuss topics of interest to women, and women
are welcome to express discomfort about being the object of sexual
fantasies, no matter what their sexual orientation may be. 

Kathy, one of the co-mods

    This conference is not life.  Those "oppressed" in a notesfile can in
    no way be compared to those who are oppressed in life.  Most people
    live quite happily without ever knowing of the existence of womannotes.
    I doubt anyone can live quite happily in this culture without ever
    knowing the existence of, (and feeling the presence of), the standards 
    and traditions of this culture.  I don't really feel badly for someone
    "oppressed", (and I have to second Ann - "HOW"?), by a mere notesfile.
    We're dealing with a much bigger issue here.
    
    Sandy

    re: .141
    
    > No. Rather - some people are more oppressed than others.
    
    Agreed, Eric.  My point is that the oppresssed minority undermines its
    credibility with the oppressors when they exhibit the same behaviours
    that they disdain in the oppressors.
    
    -Mary

    inre .142
    
    Nick, telling you that talking about particular sorts of fantasies
    makes the person uncomfortable is opression?
    
    Bonnie

RE:  .144
    
> Nick, one of the goals of the moderators is to make this space
> safe for lesbians and bixesual women to feel enough to talk about their
> lives. From your comment, it appears you may disagree with that goal?

    Kathy, this is probably the biggest mis-read I have seen since Saddam
    Hussein thought he could win this war. If you're not sure what I mean
    in a reply, please, take it at face value and don't jump to a
    prejudiced judgement.  I really think you saw *who* entered the reply,
    and infered that I was in some way against the goals of this
    conference.
    
    
    
    RE:   .147  Bonnie
    
    DEFINTION:  Oppression--A sense of being weighed down in body or mind.
    
    It is my opinion that men who enjoy watching two women have sex are
    being weighed down in this conference.  If you don't remember or don't
    know what I'm talking about, re-read the last 50 replies in this topic.
    
    The note that my original reply was aimed at claimed that lesbians are
    more oppressed then men.  I was just pointing out that this is not the
    case in this conference.  While lesbians may be politically,
    economically, and socially oppressed;  they are not oppressed *here*.
    
    NICK
    
    

    re .148, So what if Lesbians are not oppressed in this conference? 
    Lesbians are oppressed in real life and that's what we're talking
    about.  Men who enjoy fantasizing about two gorgeous het women having
    sex together are *not* oppressed in our society.  Men who feel
    oppressed while reading womannotes because some of us have expressed
    the fact that we find their voyeurism offensive should, perhaps,
    log-out and pick-up a Penthouse instead.
    
    Lorna
    

    So Nick,
    
    Which is the greater opression, not be allowed to talk about 
    how you are opressed made uncomfortable by opression etc because
    it might cause opressors to feel opressed, or being opressed by
    reading that some one is upset by something that you like to do?
    
    BJ

    
    
    RE:  .149
    
    > Men who feel oppressed...logout and pickup a Penthouse instead.
    
    OK, I agree.
    
    What to you propose lesbians who feel oppressed should do?
    
    Lorna, do you see my point?
    
    NICK
    

    .123 by 'gail

    >>I still see this as taking offense at someone else's sexuality.  If
    >>a man is excited by female homosexuality that's part of his sexuality.
    
    >Fine - he is entitled to be turned on by whatever he wants.
    
    >I just don't want to hear about it. My choice. 

    .139 by Doug

    >A couple of weeks back, CJ and Abbey (both female) kissed. [on TV]

    >she responded with,"I don't care what they do, but I don't want to
    >watch it on TV."

    >I'm going to have to think about ways to see if I can broaden their
    >thinking a bit...

    Again I ask, what's the difference?  I personaly don't see any, but
    I am willing to listen.

    Mary
    

RE:  .150
    
>    So Nick,
    
>    Which is the greater opression, not be allowed to talk about 
>    how you are opressed made uncomfortable by opression etc because
>    it might cause opressors to feel opressed, or being opressed by
>    reading that some one is upset by something that you like to do?
    
>    BJ
    
    OK let me see if I understand this run-on sentence...   ;-)
    
    You are accusing males with certain fore-mentioned sexual preferences
    of the oppression of lesbians, and you are accusing me of being one of
    these males, right?
    
    N
    

    re .151, .154, I don't get it either, Nick.
    
    Lorna
    

    umm, Nick, WADR, referring to your 'point'  without stating it is
    just a tad confusing.
    
    Is your point that "males who feel opressed here can leave this 
    conference but lesbians who feel opressed in the real world have
    no such option" ? Or am I missing the boat ?
    
    confused

>    Since you agree that men who feel oppressed by the =wn= discussion of
>    voyeurism should log out and pick up a Penthouse, why do you not seem
>    to agree that lesbians who are oppressed outside =wn= should have the
>    safety of =wn= in which to vent their frustration and pain?
    
>    -d
    
    -d,  you missed something.
    
    It was not my idea that men should log out.  It was Lorna's.
    
    And I agree that lesbians should be able to vent...
    
    Sorry, -d, but you totally misread me.
    
    NICK
    

Nick, maybe it would be a good idea if you told us your point.

A lot of us aren't getting it.

Kathy

    
    Forgive me, if someone has already said this, but I believe the
    difference between a lesbian saying that she's excited by women and
    a man saying that he's excited watching two women kiss is the issue of
    consent.  When I read the basenoter's comments about being excited to
    see two women kiss, I felt invaded, like someone was watching me.  If
    I choose to be sexual with women (who also choose to be sexual with
    me), then I feel that my right to express my sexuality should be
    respected, but if an uninvited spectator gets excited watching me
    kiss a woman, I don't feel that I need to respect that -- I feel like
    I have every right to pull down the shade, so to speak.
    
    If the women consent to being watched, then that feels fine.
    Obviously, if you engage in any behavior in public, it is _public_, and
    people are free to have whatever (nonviolent) response they might have 
    to it.  But I'm also free to say how that response makes me feel.  How 
    would a straight man or woman feel, I wonder, if I said that it really 
    turned me on to see you and your partner kissing goodbye in the parking lot
    the other day?  I mean, I haven't broken any rules, laws, etc.; but
    wouldn't it feel creepy?
    
    Justine  

    
    
    OK LET ME TRY TO EXPLAIN THIS ONE MORE TIME, FOR EVERYONE, IN PLAIN,
    SHORT ENGLISH.
    
    1)  Men who get excited by 2 females are oppressed in this conference.
    
    2)  I am glad that lesbians can feel safe in this conference.
    
    3)  No one in this conference, including me, wants to see lesbians
    oppressed.
    
    4)  Lorna suggested that if men (read this Nick) feel oppressed, then
    we (I) should "log-out and read a Penthouse"
    
    5)  I asked Lorna if that is how oppressed men should act, then how
    should oppressed lesbians act in real life?
    
    6)  Kathy suggested that I was trying to undermine the goals of this
    conference.  Obviously I'm not.
    
    NICK
    
    disclaimer---This is how I feel.  There is no hidden message between
    the lines, so don't read there.  Don't assume I believe in something if
    it is not explicitly stated in this reply.  Thank you.
    
    

Thanks Nick,

    5)  I asked Lorna if that is how oppressed men should act, then how
    should oppressed lesbians act in real life?

That's a damn good question. Personally what *I* do (that's analogous) is to
support gay rights, visibility, and acceptance and organizations that promote
gay rights, visibility, and acceptance.

	-- Charles

There are a couple of issues here...

1) Pictorials and other fantasies of women making love, geared toward a male
audience. I find these distasteful, and I think the reasons that men enjoy
them have to do with heterosexism, sexism and male power.  However, I think
that whatever a person wants to fantasize about is up to them, so I don't
object to the fantasies or to the publications.  I am not offended by them.

2) men who get turned on by talking about (eg: here in =wn=) or watching
two *Lesbians* kissing.  I don't like the idea that when I kiss my 
(hypothetical :-( ) girlfriend on the street, that some guy is getting his
kicks from it.  It is entirely different when the fantasy is about *me* than
when it is about an abstract image, or about women in a picture taken for
that express purpose.  Hell, I don't like the idea of people I don't know
fantasizing about me, regardless of whether it involves me with another woman
or with them or with my cat!  I think it is objectifying to me personally,
because I know that I am *not* what the are fantasizing me to be - that they
are creating an image of me to suit themselves that is not based on the
real me.  I *am* offended by people fantasizing about *me* who don't know
me, and more generally offended by people getting their kicks out of watching
real people doing things that don't concern them at all. It isn't any of
their business.

So the basenoter said he doesn't like to see men kissing, but he does like
to see women kissing because it turns him on.  In my mind, there is a big 
difference between that and saying he doesn't like to read erotica with men
kissing but he does like to read erotica with women kissing.

Then there is the issue of appropriateness.  Whatever turns someone on, fine,
as long as it isn't *me*.  But some places are okay to bring it up and some
aren't.  It feels harassing to be told that someone is fantasizing about my
*affection* with someone else.  The same as - I am not offended if a 
coworker of mine fantasizes about me in a particular outfit, but I *am* 
offended if he comes up to me at work and says "You look *hot* in that
outfit."

Whether someone is sexually excited by someone elses sexuality has *nothing*
to do with the issue of gay and lesbian rights.  Bringing it up in a discussion
of LesBiGay rights is offensive because it implies that because *he* finds
it sexually stimulating that it is more "okay".

let me try to draw an analogy. Imagine the topic under discussion was "Whether
women should be VP's".  Imagine that while discussing the varies merits and
demerits of female VP's a man said "I think women are sexier than men".  That
would be offensive. not because the statement or sentiment itself is offensive
but because of the context in which it occured.  Sexiness is not related to
qualifications of being a VP, and the implication that it is is offensive.

Ya see?

-----------

On a different note... 'ren, I keep seeing you refering to people "blasting"
other people, and directing their anger.  I get the feeling you are referring
to me, since you also keep mentioning my p_name, "get used to it."  I'll
pray you notice, though, that I haven't blasted anyone in here, nor have I
directed by anger at anyone.  My initial note in this topic was a generic
(undirected) expression of anger, and subsequent notes have *all* taken the
educational tack.  Any directed anger in this note has been notes issues - ie: 
people I think aren't listening to what I say, etc...not having anything to
do with homophobia, etc.

D!

    Nick,
    
    What I understood you to be saying is that you felt it just as
    opressing for a lesbian to request that men not talk about the
    fact that imagining lesbians making love, as it is for others to
    demean, put down, fire, attack, etc lesbians and gays for their
    sexuality. This was how I interpreted your note.
    
