Lesbian Having Sex With a Man (or Vice-Versa)

PricelessT said:

Safe_Bet, you're still ignoring the reliable sources I've shown you that show that there are different definitions of lesbian. I just got through agreeing with Dyslexicea that the way some people, including some researchers, define us as though sex is all we are about is frustrating. But these definitions (page 22) among researchers exist. And they exist because a lot of women define themselves as lesbian based on the things mentioned in that source.

Click to expand...

Nope not ignoring just disagreeing for the most part. Sure there are SOME researchers who believe as you say. There are also some researchers that believe that we are all the work of the devil, have horns, eat babies and cause cancer.

What I AM saying is that the VAST majority of researchers (and thinking logical folks) agree that if you routinely, or even occasionally, fuck both men and women you are bi not lesbian.

As for you being back, you never left, right? Or someone contacted you about this thread? Either way, I'm going to go ahead and state "Welcome back." Maybe we can start over. After all, most people don't agree on everything. And people can dislike each other's beliefs while still being civil.

Click to expand...

Actually, I been busy.... I merged the company I owned with another and then a few months ago we bought another firm. Like I said... we've been busy.

BTW, just to clarify, the first person you ever TRIED to get into it with that used this account WAS my late wife. She had passed before I responded to any of your attempts at "debate". I, frankly, give a rat's ass who you THINK I am, but I will tell you that seeing as how this weekend is the anniversary of her passing I would be VERY careful of expressing your "skepticism". I am willing to be civil with you, but if you push that particular subject I will go the fuck off.

Dyslexicea said:

I did follow your post to find where you and Safe_Bet, by the way it was Safe_Bet's wife Amy, had your debate. After reading what Amy said I guess I'm going change my mind and agree with her. Labels are important. I'm a lesbian. I'll always be a lesbian, sexual orientation is not fluid, as some claim, unless of course your bi. If a woman enjoys relationships involving sex with a man she isn't a lesbian, she's bisexual.

Guess what, being a lesbian isn't about sex, it's about life, it's about who we are. Sex is but a minor part of our lives with other women. Even if I never have sex again I'll still be a lesbian!

Taking a deep breath. Regardless of what I've just said, I have nothing against bisexual women. I've had relationships with enough of them that Amy may have said I can't possibly be a lesbian. But I would never be with a woman who was also with a man at the same time she was with me.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

BTW, I don't usually have an issue with bisexual women either. All I've ever asked is that they let me KNOW that they are bisexual so that I have a choice. It's when they basically lie and say that they are lesbian, then go back and fuck some dude that I have a problem. I don't like having my choice not to fuck dudes, even by proxy, taken away from me.

PricelessT said:

It was better not mentioning Safe_Bet. Are you trying to bait her into commenting? But she did acknowledge that not all lesbians are "gold star lesbians" (as in lesbians who have never had sex with a man). She stated that she isn't one either, though her sexual interaction with a man was the result of rape. And, as a lot of us know, rape is discounted as "having had sex" in a lot of people's opinions.

I've stressed here and elsewhere that most lesbians (and most gay men) have engaged in sexual activity with the opposite sex due to heteronormative society.

Safe_Bet is against women identifying as lesbian but occasionally having sex with men, as well as women who state that they have minor sexual attraction to men while identifying as lesbian...but don't have sex with men. As you obviously remember, though maybe not my involvement, this resulted in debates between the two of us (and other people) because I feel that it is okay that these women identify as lesbian. For a lot of these women, the lesbian label fits them better than the bisexual label because their sexual attraction to men is so minor that they can't be sexually happy with men. And I see why it fits them better, especially in the case of those who don't have sex with men at all.

Click to expand...

Geez... It's NEVER been a case of me "acknowledging" that not all lesbians are "gold star lesbians", FFS! Of course they aren't. I would dare say that the hugest part of the lesbian population isn't. To say otherwise is stupid.

In fact, one of the very, very few I have ever met was my late wife and she didn't find the idea of having M/F sex to be repulsive as much as being something that held 0% interest for her and that she strongly disliked being pressured towards by the hetero community. I on the other hand, absolutely do find the thought to be abhorrent. I'd sooner shoot myself than have sex with a man (or a woman who does). There's nothing wrong with hetero sexual attraction, it just makes ME PERSONALLY nauseous

JaxRhapsody said:

...Im surprised the head of lesbian affairs and authority; Safe_Bet hasnt stepped in talking about "psuedo-lesbians" and how any "true" lez will get kicked out of the guild if she lay with beast(men). ....

Click to expand...

Dude you aren't a lesbian, or even a woman, so why the freak'in hell are you even IN this convo? Your "opinion" has no validity.

Oh, and fuck off, asshat!

I slept with a gay friend once. He described it as: "Giving my balls a workout."

Dyslexicea said:

Strange when you have to quote yourself isn't it. What the hell, I talk to myself so I suppose I can quote myself also. Maybe even stranger is my inside self addresses me by my name.

Anyway I think I came off as a man hating lesbian, I assure you I'm not. I didn't want to imply that all men are bad lovers, so if you took it that way I apologize. But I do have to say that the majority of women I've known who happen to be with a man don't seem to have a very satisfying sex life. So I think Stella's advice is valid, if you want a good sex life with your lady she's has to be at least as satisfied as you are. Which means she gets her orgasm just like you always get yours.

I think more satisfied because we are so much more capable of sexual pleasure than you men are. One orgasms for her should never be your goal she can and should have many. Sorry guys but that is a fact!

Not to discount the rest of love making because for most of us women good love making involves much more than just orgasms. It involves so much more of our bodies than just our sexual organs.

Click to expand...

I like girls.... But I think hubby & I have GREAT SEX! LESBIANS ROCK!!!

From another thread.

LittleKat91 said:

Have I not already checked into this thread? I don't know, but I'm bi and lesbian. Hit me up.

Click to expand...

This is what Amy is speaking of, you just can't call yourself bi and lesbian, nor can you call yourself a lesbian if you want to sleep with men, even if you don't.

A bi woman can live as a lesbian but I don't know any lesbian who would call someone who desires sex with a man a lesbian, PricelessT exception noted, but I dare say you would not express your views openly among other lesbians. If you did, you would be surprised at just how civil Amy's opposition to the term lesbian being used to refer to women who are not is compared to how brutal that discussion would be.

I don't mind the discussion, it's beats the HELL out of so many threads here but everyone of you do know what lesbian means and you also damn well know it means we don't get off on men. If you get off on men, even if you're emotional side only fits with another woman, you are still bisexual. I'm sorry that there isn't a term to better fit who you are but you are not a lesbian.

Safe_Bet said:

Nope not ignoring just disagreeing for the most part. Sure there are SOME researchers who believe as you say. There are also some researchers that believe that we are all the work of the devil, have horns, eat babies and cause cancer.

What I AM saying is that the VAST majority of researchers (and thinking logical folks) agree that if you routinely, or even occasionally, fuck both men and women you are bi not lesbian.

Click to expand...

But that's the thing, Safe_Bet. The vast majority of researchers do not define "lesbian" the way that you do; this is clear from the source I provided. It talks about how it's generally difficult to define "lesbian" because so many researchers and women define it "differently." But I don't want to argue against how you define lesbian, or how others define the term. At least not at this time. As this thread shows, some people define "lesbian" differently. I disagree that "political lesbians" (women who only adopt the lesbian label for political reasons) are lesbians. So all that in mind, I understand perfectly well how you don't consider a woman who occasionally has sex with men to be a lesbian. I can't find men sexually attractive either, only women, and l have no desire to have sex with a man. And I can't imagine a better term other than "lesbian" to describe that.