    I agree that it may make a person upset to read here or somewhere
    else that behavior that they engage in is opressive to others
    or that it makes other people uncomfortable. I do not agree
    that to request people not to behave in a fashion that others
    find opressive or demeaning is in and of itself opressive, demeaning
    or censorship.
    
    The two are no where nearly equivalent actions.
    
    Bonnie

    re .160, but, Nick, I still don't understand your point that you
    referred to you when you asked, "Do you see my point?"  I'm afraid the
    answer is - No, I don't.
    
    re 5)  I don't know what you expect me to deduce from this, so
           perhaps you should tell me - How should Lesbians who feel
           oppressed act in real life?  
           
    
    BTW, I think being oppressed for who you are in real life is a lot
    different than being oppressed for a minor thing in a notesfile.
    
    Lorna
    

    Nick
    
    Women who feel oppressed can log into =wn= and bash a few men.

    			herb

    p.s. (fwiw)

    .143 asked if you are still going back to school at the end of the week

    I interpreted that as an elliptical way of making the community aware
    of your age.

    Nick,
    
    Your first statement, "Men who get excited by 2 females are oppressed
    in this conference." has never been supported -- by you or anyone.
    You did not answer the question of How such oppression could be
    made to occur.
    
    Thus, your fifth statement, "I asked Lorna if that is how oppressed
    men should act..." is left waggling in mid-air.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    
    RE:   .164
    
    re-read some past notes
    
    There are lots of personal attacks against men who engage in this
    behavior.  There is even juvenile name calling.  These attacks come
    from all types of women and all types of men.  These attacks have
    nothing to do with sexual gender preferance.  It is simple
    male-bashing.
    
    Lesbians should be able to talk about what makes them feel oppressed. 
    No one should be able to anyone's sexual activity sick, gross, or
    dirty. 
    
    NICK
    

    It often appears to me that if a woman speaks out strongly about
    situations that she finds offensive or oppressive that there
    are men who are offended by this behavior and call it 'male bashing'.
    
    
    Bonnie

    
    Re:D!, if you don't want men to get their kicks from watching you kiss
    you hypothetical girlfriend on the street and then  don't kiss...
    It is you choice to show what level of affection toward the person
    you want to share it with...
    
    REK

    
    D!
    
    Its not you, its the phrase. The phrase "get used to it" strikes me as
    antagonistic, confrontative and unnecessary. Kinda like flipping the
    bird to someone who cuts you off on the road; its a statement that
    gives momentary satisfaction until the original a**-hole comes back and
    shoots you for flipping him the bird. Doesn't seem worth it in the long
    run. Even though the person who cuts you off is WRONG. I guess, to me,
    it seems like two wrongs. 
    
    There's no easy/right way to convert a bigot. But telling him/her to
    "get used to it" doesn't strike me as a method that will work. To me,
    it not only seems like asking for getting beaten up, but it also seems
    "provocative" to the point where *I* would think that you antagonized
    someone, and I would be less likely to defend you. Sure, you can argue
    that just holding hands can provoke a bigot, but *I* would defend your
    right to hold hands. *I* just wouldn't jump in your defense for saying
    "get used to it" to someone who was looking for an excuse anyway. Well,
    no, I take it back, I'd probably jump to your defense, call a cop, etc.
    But then I would look you in the face and ask you why it was so
    necessary to say "get used to it", instead of just doing what you do.
    
    Its a funny line. There are some people who would say that holding
    hands and saying "get used to it" are the same thing! That holding
    hands (or hellow/goodbye smooching) is just as antagonistic and
    confrontational. But that's not where I'm coming from.
    
    I'm just looking at the anger, and how its expressed, and commenting
    that I think some ways are better than others, that some ways will
    generate more empathy/sympathy than others. And that the other two
    women who wrote seemed angry in a way that I could sympathize with, and
    respect. But that the phrase "get used to it" didn't win any points
    with me. Heck, maybe my support isn't worth it anyway. I'm only one
    person.
    
    I'm off somewhere weird. Or maybe I'm just off. Sue me!   :-)

    herb, Nick did tell us in his intro that he is a co-op student.
    
    Your first statement has me too angry to even respond to.
    
    Gack!  Even my grammar is bad!
    
    E Grace

    what does age have to do with anything?  I know younger people with
    MUCH life experience who communicate it well, and older people with
    little life experience who communicate poorly.  Age is immaterial.
    
    -Jody
    

    Re:173 Yes, age in immaterail, BUT experience is the key...
    
    REK

> My point is that the oppresssed minority undermines its credibility with 
> the oppressors when they exhibit the same behaviours that they disdain 
> in the oppressors.
  
While I agree that this is somewhat true, -Mary, what is going on here,
(and what always goes on here), goes one step further.  First off, the
"oppressed" HAS no credibility with their oppressors to begin with.  That's 
part of oppression.  Insinuating that they do, and then telling them only
sanctioned words or behaviors can help them retain it, is merely a
manipulative lie.  Acquiescing to it can only contribute to the fact
that the oppressed group is also "stupid" and "easily manipulated". 
Keep in mind that an oppressed group is not regarded by its oppressors
as "innocent until proven guilty" nor are they given the benefit of the
doubt.

Second, the "oppressors" demand that the "oppressed" not exhibit any 
unsanctioned behavior, (no "strident" speech, no generalizations unless 
they're flattering ones, etc), or else they will lose the benevolent ear 
of their oppressors, (which they never had anyway), and the status quo 
will prevail.  It's a simple case of damned if you do stay quiet, (which
allows the status quo to remain), and damned if you don't stay quiet and 
instead speak out, (which gets you labelled a hypocrite and dismissed).  
Damned if you do, damned if you don't is another part of what oppression
is.  The status quo works against you and your resistance to it makes
you look bad.

Nick,

> It is my opinion that men who enjoy watching two women have sex are
> being weighed down in this conference.  

I'm very interested in what makes you feel this way.  Do women mentioning 
that they don't like it constitute "weiging down"?  Is it just the mere
"resistance" to the idea what you find "oppressive"?  Must these women accept
this graciously, (and not mention any personal distaste), to be considered 
valuing someone's difference?  Perhaps you can list some of the remarks you 
feel are oppressive.  Most are saying "I feel..." and "It makes me feel like...
Expressesd this way, these thoughts are valid, appropriate, legal, under-
standable AND polite and allowing the "voyuer" his dignity.  What more do 
you want?  Abject debasement?  The tentative "womanspeak" that the Globe
said men generally prefer from women?  Would, "I don't really know if this is 
correct but, I kind of, you know, feel a little odd when men say those 
things, you know?", be more palatable and feel less "oppressive"?

> The note that my original reply was aimed at claimed that lesbians are
> more oppressed then men.  I was just pointing out that this is not the
> case in this conference.

Ah.  There it is.  And I and others have said, "Maybe, but in a womannotes 
conference in a topic on lesbians, who cares?  What does one have to do with 
the other, anyway?"  Now if women were excluding men from jobs or
beating them up or gangs of them, (REAL lesbians without the fluffly
hair and painted nails!), were raping men based on their, um, "enjoyment" of 
staged lesbian scenes, you might have something there.

>  While lesbians may be politically, economically, and socially oppressed;  
>  they are not oppressed *here*.

Oh, I don't know, quite a few men attempt quite a bit of oppression in
this file, much more than in mennotes, soapbox, HR.  The "women talking 
among themselves" atmosphere of womannotes makes it stand apart from the 
other files as unsettling to some men.  Hense, some attempt to exert a 
higher level of control over the discussions here.  And my paragraph 1 is 
one of the more common methods.  We've had whole notes in previous versions 
devoted to this.

> You are accusing males with certain fore-mentioned sexual preferences
> of the oppression of lesbians, 

I don't think Bonnie was saying that at all!  The attempt to SILENCE the 
discussion, (with cries of "this oppresses me"), is what is oppressing.
Someone, (I'm sorry, I forget who), is saying that if men get turned on by 
it, that's just part of their sexuality.  I agree, it is.  But offering that 
side tidbit in a discussion that has nothing whatsoever to do with what turns 
men on betrays a motive that is at best, suspect.  Since I'm sure the 
person who said it probably understands that lesbians aren't too interested 
in what turns men on, why was the remark made?

> And I agree that lesbians should be able to vent...

Good.  Then I think we all agree that no one is being oppressed by lesbians 
venting their disdain at men who are slavering over the popular phony
images of them, yes?

> It often appears to me that if a woman speaks out strongly about
> situations that she finds offensive or oppressive that there
> are men who are offended by this behavior and call it 'male bashing'.
  
Right, Bonnie.  It's an easy way to shut her up and make HER look like
a bad person for saying such "terrible" things.  The way the word "slut" 
could control a woman's dress and behavior in days gone by, "male-bashing" 
and "man-hating" and "militant feminist" labels are used to control her 
speech and help prevent women from realizing the commonality of their 
experience and, (this is the biggie), using that newfound knowledge to 
coalesce into a truly effective political machine with an agenda of its 
own.

Sandy Ciccolini                                         
    

Someone asked why "we" do not value other people's sexuality when we are
asking them to value ours.

I am not asking *anyone* to value my sexuality.  I am asking people to value
my sexual *orientation*.  There is a difference.  What I do in bed, and details
of what I am attracted to (women in certain clothes, etc) is not the issue here.
I would not indiscriminately talk about such things.  In the same way, I expect
that when men talk about their *sexuality* that they will be somewhat 
circumspect.  I do not expect them to edit out of their conversations what
their sexual orientation is.  I value the heterosexual "difference", too,
as well as the heterosexuals themselves (some of my best friends...).  ;-)

<    As for the Kinsey scale, I'm wondering if you put that there for my
<    benefit, or so that others would be educated Or both. 

It was for general understanding.  Even Gays don't remember it very well,
much of the time.

<    I don't know if you're leaving room for a
<    different woman who is more of a 2 to label herself lesbian if she
<    is dating a woman. Will you be upset if she calls herself a lesbian? Is
<    it a problem?  Is she misusing the word?

She can call herself anything she chooses.  Technically, I am bisexual (being
a "5").  I call myself lesbian because I doubt that I will *ever* again get in
a relationship with a man.  a) I'm married, b) I just don't get attracted to
them, and c) I'm tired of people like my mother (a few years ago) holding out
"hope" that I'm going to get involved with a man, and apparently believing that
there is no such thing as a lesbian, that all women *have* to really want a
man. 