BTW, just to clarify, the first person you ever TRIED to get into it with that used this account WAS my late wife. She had passed before I responded to any of your attempts at "debate". I, frankly, give a rat's ass who you THINK I am, but I will tell you that seeing as how this weekend is the anniversary of her passing I would be VERY careful of expressing your "skepticism". I am willing to be civil with you, but if you push that particular subject I will go the fuck off.

Click to expand...

I didn't state otherwise about the first person I tried to get into a debate with. I stated that it wasn't your wife that I debated with. I made clear that my first post to this forum was a response the poster going by the name Safe_Bet, but then administrator Etoile "told me that Safe_Bet had died and that Safe_Bet would of course not be responding to me. Later, I met a different Safe_Bet and she told me that the original Safe_Bet was her wife and that she had now taken up the Safe_Bet screen name in her place."

I would never want to disrespect your late wife. So I apologize if it came across that way. I meant it about trying to start over with you and being civil/trying to be civil. So thanks for attempting to give it a try.

Just found this topic and wanted to comment few things:

Stella_Omega said:

The next time she ovulates, though-- she might enjoy herself a lot more. ovulation can make a woman very horny.

Click to expand...

There actually has been made a study which shows that lesbians during ovulation are horny, but for women only, not men. The name of the research is "Sexual minority women's sexual motivation around the time of ovulation".
Horniness doesn't make someone bisexual if they aren't already, in case that's what you wanted to imply.

BTW, things that happen to transsexual people during hormone treatment also suggest that sex drive can only have some influence on clarity of sexual attraction, not create it. For example many transmen who identified as lesbians before finding out about themselves, after starting testosterone treatment (and huge increase in sex drive), turn out to be gay men. It can't be explained that their orientation "changed" due to testosterone, because, first of all, in human related animals orientation is fixed during prenatal period and sex hormones during adolescence only have "activational" role, and second of all, in animals that are prone to circulating hormones when it comes to their orientation, typically male doses of hormones would result in typically straight male sexual orientation.

And there are transwomen who prior to estrogen + anti-androgen treatment were into women only, but with drop in sex drive decide that they are bisexual or even straight. IIRC one of such transwomen (who identified now as straight) was studied for her sexual arousal pattern and it showed that she still reacted only to women, not men.

So in other words, since women on average have weaker sex drive than men (although there is huge variation), their sexual preferences may often seem to be "misty" to them, and that's the reason why lots of lesbian identified women are sexually attracted to men too, but many other factors decide why they identify as lesbian (mainly their romantic connections with other people - which according to current scientific evidences, don't seem to be fixed in any way and it's separated from sexual preferences when it comes to brain wiring and working). But there are also lots of women who think of themselves as straight, who have boyfriends whom they love, and can't see themselves to ever fall for a woman, but to get off they have to imagine having sex with a woman.

njlauren said:

I had an acquaintance at one time, a pro domme in the SF bay area, who had a female slave that was about as much a lesbian as you can imagine, but her domme used to lend her out to guys occasionally (it was part of their contract, before anyone starts crying abuse), because as my friend put it, once in a while she (her slave) needed a good screwing from a guy.

Click to expand...

I wonder what that "as much a lesbian as you can imagine" means, she was local about gay rights, was butch, or something else?
For me the only defining thing (at least from biological standpoint) for a lesbian is having sexual attraction exclusively directed at women. And obviously she didn't pass that.

PricelessT said:

LOL, Dyslexicea.
As for hard science, I suppose it depends on what is meant by it. A lot of researchers believe that there is strong evidence that sexual orientation is part biological in nature. The general consensus among them, however, is that there is no one single cause for sexual orientation; they believe that it's a combination of biological and environmental factors (the prenatal environment is sometimes defined as an environmental factor).

Click to expand...

It depends on the branch of science. It comes mainly from psychologists (and don't forget that psychology is not hard science) that "there are many factors", but psychologists haven't even created one standard definition for sexual orientation - each one talking about this subject has their own definition. So no wonder there's no consensus when some of them include "identity" as a part of sexual orientation, while someone else focus exlusively on sexual attraction.

I personally like theory of Lisa Diamond. She's the author of "sexual fluidity" studies, which are often presented as if they were proof that "all women are bi", meanwhile they only showed what I wrote about above. That most women focus most when choosing sexual identity not on sexual attraction, but on different things. And because of that, they seem to be "fluid". As another study showed, for most men it's what turns them on sexually the most important - and thanks to that, they seem to be more "solid".

What Diamond argues is that sexual orientation is based only on sexual preferences (since it was the only solid thing in her studies, and all neuroscientific studies have been focused on sexual structures of brain). All the other things - romantic preferences, sexual identities, are nothing fixed, but a product of various social and experiental factors.

Interesting commentary, I am so happy to read it! Welcome

Please remember though studies only show the results of the study, not any sort of global trooth. There are new studies coming out that show that women have a much higher, more all-pervading sex drive than men.

Gender and orientation are two great tastes that go great together... but they are two different things.

While it is true that SOME trans men change their orientation to men after transition, I can think of three reasons that have nothing to do with their sex drive and everything to do with 1) sense of self, 2) giving themselves permission to explore men now that they feel more like they are peers, 3) the perception that testosterone makes you so horny you dont care to wait and play nicely with the ladies (and this IS a perception, note that I said that) and I have known hetero women who have T levels much higher than mine are now that they are augmented. In fact, my T levels must have been spectacularly high as an adolescent and I ID'd as a gay man although AFAB.



speaking of which, I know a lot of trans guys these days, and a lot of them call their gynophilic orientation "still lesbian" because they are not and never have been "straight." And thus do I also.

maskaleware, regarding your thoughts on transsexualism (transgender and transsexual topics), I have read/heard all of that in one form or another and there is a lot of active disagreement among scholars about those topics. But it's good to read other thoughts on that.

And as for lesbian identity, most women (and it's a lot, taking LGBT meetings and LGBT websites into account) that I've talked to who identify as lesbian but have sexual attraction to men do so for reasons I've already stated -- because their sexual attraction to women is significantly stronger than their sexual attraction to men. Their sexual attraction to men is minor, and so minor in some cases that they would feel like it's a lie to identify as bisexual. Some of them never have had sex with men, and never will.

maskaleware said:

It depends on the branch of science. It comes mainly from psychologists (and don't forget that psychology is not hard science) that "there are many factors", but psychologists haven't even created one standard definition for sexual orientation - each one talking about this subject has their own definition. So no wonder there's no consensus when some of them include "identity" as a part of sexual orientation, while someone else focus exlusively on sexual attraction.

Click to expand...

While the notion that "there is no one single cause for sexual orientation" (I didn't state "many") may be reported mostly by psychologists, all sides have been examined, which is why the American Psychological Association states, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

I disagree that psychology is not hard science, because it depends on the branch of psychology that is studying the matter. I also disagree that "psychologists haven't even created one standard definition for sexual orientation" and that "- each one talking about this subject has their own definition. " The authoritative scientific organizations seem to have one definition of sexual orientation, and so do the majority of scholarly sources I've read on the topic; most of them define sexual orientation as "heterosexual, " "homosexual" and "bisexual." So you must be referring to slight deviations in definitions among some scholars. All these new terms, such as pansexuality and ploysexuality, are terms that they rarely use. In fact, pansexuality is usually subsumed under bisexuality, whether used by researchers or even, for example, the LGBT community. And by "authoritative scientific organizations," I mean the major psychological and psychiatric organizations (such as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association) that fund and conduct research on sexual orientation and that are what other sources follow when it comes to the current medical knowledge on the topic.

As for Lisa Diamond, some people support her theory; others criticize it. One criticism, as you seem to know, is that her research suggests that women are more sexually fluid than men. Some people feel strongly that men are just as sexually fluid. The general thought among scholars (from what I've read) about men vs. women regarding sexual fluidity, however, is that women are more sexually fluid than men.

As for Diamond arguing that sexual orientation is based only on sexual preferences, a lot of people who don't believe that anyone is 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual believe that. Others insist that most people fall in the middle on the Kinsey scale, with a minority who are 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual.

On a side note, your post is reminiscent of poster who had some lengthy debates about the aforementioned topics at AfterEllen.com. I can't remember her screen name at the moment, and I can't go back to AfterEllen.com to check because the threads that used to be there were recently lost to that site's overhaul. But I do remember that she is intersex and feels very strongly that women who even have very minor sexual attraction to men should not identify as lesbian.

Stella_Omega said:

Interesting commentary, I am so happy to read it! Welcome

Please remember though studies only show the results of the study, not any sort of global trooth. There are new studies coming out that show that women have a much higher, more all-pervading sex drive than men.

Click to expand...

I only said that on average women's sex drive seems to be weaker (so there are many women who have really low, but also really high sex drive), and there's another thing - during the time around ovulation for many women their sex drive significantly increases (and that was the reason for doing aforementioned study on sexual minority women).

Stella_Omega said:

Gender and orientation are two great tastes that go great together... but they are two different things.

While it is true that SOME trans men change their orientation to men after transition, I can think of three reasons that have nothing to do with their sex drive and everything to do with 1) sense of self, 2) giving themselves permission to explore men now that they feel more like they are peers, 3) the perception that testosterone makes you so horny you dont care to wait and play nicely with the ladies (and this IS a perception, note that I said that)

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it "change in orientation" per se, since it appears that only brain injuries (it has been studied on animals) can really change orientation, and sex hormones after prenatal period definitely can't, but I agree that it depends on social factors too.

I think that was the reason why they identified as lesbian previously - not necessarily because they were turned on by women, but because they had this perception that as "masculine women" they have to be lesbians, and even thought of being with a man - considering that they would be the "woman" in such contact - made them feel very uneasy because of their gender dysphoria. Meanwhile, being with feminine women brushed their ego.

After starting testosterone treatment two things happens - one, like I noted previously, is boost in sex drive, and another, their bodies start to change and after a while they really don't look like women anymore, so they no longer feel that they would be perceived as a woman if they were with a man.

Stella_Omega said:

speaking of which, I know a lot of trans guys these days, and a lot of them call their gynophilic orientation "still lesbian" because they are not and never have been "straight." And thus do I also.

Click to expand...

I've heard about such cases, and I personally think it's "eat cake and have cake" line of thinking, since when it's good for them, they want to be considered females, but for the rest of the time they take advantage from male privilege. Not to mention that it also affects negatively trans women, since if transmen can still be lesbians, then apparently they argue that it's sex you were born with matters the most. What logically follows is conclusion that lesbian transwomen are in fact still straight men.

PricelessT said:

maskaleware, regarding your thoughts on transsexualism (transgender and transsexual topics), I have read/heard all of that in one form or another and there is a lot of active disagreement among scholars about those topics. But it's good to read other thoughts on that.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there's always disagreement, that's why it takes doing excessive research on the whole matter to draw conclusions. For example, speaking of sexual orientation, I've seen some paper of some scientist theorizing that microchimerism could be the reason behind homosexuality (meaning that in case of lesbians some of their brain cells constituting hypothalamus have XY sex chromosomes). The way he wrote it may sound reasonable unless you know that there has been done excessive research which shows that sex chromosomes contain no genes affecting sexuality.

PricelessT said:

And as for lesbian identity, most women (and it's a lot, taking LGBT meetings and LGBT websites into account) that I've talked to who identify as lesbian but have sexual attraction to men do so for reasons I've already stated -- because their sexual attraction to women is significantly stronger than their sexual attraction to men. Their sexual attraction to men is minor, and so minor in some cases that they would feel like it's a lie to identify as bisexual. Some of them never have had sex with men, and never will.

Click to expand...

Nowadays there's also many women who identify as lesbians but have sex with men on regular basis. And right now in Australian Big Brother there's self-professed lesbian who seemed to meet your criteria, and who cheats on her girlfriend with a man on national television.

PricelessT said:

While the notion that "there is no one single cause for sexual orientation" (I didn't state "many") may be reported mostly by psychologists, all sides have been examined, which is why the American Psychological Association states, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

Click to expand...

Take a note about research I mentioned earlier - "Sexual minority women's sexual motivation around the time of ovulation". There were women in it who ascribed a role of choice in their sexuality. And they didn't experience much change in their motivation for sex with women during ovulation, unlike women who felt that they were "born this way". As researchers concluded: "The findings suggest that women with consistent versus inconsistent patterns of same-sex sexuality might be experiencing different types of same-sex desires influenced by different factors."
(Inconsistent also meant there bisexuals and "no-labels", since they experiences lesser increase than lesbians).

So those "choice queers" don't seem to be driven by much of biological same-sex urges, but that quotation you brought is about them too. Nevertheless there are known pretty well biological causes of homosexuality (or rather homosexual sexual attraction), since there has been done many experiments on animals (and they are driven only by attraction, unlike humans) and as it seems it works in similar way in humans (I speak of hypothalamic specific sexuality structures that govern separately sexual attraction to females and to males).

PricelessT said:

I disagree that psychology is not hard science, because it depends on the branch of psychology that is studying the matter. I also disagree that "psychologists haven't even created one standard definition for sexual orientation" and that "- each one talking about this subject has their own definition. " The authoritative scientific organizations seem to have one definition of sexual orientation, and so do the majority of scholarly sources I've read on the topic; most of them define sexual orientation as "heterosexual, " "homosexual" and "bisexual." So you must be referring to slight deviations in definitions among some scholars. All these new terms, such as pansexuality and ploysexuality, are terms that they rarely use. In fact, pansexuality is usually subsumed under bisexuality, whether used by researchers or even, for example, the LGBT community. And by "authoritative scientific organizations," I mean the major psychological and psychiatric organizations (such as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association) that fund and conduct research on sexual orientation and that are what other sources follow when it comes to the current medical knowledge on the topic.

Click to expand...

No branch of psychology meets criteria of hard science, since even if they use scientific methods, they lack "clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility, predictability and testability".
And take a look at orientation definition. Homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality are not definitions, but types of sexual orientation. But what constitures orientation, and where's the line between hetero and homosexuality?

And to psychological studies on sexual orientation some researchers recruit by sexual fantasies, some by how people self-identify, and others by sexual behavior.
I remember some study adressing Lisa Diamond's longitudinal research. It made it look like Diamond found that "women's orientation can change", but she wrote clearly that it's not the case - it wasn't women's orientation that changed (and by orientation she means sexual attraction), but how they identified as (lesbian, bi, etc.), as well as their romantic preferences.

So really, if you read as much of those studies as I do, you'll see how psychologists contadict themselves and each other all the time.

PricelessT said:

As for Lisa Diamond, some people support her theory; others criticize it. One criticism, as you seem to know, is that her research suggests that women are more sexually fluid than men. Some people feel strongly that men are just as sexually fluid. The general thought among scholars (from what I've read) about men vs. women regarding sexual fluidity, however, is that women are more sexually fluid than men.

Click to expand...