So if a woman is just "dating" another woman, and she is a 2, and she calls
herself a lesbian, that really doesn't change the fact that she is bisexual.
If she gets involved with that woman in a relationship that lasts the rest
of their lives, then for all intents and purposes she is lesbian (she will
certainly have the stigma of being one), but she is still bisexual.  Would I
be upset?  No, not as long as she still privately identifies as bisexual and
isn't trying to lie to anyone (like telling her spouse that she really isn't
at all attracted to men, if she is).

I would be more likely to be upset with a woman who is a "4", who dates a man
and says she is straight.  It would bother me because it would appear that
she was denying a part of herself in order to avoid the social stigma.  Just
as above, if she fell in love with him and lived with him the rest of her 
life, she would be essentially (practically speaking) heterosexual.  As long
as she didn't deny herself or lie to others, then it's okay with me, I guess.

Of course, this last stuff is relating to others.  I make more value judgments
about other people than I like to, I admit.  However, the only time it is 
really important to me is when I am analyzing it in relation to my friendship
with them (I prefer to hang around people who are honest and loving) or 
when I think they are hurting others or themselves.

     Carol

    
    Carol, thanks for answering me. I'm getting the feeling, although I
    could be very wrong, that LOTS of people are bi-sexual. In fact,
    perhaps most people are bisexual. Just that a lot of it is repressed.
    BUT, that part of fighting to have your difference recognized involves
    taking the Lesbian label, even when you're technically bisexual, just
    so that people will be forced to deal with the part of you that loves
    women. (You is generic here.)
    
    But I think this is the main thing about preference and orientation
    that I'm struggling with. Or rather, the word "choice". It would be so
    easy if everyone was either straight or gay/lesbian, i.e. 0's and 6's.
    Or even 0's and 1's and 5's and 6's. But its the 2's, 3's and 4's whom
    I'm trying to fit into my understanding. To me, these people are
    exercising some amount of choice. And when I say this, I feel as though
    people who are 5's and 6's feel that I'm belittling their orientation.
    I'm certainly not trying to. Sue has said that for her, lesbianism is
    not a choice. And I can respect that. But D! has said that for her
    lesbianism IS a choice, and I'm trying to respect that too! 
    
    Does it create a problem in the gay/lesbian community for the 5's and
    6's when the 2's, 3's and 4's don't use the bisexual label? And if so,
    can you explain a bit? I don't want to guess, because I think its a
    delicate question.
    
    I think the other thing that I'm seeing is two uses of the word
    Lesbian. There's the clinical definition in which there are only two
    categories of women to whom it applies, and it does not involve choice,
    and there is the "partner selection" definition which does seem to
    involve choice, even though it may be a permanent commitment.
    Am I making this up? Or is this real?
    

    Re: .159

    Justine,

    I heartily agree with your point on consent.  For me there's a *big*
    difference between saying and doing.  I do not think it is in any way
    rude for a man to *say* publicly he is excited by Lesbians.  But, for
    him to *act* on his fantasy without your consent is indeed invasive. 
    There were people advocating that it was rude and invasive for him to
    just *say* it.  And that's the part I don't understand.

    What you said got me to thinking?  I really wouldn't feel creepy if you
    said you were turned on by seeing me and my husband kiss in the parking
    lot.  I would feel creepy if you started to follow us around in hopes
    of watching us kiss.  For me saying it is fine, acting on it would feel
    weird.  Perhaps the difference is that gays have to deal with an aspect
    of voyeurism that straights do not.  They may feel people are watching
    them in a sort of "freak show" mode.  "Oh, look at those odd ball gays
    kissing".  I would feel creepy if someone was staring at me like I was
    some kind of freak.

    I would dearly *love* to see more public displays of affection by
    persons of all orientations.  I love it when two straight men hug :-)

    -Mary

Mary,

The "freak show" aspect is pertinent. For example, I think a lot
of the talk show hosts do shows about lesbians/bisexuals/gays for the
freak show component. I find them sickening, and they infuriate me.

Also, as Sandy brought up, context is everything. A topic about
lesbians in womannotes is not the place to talk about what excites
men.

Kathy

Ya know, I keep forgetting who reads what notesfiles, and, in fact, which
notesfile I have posted what in.  So I have been obliviously assuming that
everyone in this discussion knows how I identify, and why - and suddenly
i remember that I talked about that in another notesfile which many of
you don't read!

Opps.

Perhaps, Lauren, this is a source of your confusion.

I identify as a "bisexual Lesbian".  This means a number of things to me.
Firstly, I am bisexual by orientation - that is, I am sexually and emotionally
attracted to members of both sexes (albeit not equally.)  I am Lesbian by
preference - that is, I do not (currently) seek out romantic or sexual
contact with men.  So perhaps I should say I am a "Lesbian bisexual"so
that it will be understood that "Lesbian" is a modifier, and "bisexual" is
a noun.  The former a choice, the latter an orientation.  

I also call myself a bisexual Lesbian rather than just a bisexual because
I feel that the word "bisexual" doesn't have enough information by itself.
It could be 50-50 bisexual, it could mean leaning in one way or another, it
could mean male-identified, or female-identified, it could mean I identify
with the bi community, the straight community or the Lesbian community.
The truth is that I lean towards the homosexual side, I identify with the
Lesbian community and I am female-identified.  I believe that the term
"bisexual Lesbian" conveys that information best (without actually writing
out the whole above paragraph.) There has been some contraversy in other
notesfiles about use of phrases such as this.

As I have said before elsewhere, I believe there is a dearth of words to
describe the human sexual experience, especially in the area of bisexuality.
I think of the terms "bisexual", "homosexual" and "heterosexual" as being
clinical terms.  You can't really "identify" as one or the other - you
either are or you aren't.  Then there are the words "gay/Lesbian" and "straight"
which reflects not only behavior and desires, but identification. unfortunately,
there is no equivalent word for bisexuals, except perhaps "bi".  Then there
are other words still, words which carry a lot of emotional impact, such
as "dyke", "fag", "queer", "breeder", "strate", etc.  Once again, there are no
equivalent terms for bisexuals.  (Although the term "byke" as in bisexual+dyke
has become popular, and I like it a lot.)

Hope this helps some.

D!, technobyke

    re .178, if it is okay for a straight man to *say* that he is turned on
    by seeing two women kiss or make love, then why isn't it okay for me to
    *say* that I find it offensive that he is turned on?  Afterall, we're
    both just expressing our feelings.  I'm not trying to physically stop
    him from watching women make love.  We're both expressing feelings. 
    He's saying that he's excited by the thought of two women making love
    and I'm saying that offends me.  
    
    I realize that seeing two women make love apparently *does* excite most
    straight men whether I like it or not.  They may not even know why it
    excites them.  It may seem like it just does.  But, I could say the
    same about being offended by the fact that it does.  It just offends me
    that men are excited by women making love.  I don't know why.  It just
    does.  So, why can't I say so?  It's the way it is.
    
    What I find interesting is that while most straight men seem to find
    the idea of two (or more!) women making love, it doesn't seem that
    straight women find the idea of two men making love exciting.  I wonder
    why the difference.  
    
    Are there any straight women reading this who find the idea of two gay
    men making exciting?  I don't (maybe because I realize it has nothing
    to do with me.)
    
    Lorna
    
    
    

    Lorna,
    
    I think the appropriate question is not do straight women find the
    idea of two gay men making love sexually exciting, but rather would
    a straight woman like the idea of making love to two men at once.
    It is my impression that the men who are excited by the two lesbians
    imagines himself as a participant in the event.
    
    Bonnie

<    Carol, thanks for answering me. I'm getting the feeling, although I
<    could be very wrong, that LOTS of people are bi-sexual. 

Bingo!  :-)  Yes, there has been a lot of speculation that perhaps, as you
say, *most* people are bi.

<    BUT, that part of fighting to have your difference recognized involves
<    taking the Lesbian label, even when you're technically bisexual, just
<    so that people will be forced to deal with the part of you that loves
<    women. (You is generic here.)

"You" could be specific.  It's partially true for me, especially when I was
single.  However, it's still true that I don't expect ever to be romantic
with a man again (because of lack of interest).
    
You've got it exactly right, you just haven't put it together yet.  Lesbians
and gay men do not choose who they love.  Bisexuals don't really choose it,
but there is some amount of choice that they have that we don't: they can
choose who to date and who to hang out with.  Because of this choice that
they have, if they want to then they can create a much greater chance
that they will fall in love with a particular sex.

For instance, before I met Shellie I made a list of what types of people I
would date.  It is very difficult finding a lesbian who a) is Christian and
b) wants to raise children.  However, I was tired of getting involved with
women who didn't meet one or both of those criteria.  Therefore, I made a pact
with myself not to date someone who didn't fit those categories.  Now, I knew
I had no control over who I would actually fall in love with, but if I didn't
*pursue* a relationship with an atheist who didn't want kids, then I was less
likely to fall in love with one.  Got it?

In the same way, a bisexual woman who wants to exclusively have relationships
with women can increase her chances of this by hanging around lesbians, not
socializing very much with straight (single) men, and by telling men that she
is a lesbian (which doesn't always work, but lessens the chance that they will
pursue her - most people don't like rejection).  So, as she meets more and 
more nice single lesbians, and less and less nice single men, she is more
likely to fall in love with a lesbian.

Does this help?  When you use the word "choice" now, be careful of the context.
Refer to the choice of bisexuals, not lesbians and gay men, for instance,
and be sure to make it clear that you understand that they don't have a choice
as to who they are attracted to, and you should be okay.  I know that sounds
like a lot of trouble.  It wouldn't be necessary to be *so* clear if we didn't
have to fight the word "choice" as an argument used against us so much.  

I'll get into the rest of your questions in a little bit.

      Carol

    re .182, yeah, I see what you mean.  One of the reasons that I'm not
    excited by seeing two gay men making love is because I accept the fact
    gay men would not be interested in having a woman join in their
    lovemaking.  It seems to me that some men can't seem to accept the fact
    that two women making love would not want a man to join them.  It seems
    to me that some men cannot *really* understand that there are women who
    would rather have another woman than a man.
    