But that's something I wrote about in previous post. Because most women (as yet another study showed) as most important and defining thing in their sexuality see romantic connections, while men, sexual attraction, men seem to be more "solid" than women. That's actually the basis of Lisa Diamond's theory. Meanwhile most people seem to think that she argues that women's sexual orientation can change, and that's not the case.
And speaking of scholars, many of them actually don't understand her either and apparently didn't read her study, just mention it as a proof that "female orientation is fluid", because on the surface that's what this study seems to suggest.

As for Diamond arguing that sexual orientation is based only on sexual preferences, a lot of people who don't believe that anyone is 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual believe that. Others insists that most people fall in the middle on the Kinsey scale, with a minority who are 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual.

Click to expand...

I don't see how could it mean that no one is 100% gay or straight, if in Diamond's study there was one group that was "extremely solid", women who have always been exclusively sexually attracted to women. Take a note that Diamond argues that romantic feelings are not intrinsically gendered, so such lesbian could love a man, but without sexual attraction, technically it would only be friendship (although I personally know some women like that who tried to work it out, but ultimately it failed).

On a side note, your post is reminiscent of poster who had some lengthy debates about the aforementioned topics at AfterEllen.com. I can't remember her screen name at the moment, and I can't go back to AfterEllen.com to check because the threads that used to be there were recently lost to that site's overhaul. But I do remember that she is intersex and feels very strongly that women who even have very minor sexual attraction to men should not identify as lesbian.

Click to expand...

That's me, I also have OCD based on this matter and that's the reason why I tend to engage in such discussions (since honestly I registered here only for this discussion).
And I feel strongly about this matter because personally I think that we don't live in vacuum, and example of such women has impact on all other people who hold the same label. Like this woman on Australian Big Brother - what her example tells people that watch it? It enforces homophobic beliefs that lesbian can be turned by the right guy, that lesbianism is a phase.
Now imagine that such person has gay daughter (who happens to be really only into women). Or better, that this gay daughter has internalized homophobia. She can believe thanks to this that there's "hope" for her.

I've met some woman who said that she tried "ex-gay therapy" thanks to such people, insisting that "everyone's bi" and "lesbians can like men too". It didn't leave her without harm.

And I have my personal reasons too. Like you mentioned, I'm intersexed, and all those examples of "boy crazy lesbians" really made me fear that there's something that separates me from "real women" (I have OCD based on this), since I am not attracted to men at all. That's why I started to study all the research I could find and came to conclusion that it's not me, but that those "boy crazy lesbians" just mislabel themselves, since really not every woman is at least a bit bi, as they often try to suggest.

I think that was the reason why they identified as lesbian previously - not necessarily because they were turned on by women, but because they had this perception that as "masculine women" they have to be lesbians, and even thought of being with a man - considering that they would be the "woman" in such contact - made them feel very uneasy because of their gender dysphoria. Meanwhile, being with feminine women brushed their ego.

Click to expand...

I find it almost impossible to think that I was never sexually attracted to the women I've had in bed.

Especially when I think of how many times I've spread my legs for the ladies and gotten fisted, or eaten, or just done like a done thing. Do you really think that every butch woman straps one on and never takes it off again?

I absolutely can corroborate however, that I've avoided men for about ten years, because I felt so insecure about my masculinity-- to the point that I could and still do say that I am not attracted to (straight) men. I'm meeting more and more men that I would call 'queer' though, that approach sexuality without the hetero assumptions that Biology Is Destiny-- even though they are attracted to women not men, they just-- more ways, more open, more of everything that makes a person a person.

I've heard about such cases, and I personally think it's "eat cake and have cake" line of thinking, since when it's good for them, they want to be considered females, but for the rest of the time they take advantage from male privilege.

Click to expand...

Well... There is something in that, although your phrasing is disgustingly judgmental.

I would phrase it, rather; "my relationships with women are best when we meet as gender peers, and I would far rather keep that dynamic in my life than forgo it for male privilege." (Which I will never ever have anyway, transition or no. I'm not ever going to pass, and I will never shake off the life experiences I have had living female.)

Not to mention that it also affects negatively trans women, since if transmen can still be lesbians, then apparently they argue that it's sex you were born with matters the most. What logically follows is conclusion that lesbian transwomen are in fact still straight men.

Click to expand...

CAN be lesbians is not the same as WILL be lesbians. If you're going to make logical arguments, watch your wording.

And again, if we say CAN rather than WILL, I have known trans women who never were able to change their way of relating to other women from the way they learned as straight men-- age of transition, obviously has a big part in this.



I agree that there is no choice involved with one's sexual orientation. Bisexual isn't a choice either, even though it seems to observers that those people get to make choices performatively speaking.

And I have my personal reasons too. Like you mentioned, I'm intersexed, and all those examples of "boy crazy lesbians" really made me fear that there's something that separates me from "real women" (I have OCD based on this), since I am not attracted to men at all. That's why I started to study all the research I could find and came to conclusion that it's not me, but that those "boy crazy lesbians" just mislabel themselves, since really not every woman is at least a bit bi, as they often try to suggest.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could label yourself a monosexual lesbian. Because as you've noticed, the definition has pretty fuzzy edges-- and you will never ever convince anyone to honor your hard lines.

Stella_Omega said:

I find it almost impossible to think that I was never sexually attracted to the women I've had in bed.

Especially when I think of how many times I've spread my legs for the ladies and gotten fisted, or eaten, or just done like a done thing. Do you really think that every butch woman straps one on and never takes it off again?

Click to expand...

I was talking about those transmen who after starting hormone treatment find out that they are gay men, not attracted to women, while they previously, before figuring out that they are actually men, identified as lesbians.

I understand you identify as trans, right? So it appears you have bisexual feelings, and of course there are bisexual transmen, like Buck Angel.

Stella_Omega said:

Well... There is something in that, although your phrasing is disgustingly judgmental.

I would phrase it, rather; "my relationships with women are best when we meet as gender peers, and I would far rather keep that dynamic in my life than forgo it for male privilege." (Which I will never ever have anyway, transition or no. I'm not ever going to pass, and I will never shake off the life experiences I have had living female.) CAN be lesbians is not the same as WILL be lesbians. If you're going to make logical arguments, watch your wording.

Click to expand...

When writing those words I had in mind transmen on testosterone, completely passable, full on male privilege in work and other aspects of day-to-day life, but also demanding access to "female/lesbian spaces" since then they are suddenly "female born". It wasn't about genderqueers or transmen who are not going to transition, since they still get the same shit as any woman.

Stella_Omega said:

Perhaps you could label yourself a monosexual lesbian. Because as you've noticed, the definition has pretty fuzzy edges-- and you will never ever convince anyone to honor your hard lines.

Click to expand...

What would change calling myself "monosexual lesbian" if the problem is that those women affect lesbian visibility? Most people figuring these things out don't know about such nuances, and if they see a woman calling herself a lesbian, which is synonym of female homosexual, thus suggests she should be into women and not men, having sex with a man, they come to conclusion that lesbianism is not something as real as male gayness, since it's also something that media love to imply (just in late Riddick film there's another "lesbian magically turned by manly cock").

And I'm not talking about some lunatic opinions that anyone who's not goldstar can't be lesbian, but about women being into men all the way and insisting on telling the world that "being a lesbian doesn't mean you can't drool over guy". On aforementioned AfterEllen discussions there were women who picked up men for casual sex and told them they are lesbians (because they "didn't want to lead them on"), IIRC some even mentioned feeling insulted when a guy after sex concluded that his penis turned her.

And it really affects all the other people who call themselves lesbians. If they separate themselves from them like you adviced to me, it doesn't change a fact that straight people still don't understand the difference. If all those women are lesbians and love penis, then why wouldn't it work the same way for their daughter who insists that she's lesbian?
But it also has influence on weakest ones, those lesbians who are in hard time of their life, like being bullied teenagers. It driven some gay women into trying reparative therapy, and I don't think I have to explain how harming this is. And probably many, many more into trying to live unhappy life in a lie.

I was talking about those transmen who after starting hormone treatment find out that they are gay men, not attracted to women, while they previously, before figuring out that they are actually men, identified as lesbians.

Click to expand...

You ascribe motivations to those people that, IMO, you have no right to assume.

I understand you identify as trans, right? So it appears you have bisexual feelings, and of course there are bisexual transmen, like Buck Angel.

Click to expand...

yes. I identified as a bi man long before I identified as a lesbian, decades before transition was commonly known to even be possible.

When writing those words I had in mind transmen on testosterone, completely passable, full on male privilege in work and other aspects of day-to-day life, but also demanding access to "female/lesbian spaces" since then they are suddenly "female born". It wasn't about genderqueers or transmen who are not going to transition, since they still get the same shit as any woman.

Click to expand...

As we all know, privilege is not something one chooses to embrace or deny. It's just there, in your face. Some of the most ardent feminists I know became so after transition-- once they had experienced privilege in a visceral way, and realised what their female-embodied life was missing.
BuckAngel, is one, also James Darling-- bothporn actors, but T,as you point out makes a fellow hornyer'n shit)

But Ihave never witnessed straight-identified trans men demanding entrance to women's space. Maybe Michigan, but Michign needs to get its shit together, that its their rule that says born female always female, fow which fuck 'em.

I cohost a monthly play party for women. And our rule is that as long as someone is being female for the night-- they are welcome. We have had some trans men show up, look around, and excuse themselves. We have had male crossdressers show up, look around, and decide that kind of female is not them. We have one woman who can only BE a woman outside of her job-- she feels perfectly welcome.
dammit,.I'm totally rambling...

maskaleware said:

So those "choice queers" don't seem to be driven by much of biological same-sex urges, but that quotation you brought is about them too. Nevertheless there are known pretty well biological causes of homosexuality (or rather homosexual sexual attraction), since there has been done many experiments on animals (and they are driven only by attraction, unlike humans) and as it seems it works in similar way in humans (I speak of hypothalamic specific sexuality structures that govern separately sexual attraction to females and to males).

Click to expand...

Unless speaking of behavior, researchers generally do not apply the term sexual orientation to non-human animals; this is because non-human animals do not communicate with humans in the same extensively clear way that humans do, and most non-human animals cannot communicate with humans in any intelligent way. This makes assessing their sexual orientation, the mental aspect, as opposed to their behavior (as you know, sexual behavior does not always line up with one's sexual orientation), extremely difficult. Science concerning non-human animal sexual orientation is pretty inconclusive, except for the estrus cycle or other breeding season aspects (which aren't truly or generally considered aspects of sexual orientation, but rather a biological component that makes non-human animals mate), even more inconclusive than science on human sexual orientation. I agree that some research strongly suggests that biology is involved in the development of sexual orientation (the significant majority of scientists favor biological theories for sexual orientation), but all arguments for what determines sexual orientation are still currently theories.

I defer to what authoritative sources state with regard to sexual orientation, not individual studies. The best research to follow is research that has support after literature reviews or systematic reviews, and especially research that is supported by scholars as mainstream. I do this because what one or a few authors state can be used to present anything as though it is a mainstream belief among scientists or as though it is scientific consensus.

No branch of psychology meets criteria of hard science, since even if they use scientific methods, they lack "clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility, predictability and testability".
And take a look at orientation definition. Homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality are not definitions, but types of sexual orientation. But what constitures orientation, and where's the line between hetero and homosexuality?

Click to expand...

Not sure where you got that quote from, but I disagree because the psychology fields include, for example, biological psychology, cognitive neuroscience, physiological psychology and neuropsychology, and some or all of these fields have been categorized as hard science at one point or another.

I also disagree that "[h]omosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality are not definitions."

As for where is the line drawn, the researchers/scientists draw that line; it's up to them and to those who define their sexual orientation the way they feel fits best.

So really, if you read as much of those studies as I do, you'll see how psychologists contadict themselves and each other all the time.

Click to expand...

I've read plenty on these subjects; it's just that I disagree with you on some aspects.

Because most women (as yet another study showed) as most important and defining thing in their sexuality see romantic connections, while men, sexual attraction, men seem to be more "solid" than women.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty authoritative thing to state about women, and I wouldn't state it authoritatively for the reasons I noted above.

That's actually the basis of Lisa Diamond's theory. Meanwhile most people seem to think that she argues that women's sexual orientation can change, and that's not the case.
And speaking of scholars, many of them actually don't understand her either and apparently didn't read her study, just mention it as a proof that "female orientation is fluid", because on the surface that's what this study seems to suggest.

Click to expand...

LOL, those pesky scholars. I agree that some of them either don't seem to read well or like to skew findings to suit their own beliefs.

I don't see how could it mean that no one is 100% gay or straight, if in Diamond's study there was one group that was "extremely solid", women who have always been exclusively sexually attracted to women. Take a note that Diamond argues that romantic feelings are not intrinsically gendered, so such lesbian could love a man, but without sexual attraction, technically it would only be friendship (although I personally know some women like that who tried to work it out, but ultimately it failed).

Click to expand...

That's Diamond's study, though, which (like I stated) has been criticized enough (just like there is support for it).

The reason that a lot of people don't believe that anyone is 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual? It's because, with regard to believing that sexual orientation is based only on sexual preferences, they believe that we identify as heterosexual, homosexual (gay or lesbian) or bisexual per the degree of our attractions. Many, maybe most, of them also don't define bisexuality as equal romantic/sexual attraction. So it's not a matter of "everyone's bisexual" to them. To them, only the ones equally or close to equally romantically/sexually attracted to both sexes are bisexual. And keep in mind that I also stated "[o]thers insist that most people fall in the middle on the Kinsey scale, with a minority who are 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual. "

That's me, I also have OCD based on this matter and that's the reason why I tend to engage in such discussions (since honestly I registered here only for this discussion).
And I feel strongly about this matter because personally I think that we don't live in vacuum, and example of such women has impact on all other people who hold the same label. Like this woman on Australian Big Brother - what her example tells people that watch it? It enforces homophobic beliefs that lesbian can be turned by the right guy, that lesbianism is a phase.
Now imagine that such person has gay daughter (who happens to be really only into women). Or better, that this gay daughter has internalized homophobia. She can believe thanks to this that there's "hope" for her.

I've met some woman who said that she tried "ex-gay therapy" thanks to such people, insisting that "everyone's bi" and "lesbians can like men too". It didn't leave her without harm.

And I have my personal reasons too. Like you mentioned, I'm intersexed, and all those examples of "boy crazy lesbians" really made me fear that there's something that separates me from "real women" (I have OCD based on this), since I am not attracted to men at all. That's why I started to study all the research I could find and came to conclusion that it's not me, but that those "boy crazy lesbians" just mislabel themselves, since really not every woman is at least a bit bi, as they often try to suggest.

Click to expand...