    As far as women fantasizing about making love to two men at once, have
    you ever noticed that when a man has sex with two or more women it
    seems like an accomplishment for the man, as though he has managed to
    get away with something clever.  But, the image of a woman having sex
    with two or more men immediately seems to bring to mind the idea that
    the woman is being used, exploited and victimized, and most people seem
    to think of the woman as a slut afterwards.  It seems that the man
    emerges as the winner in both scenarios.  I think that's why I find the
    whole thing so offensive.  It's part of the old double standard as far
    as sexual freedoms go.  The same things that can make a man a hero can
    make a woman a slut.  (Plus, most men wouldn't want the women they
    really love to behave that way.  They reserve that sort of activity for
    women they don't give a damn about.)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Okay Carol, you've "straightened" me out! :-)
    
    When you get a chance, I hope you'll comment some more on the
    "political lesbianism". I really think a part of my confusion may also
    come from my awareness of such women who choose to date/love women to
    make a statement, even though they are not 5's or 6's. Maybe not even
    4's.
    
    I think I'm about a 1.5 or a 2. But I recognize that I could really be
    a 3 or 4, but societal conditioning teaches me to ignore attraction to
    women, and I accept this. Well, I don't act on it. 
    
    I also sense that I always thought of lesbianism as ANY level of
    feeling by women toward women. Not just the 5's and 6's. I think D!
    calls it lesbian bisexuality. But that's definitely not something I
    hear a lot of people using.
    
    Is part of the problem just the fact that I'm straight, so I need to
    as far away from the fuzzy lines as possible? For example, you
    recommended that I steer clear of the word choice, regarding lesbians,
    but I wonder whether within the lesbian community, the 4's would not
    receive such a strong recommendation because there's an assumption that
    they KNOW what they're saying. Perhaps as an outsider, there's less
    trust that I won't say something homophobic.
    
    I don't have a problem with this. I know I'm on the outside looking in.
    
    I guess it just seems funny sometimes that with all of the positive
    aspects of lesbianism being touted in the file, its enough to make some
    1's and 2's give it some serious thought! But then even if I fell in
    love with a woman, I should never call myself a lesbian. And that seems
    a little strange. Maybe a little rigid. I mean, I'd certainly APPEAR to
    be lesbian. I'd be acting on an attraction to women. But I'd be
    bisexual.
    
    It almost sounds like an exclusive club that I can't join. Frankly, its
    pretty amusing! I hope you don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm
    just sharing my experience as an outsider looking in, and recognizing
    that in terms of race, I am an insider, and I am seeing a lot of
    parallels. 'Cause when white people talk about black people, and "want
    in", I figure they're crazy. I probably sound the same way talking
    about lesbianism. I should be able to figure it out; I certainly didn't
    CHOOSE to be black. But I like it. I hate the oppression, but I love
    being black, partly because its what I am, partly because I'm learning
    to celebrate it, and it feels good.
    
    If you took out the word black and substituted the word Lesbian, would
    that describe how you feel?
    
    Please let me know if a.) I'm not making sense, or b.) I'm offending you.

    
    The following was sent to me to be posted anonymously.
    
    _______________________________________________________
Bonnie,

Please post anonymously, in topic 702.

    
>    I think the appropriate question is not do straight women find the
>    idea of two gay men making love sexually exciting, but rather would
>    a straight woman like the idea of making love to two men at once.
>    It is my impression that the men who are excited by the two lesbians
>    imagines himself as a participant in the event.

Well, I can't answer as a straight woman (I'm bi) but I can, perhaps give some
additional insight into this.

I find the idea of making love to two men at once exciting.  I've fantasized
about it.  I've also done it.  (And before anyone asks, yes, I did like it.)

However, I also find the idea of two gay men making love to be sexually
exciting.  I occasionally watch gay porn for this reason.  The turnon  (for me)
is totally different.  This excites me because it is the only form of human
sexual expression I can ONLY experience vicariously.  I will never be a man, I
will never - except by proxy - experience what it is like to relate sexually AS
A MAN to another man.  I find it fascinating, and I do enjoy fantasizing about
what it might feel like.  So, yes, I might in fact find the sight of two men
kissing to be arousing.  UNLESS both men were bisexual and also interested in
me, I would consider it the height of bad taste and rudeness toa ctually
mention it, though.  If it is not explicitely for my benefit, then any jollies
I might get out of it are STRICTLY kept to myself.

How any of this may apply to straight men, I haven't the foggiest.

Lorna,

>    But, the image of a woman having sex
>    with two or more men immediately seems to bring to mind the idea that
>    the woman is being used, exploited and victimized.

I have NEVER, in such circumstance, felt used, exploited, or victimized.

>    to think of the woman as a slut afterwards.  

If anyone chooses to think that way about me, it's their choice.  I can't
prevent them.  But THEY own that, not me.  I don't accept it.

>    (Plus, most men wouldn't want the women they
>    really love to behave that way.  They reserve that sort of activity for
>    women they don't give a damn about.)
    
I'm glad you said MOST.  Fortunately, this is not universally the case.

    

    re .186, interesting, especially that you find the idea of watching two
    gay men have sex exciting.  I don't, but each to hir own.
    
    As far as your not feeling exploited, etc., let's just say that it
    appears that your experiences in certain areas have been more positive
    than mine.  
    
    Lorna
    

    re .185, it's funny that you said that lesbianism sometimes seems like
    "an exclusive club that I can't join" because I've had that thought
    before, too.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

<    Does it create a problem in the gay/lesbian community for the 5's and
<    6's when the 2's, 3's and 4's don't use the bisexual label? 

Welllll, that gets into a *long* story.  I'll try to skim it a bit.

It's a problem if a bisexual person says they are straight, and you're of the
same sex and are interested in them, but you don't know they are available
because they are saying they are straight.  It's a problem if they say that
they are straight because you don't know if they are saying that to protect
themselves from discrimination and would acknowledge their orientation 
privately, or whether they are so scared of their orientation that they would
never acknowledge it, and will deny you in the process.

It is a problem if a bisexual person says that they are gay, and you are in
a relationship with them, if you have your own prejudices about bisexuals.
That's where the long story comes in, and I will explain in a bit.
It is a problem if a bisexual person says that they are gay, and you are
dating them, and then they get interested in someone of the opposite sex -
you may feel betrayed.  Note I am not saying that this is optimal, but it
is realistic - many gays get bent out of shape if someone they've dated turns
to the opposite sex.  We can get really funny about that, and if some 
lesbigay can explain it better than I can, go for it.

My understanding is that most of the problems with a bisexual person saying
they are gay are related to insecurities of the folks who really are gay.
It is really related to our prejudice of bisexuals.  Although the gay community
is currently working to overcome this prejudice, bisexuals have the reputation
of being "fence sitters" ("why don't you just admit that you are really gay,
and are afraid to say it?") and of being not truly committed to gay political
rights (despite the fact that they have always been there to help us achieve
equality in legislation).  Sometimes we are a little "phobic" ourselves,
because bis can hide so much better than we can, especially if they are single
or in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex.  In this way, they have
more power than we do, and are slightly more socially acceptable (although
a lot of that is just denial by society that bis are attracted to folks of the
same sex). 

<    I think the other thing that I'm seeing is two uses of the word
<    Lesbian. There's the clinical definition in which there are only two
<    categories of women to whom it applies, and it does not involve choice,
<    and there is the "partner selection" definition which does seem to
<    involve choice, even though it may be a permanent commitment.
<    Am I making this up? Or is this real?

Hmmm...I didn't pay enough attention to those notes.  I think you are talking
about "politial lesbians", who *choose* not to date men, and who may or may 
not be attracted to women, and "lesbians", who are only attracted to women.
D! makes it harder because she isn't a 0 or 6, just like you said.  As I said,
I would classify her as "really bisexual, but is calling herself a dyke - okay
by me." :-)  In other words, let them choose their title, but if you are going
to talk technical, remember that what your *orientation* is, is what you are
*oriented* toward, *pulled* toward, not what you have chosen for your goal.

My suggested rule of thumb: when talking about "lesbians", talk about Kinsey 6.
We all will know what you are talking about that way.
    
            Carol

    
    Carol,
    
    
    
    Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
    
    I know this education process is a pain. But I really appreciate it.
    And I can't be the only one with all these ridiculous questions.
    
    The funniest thing is, lesbians and gays aren't the only phobic ones!
    Most straights I know get INCREDIBLY bent out of shape when their
    lovers leave them for someone of the same sex. I know its one of my
    phobias. I always felt that I couldn't date someone bisexual, because I
    figured there was always that chance that my lover would want a penis,
    and no matter what I did, I would never have one.
    
    Fact is I did spend some time in my youth with a guy who was trying to
    sort out his orientation. It was a strange feeling.

There's been a lot of talk about labels, orientation, and sexual
identity here but not much discussion of the fundamentals behind these
terms in my view.

Not that I personally understand them very well!

However, the Kinsey scale was I believe based on a person's behavior
as seen from the outside of that person.  So I think he measures by
questionairre the number of relationships with members of the
same/opposite sex, maybe fantasies (I don't know - maybe someone else
does).

The other question is how people view or label themselves.  I tend to
the use the terms lesbian-identified, gay-identified,
bisexual-identifed, heterosexual-identified.  This refers to how you
view yourself.  This begs the question I think of what the terms
actually mean however.  According to one view, you are what you
identify as.  So if you identfy as bisexual, you are bisexual.  If you
identify as gay, then you are gay but you were bisexual when you
identified as bisexual, etc.  You are lesbian if you say you are
lesbian.  This is independant of the behavior,
external or internal, that you express.

I suppose one could also posit an objective, real, intuitive measure of these
terms.  For example, you hear people say that they knew they were gay as a
child so presummabbly the thought here is that there is some basic
aspect of the human (and non-human?) personality here.  This concept
seems hard to pin down to me and hard to define.  You would then have
to create a category of gay, lesbian, heterosexual, bisexual,
non-sexual with certain attributes and definitions.  

Another way of looking at labels is just as a short-hand.  So when I
say I am a juggler, that means I have done juggling in the past and I
am likely but not completely certain that I will do it in the future.
However, to my mind, I am never a juggler but there are times when I
am juggling.  Personally, I try *not* to have a lot of identification with
any labeled group because I believe that limits and restricts my
freedom.  So if I say I am a juggler, then there will automatically
appear a whole set of ideas in the person's mind about what that
means.  Likewise, there will be a whole set of ideas in my own mind
about how I should be will appear.  Then there are jugglers and
non-jugglers, there is a way to be and a way not to be, there is
competition to see who is the "most" juggler, and there is separation
and conflict.  It is an interesting question whether there can ever be
identity and not separation and conflict.  This concept of identity
seems to breed nationalism, dogmatism, insecurity, war, conflict, and
all the rest.  Is it needed really?  Is it extra and beside the
point?  In fact, this whole concept that I am a collection of concepts
of what I am (plus the skin bag that I seem to occupy) is worth
invesigating.  [But hopefully not by making up some new concepts but
just seeing these things in operation by looking at them directly.]