I see. And, yes, I remember that you have obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). You explained that to some members of AfterEllen.com when they voiced annoyance with your posts. I also have obsessive-compulsive disorder, but I don't have it to the degree that you do with regard to responding and likely not other aspects either. So because I know how you debate, and because I've debated with you before and it wasn't a pleasant experience, I'll sit this debate with you out for the most part. I certainly mean no offense by that. It's just that you can go on for quite some time, and I'm not interested in debating for that long...at least not at this point in my life.

PricelessT said:

Unless speaking of behavior, researchers generally do not apply the term sexual orientation to non-human animals; this is because non-human animals do not communicate with humans in the same extensively clear way that humans do, and most non-human animals cannot communicate with humans in any intelligent way.

Click to expand...

That's why they measure sexual partner preference. Of course if you undestand orientation as how you identify as and who you want to be with, it's not sexual orientation, but if you understand sexual orientation as sexual preference, it's exactly what it is.

This makes assessing their sexual orientation, the mental aspect, as opposed to their behavior (as you know, sexual behavior does not always line up with one's sexual orientation), extremely difficult.

Click to expand...

Sexual behavior doesn't need to line up with sexual orientation in humans, since we are able to have sex for many different reasons unrelated to sexual attraction. Meanwhile, animals are prisoners of instinct. If 8% of domestic rams wants to have sex only with other rams, you can't seriously imply that it has nothing to do with orientation, especially while brain studies show that their ovine sexually dimorphic nucleus (structure of hypothalamus) is build like in normal females, not males expressing heterosexual partner preference.

Science concerning non-human animal sexual orientation is pretty inconclusive, except for the estrus cycle or other breeding season aspects (which aren't truly or generally considered aspects of sexual orientation, but rather a biological component that makes non-human animals mate), even more inconclusive than science on human sexual orientation.

Click to expand...

Completely disagree. There is known pretty well what kind of hypothalamic structures govern sexual preference for males and females in specific mammalian species (these structures are called differently in different species, but they have the same evolutionary background), to the point that scientists can even alter sexual preference from heterosexual to homosexual by applying specific lesions to those structures.

I agree that some research strongly suggests that biology is involved in the development of sexual orientation (the significant majority of scientists favor biological theories for sexual orientation), but all arguments for what determines sexual orientation are still currently theories.

Click to expand...

But you're not one of those people who during discussion about evolution keep emphasizing that it's only "theory of evolution"?

I defer to what authoritative sources state with regard to sexual orientation, not individual studies. The best research to follow is research that has support after literature reviews or systematic reviews, and especially research that is supported by scholars as mainstream. I do this because what one or a few authors state can be used to present anything as though it is a mainstream belief among scientists or as though it is scientific consensus.

Click to expand...

Well, certainly it is so in psychology, considering that, again, they didn't even form one standard definition of orientation supported by all psychologists.

Not sure where you got that quote from, but I disagree because the psychology fields include, for example, biological psychology, cognitive neuroscience, physiological psychology and neuropsychology, and some or all of these fields have been categorized as hard science at one point or another.

Click to expand...

Most of the fields you cited are interdisciplinary areas, which significance is nevertheless generally downgraded due to connection with psychology. And it's not because "real" scientists despise psychologists, but because it has been proved by meta-analyses that psychology studies are far more likely to be affected by bias of a researcher than for example astronomy studies.

I also disagree that "[h]omosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality are not definitions."

Click to expand...

So in response to my notion that psychologists haven't even created standard definition of orientation you stated that they had - it's "homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality" - and after pointing out that it's not definition of orientation, your only answer is "I disagree"?
Really?

As for where is the line drawn, the researchers/scientists draw that line; it's up to them and to those who define their sexual orientation the way they feel fits best.

Click to expand...

But that's not science, since it means different psychologists study completely different things, with completely different subjects, but in the end claim that they study the same and draw conclusions from it.

That's Diamond's study, though, which (like I stated) has been criticized enough (just like there is support for it).

Click to expand...

But from what I've seen, it had been criticized mainly for things that are not in it (but rather for how Diamond herself tends to advertize this subject in media), and the same is true when it comes to support.

The reason that a lot of people don't believe that anyone is 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual? It's because, with regard to believing that sexual orientation is based only on sexual preferences, they believe that we identify as heterosexual, homosexual (gay or lesbian) or bisexual per the degree of our attractions. Many, maybe most, of them also don't define bisexuality as equal romantic/sexual attraction. So it's not a matter of "everyone's bisexual" to them. To them, only the ones equally or close to equally romantically/sexually attracted to both sexes are bisexual. And keep in mind that I also stated "[o]thers insist that most people fall in the middle on the Kinsey scale, with a minority who are 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual. "

Click to expand...

I still don't understand how with regard to believing that sexual orientation is based only on sexual preferences no one is 100% gay or straight. Then they must claim that no one is 100% attracted sexually to one sex, but that notion has no support on anything, not to mention that it's incredibly arrogant statement, in line with beliefs of some people that bisexual people, or gay people don't exist.

And yeah, I know about people insisting that only those in the middle are bisexual and everyone is a little bit bi. It's very often stated by those lesbian identified women I wrote about in my two previous posts, that are sexually attracted to men but must rationalize in their heads why exactly they aren't bisexual. And by claiming that everyone is a bit bi, it means that no one is bi (except tiny bunch of people who are equally into both sexes), and "boy-crazy lesbian" is no longer an oxymoron.
As you may already know, I have no sympathy for such women, as they do terrible damage to many women and girls who claim the same label.

I see. And, yes, I remember that you have obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). You explained that to some members of AfterEllen.com when they voiced annoyance with your posts. I also have obsessive-compulsive disorder, but I don't have it to the degree that you do with regard to responding and likely not other aspects either. So because I know how you debate, and because I've debated with you before and it wasn't a pleasant experience, I'll sit this debate with you out for the most part. I certainly mean no offense by that. It's just that you can go on for quite some time, and I'm not interested in debating for that long...at least not at this point in my life.

Click to expand...

Now I kinda remember some woman I had long discussion with on AE. But she wasn't interested in discussion, to anything I brought she had the same response, denying everything alltogether and repeating in almost every post over and over again that American Psychologist Association thinks differently, so she's right and I'm wrong.

Now, especially that part about you denying that simply listing homo, bi and heterosexuality is not definition of sexual orientation reminds me her argue manner, as well as her love for psychology (to the point that she was presenting "Exotic becomes erotic" as valid theory - for those that don't know, it says that people are gay because they were born as either masculine girls or feminine boys, and because of that those masculine girls grew up with boys and boys - with girls - so somehow lack of closer contact with people of same sex during growing up made them appear to be "exotic and sexy").

So if you're that woman, maybe it really would be for the best if we stopped this discussion now.

Stella_Omega said:

You ascribe motivations to those people that, IMO, you have no right to assume.

Click to expand...

OK, I admit I projected some view about them and I shouldn't do that. But I still feel that it's not completely OK in regard to transwomen.

BuckAngel, is one, also James Darling-- bothporn actors, but T,as you point out makes a fellow hornyer'n shit)

Click to expand...

Having sex as porn actor doesn't need to mean much, since there are lots of actors and actresses who are gay for pay (mainly men, since they get paid much more for it), but also straight for pay (mainly women, since interestingly they get paid much less for lesbian porn).

I cohost a monthly play party for women. And our rule is that as long as someone is being female for the night-- they are welcome. We have had some trans men show up, look around, and excuse themselves. We have had male crossdressers show up, look around, and decide that kind of female is not them. We have one woman who can only BE a woman outside of her job-- she feels perfectly welcome.
dammit,.I'm totally rambling...

Click to expand...

No, I think it's cool. I didn't want to sound like some "separatist", I just always at least try to think how my (or someone else's) actions affect other people.

maskaleware said:

OK, I admit I projected some view about them and I shouldn't do that. But I still feel that it's not completely OK in regard to transwomen.

Click to expand...

And neither is it okay in any way in regard to trans men. The accusation of "they just want male privilege" is a common one thrown out there by the cis women's community. It's been discussed and debunked plenty.

Having sex as porn actor doesn't need to mean much, since there are lots of actors and actresses who are gay for pay (mainly men, since they get paid much more for it), but also straight for pay (mainly women, since interestingly they get paid much less for lesbian porn).

Click to expand...

Buck, and James, don't merely have sex as porn actors. They are both activists and spokespeople for trans rights and understanding. Buck is married to a trans woman and they lecture as a couple.

No, I think it's cool. I didn't want to sound like some "separatist", I just always at least try to think how my (or someone else's) actions affect other people.

Click to expand...

Again; I have never seen a straight-male-identified trans man demand entrance to a woman's only space.


If you want to talk about physiology-- and some of your assertions are interesting-- let's remove the social and personal-choice judgment calls from the discussion, shall we? I don't feel like untangling my emotional reactions to your word choices just to entertain your desire for debate.

maskaleware said:

That's why they measure sexual partner preference. Of course if you undestand orientation as how you identify as and who you want to be with, it's not sexual orientation, but if you understand sexual orientation as sexual preference, it's exactly what it is.

Sexual behavior doesn't need to line up with sexual orientation in humans, since we are able to have sex for many different reasons unrelated to sexual attraction. Meanwhile, animals are prisoners of instinct. If 8% of domestic rams wants to have sex only with other rams, you can't seriously imply that it has nothing to do with orientation, especially while brain studies show that their ovine sexually dimorphic nucleus (structure of hypothalamus) is build like in normal females, not males expressing heterosexual partner preference.

Completely disagree. There is known pretty well what kind of hypothalamic structures govern sexual preference for males and females in specific mammalian species (these structures are called differently in different species, but they have the same evolutionary background), to the point that scientists can even alter sexual preference from heterosexual to homosexual by applying specific lesions to those structures.

But you're not one of those people who during discussion about evolution keep emphasizing that it's only "theory of evolution"?

Well, certainly it is so in psychology, considering that, again, they didn't even form one standard definition of orientation supported by all psychologists.

Most of the fields you cited are interdisciplinary areas, which significance is nevertheless generally downgraded due to connection with psychology. And it's not because "real" scientists despise psychologists, but because it has been proved by meta-analyses that psychology studies are far more likely to be affected by bias of a researcher than for example astronomy studies.

So in response to my notion that psychologists haven't even created standard definition of orientation you stated that they had - it's "homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality" - and after pointing out that it's not definition of orientation, your only answer is "I disagree"?
Really?

But that's not science, since it means different psychologists study completely different things, with completely different subjects, but in the end claim that they study the same and draw conclusions from it.

But from what I've seen, it had been criticized mainly for things that are not in it (but rather for how Diamond herself tends to advertize this subject in media), and the same is true when it comes to support.


I still don't understand how with regard to believing that sexual orientation is based only on sexual preferences no one is 100% gay or straight. Then they must claim that no one is 100% attracted sexually to one sex, but that notion has no support on anything, not to mention that it's incredibly arrogant statement, in line with beliefs of some people that bisexual people, or gay people don't exist.

And yeah, I know about people insisting that only those in the middle are bisexual and everyone is a little bit bi. It's very often stated by those lesbian identified women I wrote about in my two previous posts, that are sexually attracted to men but must rationalize in their heads why exactly they aren't bisexual. And by claiming that everyone is a bit bi, it means that no one is bi (except tiny bunch of people who are equally into both sexes), and "boy-crazy lesbian" is no longer an oxymoron.
As you may already know, I have no sympathy for such women, as they do terrible damage to many women and girls who claim the same label.


Now I kinda remember some woman I had long discussion with on AE. But she wasn't interested in discussion, to anything I brought she had the same response, denying everything alltogether and repeating in almost every post over and over again that American Psychologist Association thinks differently, so she's right and I'm wrong.

Now, especially that part about you denying that simply listing homo, bi and heterosexuality is not definition of sexual orientation reminds me her argue manner, as well as her love for psychology (to the point that she was presenting "Exotic becomes erotic" as valid theory - for those that don't know, it says that people are gay because they were born as either masculine girls or feminine boys, and because of that those masculine girls grew up with boys and boys - with girls - so somehow lack of closer contact with people of same sex during growing up made them appear to be "exotic and sexy").

So if you're that woman, maybe it really would be for the best if we stopped this discussion now.

Click to expand...

So wrong on so many assertions, including on what the "Exotic becomes erotic" theory really means.

I'm just now replying because, earlier, I could not be bothered to read what I knew your response would be. I still have not read all of this latest reply of yours as I type this. To put it simply, I disagree with a large number of your views. Your views that you largely base on the research of Lisa Diamond, despite experts in these fields having drawn different conclusions regarding her research, and even though many people have told you that you often screw up what Lisa Diamond means. You go against scientific consensus or other popular scientific beliefs too often for my tastes, generally feeling that you know more than scientists and other such experts in these fields. All of those are the reasons that I can barely put stock into anything you state on these matters.

Like I stated, "And, yes, I remember that you have obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). You explained that to some members of AfterEllen.com when they voiced annoyance with your posts. I also have obsessive-compulsive disorder, but I don't have it to the degree that you do with regard to responding and likely not other aspects either. So because I know how you debate, and because I've debated with you before and it wasn't a pleasant experience, I'll sit this debate with you out for the most part. I certainly mean no offense by that. It's just that you can go on for quite some time, and I'm not interested in debating for that long...at least not at this point in my life. "

As for that woman, I remember her being very interested in discussion. I remember you initially being rude to her, rude to others, twisting her words, repeatedly asserting that you are right and are the smarter on the subject. I remember people supporting your and her views, and you not being so much interested in debating, but rather endlessly repeating yourself and throwing out insults so that you could win the argument. I remember that she got the last word, with various thumbs ups. And that the thread was eventually thankfully locked down because posters were beyond tired of reading the same arguments/same types of bickering, and especially because a different poster kept sporadically showing up to repeatedly pop up the thread and repeat herself (sort of like you kept doing). As far as I am concerned, you are not a person anyone should be debating with, except for those who would enjoy the repetitiveness and/or wouldn't mind the rudeness.

Stella_Omega said:

There is no hard science associated with sexuality and human behavior.

Click to expand...

this thread is really thoughtful

PricelessT said:

maskaleware, regarding your thoughts on transsexualism (transgender and transsexual topics), I have read/heard all of that in one form or another and there is a lot of active disagreement among scholars about those topics. But it's good to read other thoughts on that.

And as for lesbian identity, most women (and it's a lot, taking LGBT meetings and LGBT websites into account) that I've talked to who identify as lesbian but have sexual attraction to men do so for reasons I've already stated -- because their sexual attraction to women is significantly stronger than their sexual attraction to men. Their sexual attraction to men is minor, and so minor in some cases that they would feel like it's a lie to identify as bisexual. Some of them never have had sex with men, and never will.