So I hope someday that we will work on how we are and how treat each
other and not pay much attention to what we are and what
classificaition we will put ourself in, what group we think we are a
part of and all the rest. [Althogh I realize that people feel that in
a homophobic society they need to do this.]

peace,
john

    
    Ooooooooh John, you're being Buddhist!!!
    
    
    
    And I'm labelling...

First of all, D!, *thank* you for explaining about yourself.  It's much better
than me trying to do it for you!!!  :-)

<    When you get a chance, I hope you'll comment some more on the
<    "political lesbianism". 

'Ren, *I* don't understand it, except in the case of someone like D!, who is
more oriented toward women, anyway.  I certainly don't understand why any
straight woman would want to put herself and her partner through a potentially
unfulfilling relationship.  It's like all of these gay folks who are married
to the opposite sex; I understand some of the reasons, but sure don't agree
with the actions.  The whole *point* of orientation is that it is not something
that you can control, so why (for a political ideal) force yourself into a
relationship with someone who can't meet your innermost needs? 

<    I think I'm about a 1.5 or a 2. But I recognize that I could really be
<    a 3 or 4, but societal conditioning teaches me to ignore attraction to
<    women, 

I think we are really gaining here.  Now at least 3 women have actually
considered what their orientation *is*, rather than being afraid to even
consider the *idea* that they might be something other than totally
heterosexual.  To me, that is the ideal, that everyone is willing to accept
themselves for what they are, rather than what others want them to be.
    
As to your last question/point, you are right on.  If I hear a straight person,
or one that I assume is straight, say something about "choice", I will 
assume that they are as ignorant as most of the heterosexuals who use that
term.  However, if I am talking to a person who has been out as a bisexual
or lesbian/gay for a while, and they use that term, I am much more likely
to give them the benefit of the doubt.

<    It almost sounds like an exclusive club that I can't join. Frankly, its
<    pretty amusing! I hope you don't misunderstand what I'm saying. 

I understand.  I've always wanted to be considered "in" by every group.
There's some groups in which this will just never happen for me.

<    about lesbianism. I should be able to figure it out; I certainly didn't
<    CHOOSE to be black. But I like it. I hate the oppression, but I love
<    being black, partly because its what I am, partly because I'm learning
<    to celebrate it, and it feels good.
<    
<    If you took out the word black and substituted the word Lesbian, would
<    that describe how you feel?

Yup.  I think you described it very well.
    
<    Please let me know if a.) I'm not making sense, or b.) I'm offending you.

You're doing great.  :-)

   Hugs,
 
      Carol

> As to your last question/point, you are right on.  If I hear a straight 
> person, or one that I assume is straight, say something about "choice", I 
> will assume that they are as ignorant as most of the heterosexuals who use 
> that term.  However, if I am talking to a person who has been out as a 
> bisexual or lesbian/gay for a while, and they use that term, I am much more 
> likely to give them the benefit of the doubt.

    That's funny, I generally assume that they're speaking from personal
    experience.  I've always thought it ironic that talking about it in
    terms of "choice" is something that tends to cause gays/lesbians to
    cry 'ignorance'!

    Anger, I could understand, since this is probably the group where many
    of the Kinsey 2/3/4s can be found, and I would imagine also the group
    that tends to equate homosexuality with a 'lifestyle' and assume that
    gays/lesbians don't really value societal acceptance -- because these
    are the most obvious factors they weighed in making their choice.  As 
    such, they are also the group for whom changing the status quo poses 
    the greatest potential threat, since it would bring the validity of
    their choice into question.

	Sharon

    I hope this is appropriate (i.e., not offensive)for inclusion in this 
    conference. I found this article, and have included appropriate excerpts 
    (copied without permission) to give credence to the prior claims that a 
    common male fantasy involves seeing two women making love.  The article 
    is quite lengthy; if anyone would like the whole thing, send me mail and 
    I'll forward it to you online.
 
     Richard
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 Do you know his secret sexual fantasies?
  Gagliardi, N.E.
  Redbook  v175 p168(7) Sept, 1990
 
     Do you know his secret sexual fantasies? When a husband and wife turn
 to each other with love and longing, they're rarely alone. Their sexual
 fantasies--thoughts and images that turn them on--are almost always with
 them. Sometimes running a favorite fantasy through their minds is what puts
 them in the mood for love in the first place. Or a fantasy could spring to
 mind, seemingly unbidden, while in the throes of passion. These might be
 full-blown stories or just fleeting sexually charged images. But all lend a
 tantalizing erotic edge to lovemaking.
 
      Sexual fantasies are normal, common and even necessary, according to
 Redbook contributing editor Helen Singer Kaplan, M.D., Ph.D. "I believe any
 fantasy is good," she says. "A good marriage needs a healthy amount of
 mental stimulation, which fantasies can provide."
 
 ....
 
      Two women, double pleasure
      --------------------------
      "In my fantasy I'm in a bar and meet two women who are roommates,"
 begins Mark, a 40-year-old investment banker who's been married for seven
 years. "Each woman has big breasts and is wearing a low-cut dress. They
 tell me they want to show me something back at their place. Of course, I
 leave with them and soon we're in their bedroom. Without any coaxing, these
 two gals start going at it immediately--they're taking off each other's
 dresses and bras and panties. Then they fall on the bed and start kissing
 and touching each other. I love watching them--they're so uninhibited it's
 almost as if I'm not there. But pretty soon, they start moaning for me and
 I join in. Of course, the sex is fabulous. I make both of them cry out with
 joy and they keep me pretty happy, too."
 
     The two-women scenario, also an obligatory scene in X-rated films and
 magazines, is deemed the "classic male fantasy" by experts. Why is it such
 an all-time favorite? To begin with, dreaming about being with more than
 one woman is emotionally nonthreatening--a threesome, by definition,
 shatters the responsibility and accountability of a monogamous, one-on-one
 relationship. The fantasy derives its undiluted sexual power, says Dr.
 Goldberg, precisely because "there is no emotional involvement. The man is
 there to please and be pleased, period."
 
     The scenario also attests, in a man's mind, to his overwhelming
 desirability: He is the star attraction on whom all the attention is being
 lavished. What's more, it's a powerful affirmation of his virility--he can
 and will satisfy not one, but two, women. No other man is needed or wanted.
 He alone is just what women want.
 
 .....


     Nancy Friday, interviewed thousands of men for her groundbreaking
 book Men in Love, Male Sex Fantasies: The Triumph of Love Over Rage (Dell,
 1983). [She states] many men are especially turned on by imagining scenes of 
    two women making love while they watch from the sidelines (unlike the 
    previously described fantasy where he joins in). One reason men enjoy this 
    fantasy, according to author Nancy Friday, is that it "excuses them of all
 responsibilities: Men aren't even present." Fantasies that "feature women
 who are self-starters in sex, who enjoy sex, who themselves make sure that
 they reach orgasm" can help dispel hangups some men may have that sex is a
 degrading act that men impose upon women. Watching two women make love,
 writes Friday, enables the man to reason that "if women are really like
 this, sex is not a man's 'fault.' Women do it even if no men are around."
 That, in turn, can free his inhibitions and spark his sexuality when he is
 with a woman.
     
     
     
     

    Excellent note, Sandy (.175).
    
    Thank you,
    
    Richard

    Re Carol, I'm replying in response to a comment you made in one of your
    replies.  I'm not sure if I understood it correctly.  It seemed to me
    that you  said that you can't understand why someone who is not a
    Lesbian (i.e. sexually attracted to other women either exclusively or
    much more so than to men) would consider having a relationship with
    another woman.  But, I wonder if you have ever considered that just
    because someone is sexually attracted to someone that doesn't mean that
    that person can "meet your innermost needs."  I wonder if you have ever
    considered that there may be straight women (0's or 1's on the scale)
    who even though they are very sexually attracted to men have never been
    able to really find happiness in relationships with men because so many
    men seem to turn out to be abusers of some sort.  Why couldn't a woman
    make a choice in view of this?  Why couldn't a woman say to herself,
    Yes, I'm very sexually attracted to men but everytime I get involved
    with a man I wind up getting hurt, so maybe it would be better to try
    to have a relationship with a woman.  I don't understand *why* this
    offends Lesbians.  I understand that Lesbians don't choose to be
    Lesbians.  I understand that Lesbians really *are* attracted to women. 
    But, just because straight women are attracted to men doesn't mean they
    find happiness with men.  Sometimes I, personally, find it very
    frustrating to be attracted to men because I have been hurt by men so
    many times in the past that I find it difficult to trust them anymore. 
    I realize that society makes it extremely difficult for Lesbians but
    it's not always a bed of roses being straight either.  *Some* men treat
    the women in their lives so badly that straight women wind up going
    through hell, too.  Being straight is no guarantee of an easy love
    life.  Maybe most straight women don't really understand what it's like
    to be Lesbian, but I don't think most Lesbians realize how confusing it
    can be to be so attracted to men either.  Sometimes I think it feels
    like "sleeping with the enemy" to steal the title of a current movie.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .202

    	Reminds me of many of the things straight women say in
    	explaining the benefits being in a 'Boston Marriage' with
    	their 'closest girlfriend' vs. their boyfriends...

    Eric,
    
    "Boston Marriage"?  What is that, please?
    
    E Grace

    re .202
    
    WOW! what a powerful statement.

    E Grace
    
    In the past it was not considered unusual for two spinster ladies
    past a 'certain age' to take up house keeping together. (This
    phenomenon was more common after a war had killed off a generation
    of young men, I believe). These relationships were dubbed 'Boston
    Marriages' for what reason I do not know. Maggie wrote about the
    origin of the name, I think in a past version of the file. One
    can assume now, that some or many of these relationships were lesbian
    in nature, but that was not something assumed at the time.
    
    Bonnie

    I think Lorna's comments suggest that many women are essentially
    "reluctant heterosexuals".  This was the point I was trying to make
    earlier when I suggested that many heterosexual women are emotionally
    attracted to other women, even if they are sexually attracted to men. 
    I suspect that many heterosexual women, if given their druthers, would
    probably prefer to be lesbians.