While the notion that "there is no one single cause for sexual orientation" (I didn't state "many") may be reported mostly by psychologists, all sides have been examined, which is why the American Psychological Association states, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

I disagree that psychology is not hard science, because it depends on the branch of psychology that is studying the matter. I also disagree that "psychologists haven't even created one standard definition for sexual orientation" and that "- each one talking about this subject has their own definition. " The authoritative scientific organizations seem to have one definition of sexual orientation, and so do the majority of scholarly sources I've read on the topic; most of them define sexual orientation as "heterosexual, " "homosexual" and "bisexual." So you must be referring to slight deviations in definitions among some scholars. All these new terms, such as pansexuality and ploysexuality, are terms that they rarely use. In fact, pansexuality is usually subsumed under bisexuality, whether used by researchers or even, for example, the LGBT community. And by "authoritative scientific organizations," I mean the major psychological and psychiatric organizations (such as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association) that fund and conduct research on sexual orientation and that are what other sources follow when it comes to the current medical knowledge on the topic.

As for Lisa Diamond, some people support her theory; others criticize it. One criticism, as you seem to know, is that her research suggests that women are more sexually fluid than men. Some people feel strongly that men are just as sexually fluid. The general thought among scholars (from what I've read) about men vs. women regarding sexual fluidity, however, is that women are more sexually fluid than men.

As for Diamond arguing that sexual orientation is based only on sexual preferences, a lot of people who don't believe that anyone is 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual believe that. Others insist that most people fall in the middle on the Kinsey scale, with a minority who are 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual.

On a side note, your post is reminiscent of poster who had some lengthy debates about the aforementioned topics at AfterEllen.com. I can't remember her screen name at the moment, and I can't go back to AfterEllen.com to check because the threads that used to be there were recently lost to that site's overhaul. But I do remember that she is intersex and feels very strongly that women who even have very minor sexual attraction to men should not identify as lesbian.

Click to expand...

While this thread is quite clinical, I really appreciate the thought that went into it and the several responses that follow.

I'd like a lesbian help me improve my technique on going down on a woman. I feel a lesbian would know much better and could show me ways to better please my partner.

Sorry to bump an old thread, but I've not been here for a while - I came across this thread and it caught my eye. Interesting subject.

To go back to something near the original question - about having sex with a man.

I reckon that if you ask 100 lesbians whether they would/could/want to have sex with a man, you would get, well not 100 different answers, exactly, but maybe twenty.

My wife, for example, is faintly repulsed by men, and the whole idea of men as sexual entities. "Men are smelly", she usually says if a topic like this comes up, "and hairy, dirty, crude". She would never in a million years countenance the idea of sleeping with a guy.

I fall somewhere between the position of hating the thought and being actively keen on the notion, if that makes sense.

I used to identify as straight, and slept with plenty of men. Then I thought I was bisexual, for a while. But I'm a lesbian; it just took me a long time to properly discover that.

Do I want to have sex with a man now? No. But how much is that to do with the fact that I'm happily married to my beautiful wife?

People have quite a few times asked me if I would ever go with a guy again, if for some reason, god forbid, I wasn't with my partner. The answer again is no, because if I wasn't with her, I would seek another woman to be with, both romantically and sexually. I know I need a woman in my bed, and in my life. And if nothing else, I just enjoy vaginas too much.

But if in some hard to imagine situation in which I did, or was required to sleep with a man, I'd not offended by the idea. I don't fancy men, I don't seek men, but having sex with one would probably be quite an agreeable experience, if he was a nice guy and a considerate lover. Would I have an orgasm with him? Maybe.

Does my stance affect my status as a lesbian? No, I don't think so, but if you disagree I would take your point.

Which leads us into the main discussion below about, essentially, the definition of a lesbian as opposed to something else, eg a bisexual.

Sometimes I feel I hate labels, because they're a (restrictive), and (b) can be used (by withdrawing them) as instruments of abuse, and denial of acceptance.

But at other times I appreciate their value, and I value my status and identity as a lesbian. More than once, women have, quite aggressively, told me I cannot be a lesbian due to my history, and my look and image. And I have found that quite hurtful. Because I know in my heart I am a lesbian; and if I'm not, then what the hell am I?

Julie_in_the_north said:

Sorry to bump an old thread, but I've not been here for a while - I came across this thread and it caught my eye. Interesting subject.

To go back to something near the original question - about having sex with a man.

I reckon that if you ask 100 lesbians whether they would/could/want to have sex with a man, you would get, well not 100 different answers, exactly, but maybe twenty.

My wife, for example, is faintly repulsed by men, and the whole idea of men as sexual entities. "Men are smelly", she usually says if a topic like this comes up, "and hairy, dirty, crude". She would never in a million years countenance the idea of sleeping with a guy.

I fall somewhere between the position of hating the thought and being actively keen on the notion, if that makes sense.

I used to identify as straight, and slept with plenty of men. Then I thought I was bisexual, for a while. But I'm a lesbian; it just took me a long time to properly discover that.

Do I want to have sex with a man now? No. But how much is that to do with the fact that I'm happily married to my beautiful wife?

People have quite a few times asked me if I would ever go with a guy again, if for some reason, god forbid, I wasn't with my partner. The answer again is no, because if I wasn't with her, I would seek another woman to be with, both romantically and sexually. I know I need a woman in my bed, and in my life. And if nothing else, I just enjoy vaginas too much.

But if in some hard to imagine situation in which I did, or was required to sleep with a man, I'd not offended by the idea. I don't fancy men, I don't seek men, but having sex with one would probably be quite an agreeable experience, if he was a nice guy and a considerate lover. Would I have an orgasm with him? Maybe.

Does my stance affect my status as a lesbian? No, I don't think so, but if you disagree I would take your point.

Which leads us into the main discussion below about, essentially, the definition of a lesbian as opposed to something else, eg a bisexual.

Sometimes I feel I hate labels, because they're a (restrictive), and (b) can be used (by withdrawing them) as instruments of abuse, and denial of acceptance.

But at other times I appreciate their value, and I value my status and identity as a lesbian. More than once, women have, quite aggressively, told me I cannot be a lesbian due to my history, and my look and image. And I have found that quite hurtful. Because I know in my heart I am a lesbian; and if I'm not, then what the hell am I?

Click to expand...

Its a bit like saying since you ate a hamburger 10 years ago you cant be a vegetarian. It just doesn't make sense. You are who you think you are, not what a bunch of gender nazi's say you are.

Julie in the north, I agree that it's ridiculous for someone to state that you can't be a lesbian due to your history of having had sex with men. Let's be real here: Most gay men and lesbians, according to various research reports, have dated and/or engaged in sexual activity with the opposite sex (due to heteronormativity, curiosity caused by heteronormativity, etc.). There are hardly any gold-star lesbians (lesbians who have never had sex with a man), which is why I'm a rarity on that front. And I also know that from experience. I additionally agree that you are most certainly a lesbian; for goodness sakes, you are stating that you only romantically/sexually fantasize about being with a woman and can only be romantically/sexually happy with a woman. If that's not a lesbian, then nothing is. Some gay men, for example, have stated that they got a bit of sexual pleasure from having sex with a woman, usually while fantasizing about a man, but that the fact that the woman was able to pleasure their penis does not negate the fact that they are gay men. And that is true. Some lesbian women have stated similarly of having had sex with men. Too many people equate "Oh, your genitals were able to get a bit of pleasure" with "Oh, you must have liked that it was that person doing it" or "Oh, you must not be gay." That's like stating that rape victims who involuntarily reached orgasm during rape liked being raped. Ridiculous. Sexual arousal does not always equate to sexual attraction, and the same goes for sexual pleasure vs. sexual attraction.

But beware that maskaleware has quite a different take on your lesbian status, and will spew nonsense about brain structures and therefore assert that you are not truly lesbian. Indeed to her "Oh, your genitals were able to get a bit of pleasure" means "Oh, you must be bisexual."