    -- Mike

    Lorna:
    
    your .202 sets me thinking in lots of ways!
    
    One of them is (first kind of gropes)...
    
    Intimacy seems to be something that women are both much better at and
    more demanding for. (which is not to say that men can not be intimate,
    but rather to acknowledge that men's training/experience/exposure in
    the area of intimacy leaves a lot to be desired). 
    As a result men with the ability to engage in a relationship in a truly
    intimate fashion may well be in rather short supply.
    
    It wouldn't really be surprising to me that female strivings for
    intimacy have a better chance of being filled by another woman than by
    a man and that one of the 'compromises' many heterosexual women might
    make is to marry a man for all sorts of non-intimacy related reasons
    and satisfy their (non-sexual) intimacy drives with other women.
    
    There are probably other sorts of ways that heterosexual women deal
    with the frustration of not finding intimacy with men.
    
    
    				h

    
    Mike, the first part I agree with, the second part I don't. I'd miss
    that "interlock" sensation that comes with heterosexual coitus. I think
    a lot of heterosexual women would. So its not that we wish we could be
    lesbians, we just wish women had penises, without all the other stuff
    that seems to go along with malehood.
    
    Well, maybe I should speak for myself. :-)
    
    

    Re .207, "many heterosexual women...would probably prefer to be
    lesbians": Well, some of us wouldn't. And *I* suspect that, if indeed
    "many" heterosexual women can find only sexual and not emotional
    satisfaction with men (not my experience; the people I've known who had
    trouble relating emotionally to one sex had trouble with _all_ their
    emotional relationships), their "druthers" would be to find men with
    whom they *could* relate. But of course, my opinion's no better than
    yours. ;-)
    
    By the by, who decided that the straightest-of-the-straights should be
    ZERO on the scale? Personally, I find that offensive. I mean, who are
    they calling zeros, for heaven's sake... Just 'cause we're trite and
    boring (and, as some would say, repressed - "HEY! Who you callin'
    repressed!"), is no excuse for enumerative bias. ZEROS OF THE WORLD,
    ***UNITE***!!!
    
    [But I suppose if it had been -3 to +3, whoever got the negative side
    would be pissed... Maybe they should use the light spectrum instead?
    Everybody who's ultraviolet, raise your hands!]
    
    -b (Aw, do I *have* to use a smiley?)

    <I think Lorna's comments suggest that many women are essentially
    <"reluctant heterosexuals".  ...>
    
    Yup!
    
    The same sort of reasoning might result in many 'reluctant_lesbians' as
    well as many 'reluctant_heterosexuals'. My guess is that both happen
    That is to say: _some_ women who have found it
    necessary/useful/easier/<whatever> to fill their _intimacy_ needs with
    other women might 'reluctantly' conclude to not bother getting their
    _sexual_ needs filled by men either.
    At least in those cases when a woman attaches more importance to intimacy
    than to sex.
    
    
    

    Thanks, Bonnie!  What will I do without you folks?  How will I
    learn?!?!?
    
    {*8
    
    E Grace

The following excerpt is from an article entitled "Family Ties" by Susan
Buschsbaum, printed in the Boston Phoenix, February 12, 1988, reproduced
here without permission.  [Courtesy of the PKO Cluster Valuing Differences
Program, which distributed this and several other articles in honor of
Women's Month.]

Some hundred years ago, the term Boston marriage was used to describe the
union between two unmarried women who lived together in a long-term
monogamous relationship.  Although such "marriages" existed throughout the
country, Sam Bass Warner, a historian at Boston University, believes they
were given the Boston label because highly literate upper-class women in
Boston living in such relationships were most publicly associated with the
arrangement.  Together these women--generally feminists, often pioneers in
a profession--walked arm in arm through the Boston Common, encouraged each
other in their work, fought successfully for social causes, and
unselfconsciously proclaimed their mutual love and affection.

Far from condemning such conspicuous intimacy between women, sexually
repressive Victorian society, in which women were seen as above sex,
admired these relationships, perceiving them as pure and spiritual in
nature.  For instance, characterizing his novel _The_Bostonians_ as "a very
*American* tale," Henry James, who appreciated the value of a Boston
marriage in his sister's life, intended his book to be a study of such
relationships, a depiction, he wrote in his _Notebook_, of "one of those
friendships between women which are so common in New England."

Most historians explain the prevalence of these relationships in terms of
demographics: the loss of men to Western expansion and a post-Civil War man
shortage left New England women with only one another to love.  According
to Megan Marshall, author of _The_Cost_of_Loving_, however, such
explanations are too simplistic; the Boston marriage, she says, had its
roots in a society that kept men and women separate and encouraged close
emotional ties between women.  Whether such intense friendships also
included a sexual component remains unclear; undoubtedly, some did and some
did note.  But that possibility, according to several historians, though
intriguing, is largely irrelevant as there is limited value in applying a
lesbian label to women who would themselves not have used the term.  In
their own eyes, such couples were simply soulmates.

For this reason, the real significance of the Boston marriage lies simply
in its celebration of female friendship, in its power--or rather, the power
of the union of two women--to effect social change and in its testament to
the notion that, historically, there have been heterosexual women who have
chosen other women for a primary relationship in their lives.

    Wow Mike (.207), do you really think many heterosexually-oriented
    women wish they were lesbians?  I agree with Beth (.210), and if
    I were going to assume anything about what heterosexual women want, I'd
    assume they'd prefer that men were more nurturing, better able to
    express feelings and emotions, and better able to relate to women
    intellectually, emotionally and sexually.
    
    
    Richard

    in re .207, Mike
    
    or perhaps they'd like it if men could be as emotionally supportive
    as other women?
    
    Bonnie

    
    - .1
    
    Why aren't they?
    
    D.

    .214
    
    Why not both?
    
    As well as other 'compromises' as well, such as sexual abstention.
    
    I think it's an inappropriate simplification to think there
    would be _one_ response to the exclusion of others. (i wouldn't know
    how to rank order them in terms of likelihood)
    
    I do however, think that this is more of a female than a male reality
    simply because for so many of us, intimacy is not a very important
    consideration.

    in re .216
    
    I don't know, but I sure hang on to the ones I meet and make friends
    with who are!
    
    BJ

    If men aren't as emotionally supportive as other women, then that would
    seem to lend itself to the emotional attraction that I referred to
    earlier.  And it would presumably make for a happier life if one is
    sexually attracted to a person who satisfies their emotional needs.  If
    men don't satisfy a particular woman's emotional needs, then I would
    consider it understandible for that person to prefer to look elsewhere
    for that satisfaction.

    -- Mike

    RE.219  Mike,
    
    Your assertion would likey be true if there weren't the possibility 
    of other men.  I'm not specifically talking to the topic so bear
    with me.  The words men and women are used here alot. That reference
    points to large groups that contain individuals, for any given individual
    a specific situation may be true but when applied to a group it's
    likely to be meaningless.
    
    So for the case of a specific woman, if her emotional need could not
    be met by the men(available to her) then a woman could be a choice. 
    That relationship may meet all of her emotional needs while leaving
    a gap at the physical level.  It's still not as cut and dry as that,
    if considered to it's full extent.
    
    Sexual preference is not a one dimensional thing nor does it exclusively
    set up a person for any specific relationship.  We humans (speaking for
    me only) are sexual critters, we are also psychologically the most 
    complex.  That points to the possibility that the brain(physical) likes
    the body of the same or opposite sex but, the mind(emotional) forms an
    attachment to a person regardless of their sex.  Persons are not
    defined by their sex organs exclusively.  Sexual preference is both
    _what_ you'd like your partner to be and _who_.  Sexual preference
    also suggests the type of partner in more general terms like tall,
    thin, fat, race, macho, tender, long hair, no hair, and the list
    goes on.
    
    So what's all that mean?  Nothing is simple.  No mater what your
    preference is, you(generic) are could size up a potential partner
    against your(generic) wish list and form attachment that is counter
    to overtly stated physical preference.  That list may or may not
    be conciously though about, I may add.
    
    I digress to much.
    
    Peace,
    Allison

    
    .218
    
    me too  :-)
    
    D.

    RE: .206

>    These relationships were dubbed 'Boston
>    Marriages' for what reason I do not know. Maggie wrote about the
>    origin of the name, I think in a past version of the file. One
>    can assume now, that some or many of these relationships were lesbian
>    in nature, but that was not something assumed at the time.
     
    	They were called Boston Marriages around the country because the
    	label was associated with "the highly literate upper-class women
    	in Boston living in such relationships. These women - generally
    	feminists, often pioneers in a profession - walked arm in arm
    	through the Boston Common, encouraged each other in their work,
    	fought successfully for social causes, and unselfconsciously
    	proclaimed their mutual love and affection."

    	That was from a very interesting article from the Feb 12, 1988
    	_Boston Phoenix_ that the PKO Vd group put out here {thank you}.
    	It was titled "FAMILY TIES: Single female friends are building a
    	home together, bringing the Boston marriage into the '80s".

    	Bonnie, that was my first reaction too - that these are in reality
    	most likely lesbian relationships by people afraid to 'admit' their
    	homo/bisexuality. And in reading about many of the older Boston
    	Marriages, I still wonder a great deal. But in some of the modern
    	Boston marriage relationships women are building today, it doesn't
    	seem to be the case {if you take their feelings at face value}.

    	In the five-page article, they gave some 'day-in-the-life-of'
    	stories with some of these women. They say how much fun they have
    	together, dancing around to music together, furnishing the place
    	together, cooking together, yet creating privacy for their bedrooms
    	for when they have boyfriends over. "It's like being in marriage,
    	except there is no sex." "I can separate my identity from hers
    	better than I've been able to with a man. "I feel none of the 
    	pressure...I feel with a man. Instead I can just enjoy the comfort
    	and companionship she provides."

    	"Although Heidi no longer assumes that she'll marry, she says it's
    	quite possible she will. Kate, too, hopes to meet a man she'd like
    	to spend her life with. The pull to be part of a "legitimate
    	couple" in a world that views heterosexual coupling as the
    	ideological norm is a powerful one. "With Kate", says Heidi, "I
    	feel less on the fringe than I otherwise might. [She has someone to
    	share with]. Like I know I'm not invited to dinner parties
    	sometimes simply because I'm not part of a heterosexual couple.
    	Neither, though, am I part of the really tight-knit lesbian
    	subculture, since I'm not lesbian."  

    	The article continues about a fight the married couple downstairs
    	from Heidi and Kate are having. "Soon the yelling turns into
    	blistering screams. And object is thrown, a male voice shouts "I
    	want my salad _NOW_!!" Kate and Heidi are familiar with these
    	sounds. "They fight a lot," Heidi explains. "Once", she says, "I
    	was working in my garden...[calling her cat]. Just then the
    	fighting started, and I could hear the content very clearly; it
    	had to do with when dinner was going to be ready. Suddenly I was
    	hit very sharply with the sense that, much as I'd like to have a
    	man to love, there's a lot of love that my life is filled with."

    	The article features another dozen women. Some who have even
    	bought a house and made a home together. The common thread for
    	these modern Boston marriages was that it seemed the women preferred
    	sexual activity with men, but preferred to live and have their day-to-day
    	primary relationship and intimacy and life sharing with another women.

    	It was an interesting piece, which seemed to stress the difference 
    	between the sexual orientation label Lesbian, and the political/
    	ideological label 'lesbian'. Maybe these women are 'lesbian straights'
    	if other women are 'bisexual lesbians'??  {whatever self-label works for
    	each person internally}.
    	
    	-Erik

    	PS- I feel it's really sad if the rigid gender role enforcements
    	have really come this far, that so many men are really such REAL men 
    	(rough, tough, unable to be intimate and sharing) that straight women 
    	can't share their life with them even though they'd like to. Sad.
    	But maybe if more women did this, more men would get a clue? Naw,
    	the men would probaly just like the new free unattached sex w/o
    	fear of relationship or intimacy. :-)  [and :-(].                       
    

    	<PS- I feel it's really sad if the rigid gender role enforcements
    	<have really come this far, that so many men are really such REAL men 
    	<(rough, tough, unable to be intimate and sharing) that straight women 
    	<can't share their life with them even though they'd like to. Sad.
    	<But maybe if more women did this, more men would get a clue? Naw,
    	<the men would probaly just like the new free unattached sex w/o
    	<fear of relationship or intimacy. :-)  [and :-(].                       
    
    It strikes me that Men are probably less like <rigid gender role
    enforcements>,etc now -in the U S of A at least- than we have been at
    any time in our few hundred year history. That's a hunch, I won't
    debate it.

    
>     I'd miss
>    that "interlock" sensation that comes with heterosexual coitus. 
	
    I used to wonder about that when I was coming out, if I'd miss that. 
    It hasn't been a problem.  
                          
>    Well, maybe I should speak for myself. :-)
    
    Good idea.  I suggest you go even further and leave your imagination
    open, things aren't so clear cut as all that.  Or don't, if it doesn't
    matter much to you.
    
    Rachael
    
    

    re: .223
    
    I don't know Herb, maybe men are somewhat less rigid in
    gender roles (and superior attitudes towards women) now than in the
    past, but not by much.  Your last few notes in the Process
    topic seem to contradict your assertion in .223 here.
    
    Maybe you're talking about different things, but it doesn't
    seem so to me.  Seems to me that as women demand more
    equality, respect and understanding from men, the
    hostility level of *some* men rises.  Not all, not even
    most, but a very vocal some...
    
    Richard

    re: -1
    
    	Ditto.
    
    	I had the same confusion between .223 and the recent notes in the
    	Process topic too. I thought it was me.
    
    	I also share your 'the better it gets for women, the worse *some*
    	men will get' sentiment as well.
    
    	-Erik

    
    	PS- I also often forget that I'm in a very unique and
    	more-so-than-usual progressive environment here at Digital (and 
    	also amoung my current post-school friends). 
    
    	So when I start feeling good that "Wow, all these men around me and
    	including me are waking up to gender role and equality issues, men
    	are really changing in 1991!", I stop to remember what going to the 
    	Andrew Dice Clay concert was like. And remember that the world is
    	not Digital or -wm-. Sobers me up to reality again...
    
    	-Erik
     

    RE:.223
    
    Men's gender roles do appear to have moved some, but is it far enough?
    I think not, if that were so then note 710 wouldn't be.  
    
    Role support (both mens and womans) is part of society, I do mean 
    your supported if the role matches the accepted norms otherwise your
    a target if your role(lifestyle) does not.  It can be as simple as 
    mens pink shirts, in the past only outcasts wore them then it became
    trendy and accepted.  There are still men out their that would not
    wear pink because to them it's a femminine color.  There are still
    parts of the country where a pink business shirt would get comments
    like "nice blouse girly".  That's a simple example of accepted
    role enforcement.  This is not a perfect example so don't spend time
    picking it apart but, it should be clear that it can extend to gender
    and sex roles.  Some of this is the coupling to homophobia as well.
    
    Enough for now,

    Allison

    <is it far enough?
    
    not by a long shot

>     I'd miss
>    that "interlock" sensation that comes with heterosexual coitus. 

Er, ahem, ah...it's okay, you can achieve a very satisfying "interlock" with
another woman too.

Ahem.

D!

[PS:  No, I won't elaborate.]

<   <<< Note 702.202 by WRKSYS::STHILAIRE "when I get you on my wavelength" >>>

Lorna, I can understand better now why someone would like the *idea* of the
relationship.  I understand because of things that *you* have said in the past.

The wall I run into is when I think of the relationship in the long term.
I guess I've seen way too many unhappy gay men and lesbians who are in
heterosexual marriages.  They don't feel fulfilled there, although there are
certain advantages to it (easier to get kids, better societal acceptance,
easier to get promoted, etc).  So I kind of understand why they (the gays)
get into the marriage, but once they realize that they are gay, and that they
are not happy, I want them to get *out*.  Consequently, I don't understand
why a straight women would get into a relationship with another woman, when
I would expect that the long term affects will be similar for her (that she
will not be happy, that she will feel unfulfilled, etc).

The idea might seem really good, but I would guess that the reality would not
be as nice.  (I could be wrong; maybe the dynamics make a significant 
difference).

        Carol

    
    I haven't seen any other mention of this, so I'll throw it in.
    
    Re "nature vs nuture":
    
    There was an article a year or so ago in a popular magazine (*) that
    discussed research into the topic of XX vs XY chromosomes.  Surprise! 
    Lif'es not that simple.  It appears that there are usually four
    chromosomes determining and any combination is possible.
    that is:
    	XXXX
    	XXXY
    	XXYY
    	XYYY
    	YYYY
    	XYXY
    	etc....
    
    ONE of the directiosn of the research was to put further time in and
    see if sexual orientation was related to the chromo combination. 
    (there were also many more generic medical questions) 
    
    I thought it was interesting.  I haven't seen any followup recently,
    tho.
    
    
    (*) can't remember the magazine or date, but I believe it was of the
    NEWSWEEK variety.  If these alligators will quit (ouch!) biting, I'll
    go back into the stacks and look it up.
    
    =jamd

    the combinations that you mention are all rare and cause pathologies
    in the individual (physical problems)
    
    The vast majority of people have only two sexhromosomes - i.e.
    one pair, as they only have two of each of the other somatic
    chromosomes.
    
    Bonnie

    re: .175 oppressors and credibility
    
    Sandy,
    
    Yes, I think you're right about the oppressed having no credibility
    with the oppressors.  In my statement in .146 I made the mistake of
    using the word oppressors when what I meant was unopressed.  The two
    are not the same.  Being heterosexual, I am the unopressed in this
    case, but not all of the unopressed are oppressors.  And some of the
    oppressors are oppressors not because they wish to oppress, but because
    they fear being oppressed for taking up the cause of the oppressed.
    
    Anyway I still think it hurts the cause of the oppressed to present a
    dual standard for oppressed and unopressed.
    
    Mary
    

    re: .181
    
    > if it is okay for a straight main to *say* that he is turned on by
    > seeing two women kiss or make love, then why isn't it okay for me to
    > *say* that I find it offensive that he is turned on?
    
    Well I get turned on by vegetables because last night I must have slept
    with a pod :-)  (Annie I just love that expression!)
    
    Yes, Lorna, I did say it was okay for a man to say that he is turned on
    by two women doing whatever, but nowhere, nohow, noway did I ever say
    it wasn't okay for you or anyone else to *say* anything.  Good grief!
    
    Say anything you like, the point is if you tell people "please listen
    to me and accept me for who I am" and then tell them you don't want to
    hear what *they* have to say about who they are, that's a dual standard
    and they are very likely to not want to accept you because you don't
    want to listen to them.
    
    Mary

RE: the chant "We're here, we're queer, get used to it"...

Yes, it's an angry statement and g/b/ls have every right to be angry. We 
have to face oppression every day of our lives. I realize that this 
chant may turn some people off but there are some homophobic people who 
will just never accept or respect g/b/l folks no matter how much educating 
we do.

Like other folks have mentioned here there are times when I'm just too
tired to educate people who say homophobic things. Last night I went to get
my hair cut.  I can't even  do that without having to deal with a
homophobic comment. One of the hairdressers was calling Saddam "a gay, you
know a queer" I guess because he's keeping a low profile and not fighting
back very hard. I was pissed (not because I like or support Saddam but just
because of the tagging him of a gay person). I almost went through the roof
when I heard this and if I wasn't in the middle of a haircut I might have
walked out. I told him I was offended by his comment but I didn't explain
any further. I wasn't in the mood to educate nor was I in the mood to
explain that I was a lesbian and expose that part of myself. A few weeks
ago I went to rent a movie and was talking to the woman at the cash
register about the new Madonna video "Justify My Love".  She said she
thought it was gross. Again I didn't challenge her because I was tired and
not in the mood to get into a big discussion about g/b/l stuff. Those are
just a couple of examples. I could wrote a book full of examples I've
encountered in the last year. 

It's easy for me to sit here in the safety of my home and type in this
notes file that I'm a lesbian. It's still risky coming out in this
notesfile but not the same, at least for me, as in person.  But as soon as
I walk out the front door in the morning and have to combat a homophobic
world I take heavy risks  and it's scary and it takes a lot of energy. I
have a pink triangle on the back of my car. I never know when I'm going to
come back to it some night and find it up in flames because some homophobe
didn't like my support of g/b/l. I never know when I come out of a gay bar
if some homophobes are going to attack me and stab me to death because I'm
a lesbian. A lot of gay bars aren't in good sections of the city. I never
know if people at work are treating me differently because they know I'm a
lesbian. I never know if after confronting someone, a stranger, who's made a
homophobic comment if he/she/they will follow me later and attack me.  It
makes me angry that I have to deal with this sh*t and there are times when
I'm gonna just say to some homophobic person to "Get used to it". No
explanation,no education. Just "get used to it!". 

RE: Heterosexual men being turned on by two women having sex...
 
If heterosexual men are turned on by two women having sex, fine. I have no
problem with that. That's part of their sexuality and if it feels good for
them, all the power to them. I've had a couple of men see my node name in
the g/b/l notesfile and send me very offensive e-mail notes. They were
trying to get turned on by the concept of two women together. It made me
angry, feel intruded upon and very vulnerable. I was very offended by it. 

The basenoters comment about being excited by lesbians also made me feel
angry,vulnerable and thus offended me. These are my *feelings*. Other people
may not have been offended by it but then they might not have come from the
same environment (i.e. having to deal with all this homophobic sh*t) that I
have. 

I don't understand how anyone can refer to some folks in here expressing
their *feelings* as "male-bashing". I'm sick and tired of hearing women
being attacked for expressing strong opinions and feelings. Energy wasted
on cries and arguments about "male-bashing" would, IMHO, be much better
spent dealing with a *real* problem like "gay-bashing". 

Angry and tired,
Laurie

    
>>> Mike, the first part I agree with, the second part I don't. I'd miss
>>> that "interlock" sensation that comes with heterosexual coitus. I think
>>> a lot of heterosexual women would. So its not that we wish we could be
>>> lesbians, we just wish women had penises, without all the other stuff
>>> that seems to go along with malehood.
    
    Uhhhh,you know lesbians can also be "interlocked". I'm not going to
    elaborate here but if you use your imagination I'm sure you can come up
    with some very interesting lesbian-interlocking-images :-)
    
    All this talk of interlocking makes me think of those "lincoln building
    blocks" I had as a kid. You know the ones where you could "interlock"
    the pieces together and build log houses.
    
    Laurie

    Regarding women being afraid to be physical in public.
    
    I have a handful of very close female friends. You know the one's who
    have been around forever and call your mother Ma.
    
    Whenever I meet one of these friends in a restaraunt or on the street
    I always give them a hug and kiss hello and goodbye. I never noticed
    any strange looks. I've never been harrassed or followed, heaven for- 
    bid. Aren't we as women allowed to be affectionate in public? I mean
    I'm sure from the tone of some lesbians in this conference, their aim
    is not to make spectacles of themselves in public. I'm sure this would
    just fuel the fire since it makes many of them angry that men enjoy
    commenting on their enjoyment of two women together. 
    
    I believe homosexuals are exploited and harassed and murdered. What I
    want to know is how does anybody know you are one? I mean in public.
    
    Kate 
    

>>I've had a couple of men see my node name in
>>the g/b/l notesfile and send me very offensive e-mail notes. They were
>>trying to get turned on by the concept of two women together. It made me
>>angry, feel intruded upon and very vulnerable. I was very offended by it. 
    
    If any woman receives e-mail like this, you should document it and send
    a very clearly worded reply back stating that Digital regards this as
    sexual harassment and that if they continue this behavior you will file
    a formal complaint.  Document, document, document.  And, the same goes
    for any man who receives sexually harassing e-mail.  Let the sender
    know that the behavior is inappropriate and document everything.
    
    Laura
    

   > you should document it and send
   > a very clearly worded reply back stating that Digital regards this as
   > sexual harassment and that if they continue this behavior you will file
   > a formal complaint.  Document, document, document.  And, the same goes
   > for any man who receives sexually harassing e-mail.  Let the sender
   > know that the behavior is inappropriate and document everything.
    
    Demand a formal apology, then decide whether or not to forward the
    harassing letter to personnel.  Don't even give them a second chance
    "not to continue" the behavior.
    
    NICK
    

    re: 702.239
    
    Yup.
    Please read note 1.21 in this notesfile...
    
    -Jody

    > Yes, it's an angry statement and g/b/ls have every right to be angry.
    
    You have every right to be angry at the oppresors, and no right target
    that anger at the unopressed.  There's a big difference between someone
    who beats the poo out of you and someone who just doesn't understand
    you.
    
    Mary
    

    Thank you, -Mary, yes, I agree.  The unoppressed is not the same as
    oppressor.  To the oppressed themselves, the distinction may not seem
    so important but I agree that it is important in an academic
    discussion.  Thanx for pointing that out.
    
    As to women being allowed to be affectionate in public - I kiss my
    mother and sister whenever we meet in public, in a restaurant, in the 
    Digital lobby, etc, with no problem. (hey, we're Italian!)  :> 
    
    Why don't we have a problem?  Because we display the symbols of hetero-
    ness, comforting any homophobes that we are indeed man-oriented.  
    Women's clothing, (in which I include shoes, makeup, etc), is rife with 
    symbols that are there expressly to communicate sexual information about 
    them to the world.  Think about the rape defense of "What was she 
    wearing?"  Women's clothing "speaks" to the world about their
    sexuality.  That's what it's designed to do, (as repugnant as that
    idea may be).  We all know it's secondary if clothing also happens to
    keep us warm, help us walk easily - the first concerns of men's
    clothing.
    
    So depending on what the world thinks your image is "saying" about
    your sexuality, you will be "allowed" or not "allowed" to openly express 
    affection for other women in public.  It's homophobia *and* sexism in 
    synergy.
    
    Sandy Ciccolini

    -1

    	Right on Sandy! Great note.

    	It reminds me of what Cynthia Enloe said at our REAL MEN panel
    	discussion a week ago about sexism, women's inequality,
    	masculinity, what the gender role of being a real-man also says
    	about what it is to be a real-woman, and men's issues;

    	"Homophobia is the glue which keeps the whole thing together."

    	She said many excellent and insightful things that night, I was
    	extremely impressed with her. In fact, I _loved_ her, she was
    	beyond wonderful in person. Now I have a new feminist heroine. :-)

    	-Erik

re:women's affection in public...

Yeah, I hug my female friends, and sometimes give them a kiss on the cheek.
That is different than what I do/want to do with a girlfriend.

Think about going out with your husband or boyfriend.  You might hug and kiss
just like you do a platonic friend. but you might very well also: kiss him
on the lips, hold hands while walking, look deep into his eyes over dinner,
snuggle together while watching a movie, put your head on his shoulder.
Then there are very subtle things: hugs and kisses with someone you are
Involved with are longer, more intimate, closer.  Couples tend to put their
arms around one another protectively while crossing the street.  Couples
help eachother on and off with coats.

I like to hold hands, look into my lovers eyes, put my arm around her
while crossing the street and help her on with a coat.  These are *not*
things that straight women do with other straight women, for the most part.
There is a big difference between affection between friends and affection
between lovers.

I suspect if you saw me with a group of women, you would know within 5 minutes
which one was my lover.

D!

    
    I am fortunate to live in a liberal city, with concerted ongoing 
    efforts by city officials, newspapers, and the people to promote 
    gay visibility, gay rights, and to end gay-bashing.
    
    This is not to say it doesn't occur, but I don't know too many
    lesbians who censor their affections in public.
    
    It is fairly common in Seattle to see two women holding hands,
    or two men arm in arm, and I'm not the least bit hesitant to
    take a woman's hand as we dash across a busy intersection, or
    to linger in a liplock outside her car, or greet her with a
    non-hetero hug in a hetero environment.  I've yet to receive
    any adverse stares or harassment.  (Knock on wood.)
    
    Carla
    

    
    Y'know, I've seen more straight men in lesbian bars than I care 
    to remember.  In Colorado particularly.  And just last Saturday 
    night, 2 straight men were trying to pick up women at a lesbian 
    bar, and while it's amusing to watch them strike out repeatedly 
    then saunter back to their table and shake their heads in dumb
    befuddlement, it's also maddening to be prey to the stigma that 
    lesbians, WHO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MEN SEXUALLY, are still 
    being typecast as stimulants for men.
    
    I don't want to excite men.  I don't want to excite Hal.  I
    don't want to hear that what my sisters share excites him.  It 
    sullies the love and the community I hold precious and dear.
    
    Carla
    

	Y'know, I can definitely identify with those guys in the gay bar.

	I unknowningly went to a gay bar with a bunch of my friends once 
	and I asked a couple of guys to dance.  Both turned me down, of
	course.  I felt somewhat rejected until one of my friends 
	enlightened me.  I hope those men didn't feel I was invading 
	their safe space.

	Sue

    
    Sue, these men were not "unknowingly" there.  They went there 
    for the thrill of trying to pick up lesbians, or to watch us
    interact intimately, or both, and I know this because one hit 
    on my friend and said watching women turns him on.  This isn't
    a freak occurrence, it happens a lot.
    
    Carla
    

    re: .246
    
    Carla,
    
    I think its great that things are so much freeer in Seattle.  But you
    know part of the reason you haven't received any adverse stares is
    maybe you just don't notice.  One thing I admire about you, Carla,
    is your comfort with yourself.  (Loved your note on being alone.)
    When people are comfortable with who they are they tend not to notice
    the disapproval of others until it gets real obvious.  And on the
    other hand "To him who is in fear, everything rustles."  (That's
    from Sophocles or one of those other ancient Greeks I can't remember.)
    
    Mary

    Carla's right, I have had personal experience of several kinds.  In DC,
    there used to be a lesbian bar that was close to a Marine barracks. 
    The marines used to come in all the time.  I used to go to the bar
    early to get a table (this was when i was single) and several times i
    have had men come up and start talking, and then asking me out.  I
    finally said, i'm here for the same reason you're here, to meet women
    and i can't meet women if you're hanging around.  please leave.  some
    men were quite put out, but that's their problem. 
    
    i also had women approach me, we'd dance and have a drink and then
    she'd say, btw, my boyfriend (or husband) is standing over here and
    he'd like to join us.  are you interested in coming home with us?
    
    i'd politely say no thank you.  so tell me that a lot of men aren't
    really interested in watching or participating in lesbian sex.
    
    sue

    Re: Straight men in Lesbian Bars
    
    I think that even when (that's WHEN and not IF) Lesbians are accepted
    in our culture, there will still be men who will try stuff like this.
    I know this because there are men who won't take "no" for an answer from
    straight women. Saying, "I'm married" doesn't phase them at all.
    
    Mary

    you're right Mary!  Maybe a new chant along the lines of "i said no,
    get used to it"  might help :)
    
    sue

    Can't anyone start a rathole around here without someone
    complaining :-)

    I moved the replies -d, but somehow lost Mary Maling's in the process.
    
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comod