Note: This is the latest in the ongoing Unstraightening Lesbian series, originally posted here.
Last up in this group of unSTRAIGHTening Lesbian is Julie Bindel, a Radical Feminist/journalist. Like Julie’s idol Sheila Jeffreys, we could literally use her quotes without comment and her Heterosexuality would (does) speaks for itself. BUT, not commenting on her Homophobia/Homosexual hatred (which she’s made a near career out of) would be a disservice to actual Homosexuals/Lesbians.
Since Bindel seems to love to hear herself talk, the quotes used for this post will come directly from interviews and an article written by Bindel alone, as stated above, nothing else was needed:
From an interview Bindel gave in 2015 to Feminist Current; when asked about how she became involved in the women’s movement, Bindel says:
Like many RadFems we have unSTRAIGHTened, Bindel too despised (es) actual Lesbians and feared (being called)/calling herself a Lesbian because she did not want to be perceived the way SHE views actual Lesbians, i.e. too direct/too mannish/too brash/too ugly/too dykey etc. According to her she would not have even called herself a lesbian had she not been called one by a group of boys when she was 17 (or 16 or 15 or…her being “outed” is subject to change depending on her mood?). Being outed or coming out is another interesting RadFem experience. Because Bindel/RadFems are Heterosexual females, it is only through putting themselves in visibly intimate (not necessarily sexual) relations with other Het females or by actually shouting from rooftops that they are lesbian does anyone SEE them as Lesbian. By coming out themselves, these types of STRAIGHTBIANS can at least control how society views them (not with disgust like we are viewed). More on this later….
Another Heterosexual tell in this quote is Bindel saying that once she was outed she had a CHOICE to marry a man/have babies/work a shit job etc (clearly Bindel’s classism and anti-feminism against other women who marry, have children and work a random job to help support the family they love is not a valid position), none of that has EVER been a choice for Lesbians, because Lesbian brain function isnt designed toward males or babies!
The above is from further into the interview and as you can read, Bindel’s HOMOPHOBIA and classism of whom SHE perceives to be bar-dykes are over the fucking top! I suspect the only selfloathing she perceived came from herself. Again Bindel didnt want to be viewed as a Lesbian UNLESS she could be seen as being radical and brave. The Lesbian sperm and Lesbian egg that meet to create a Lesbian life doesnt do so for glory, its simple biology and luck of the draw. Living a lie isnt radical or brave, but this is a lie RadFems deceive themselves with routinely.
The next few quotes comes from another interview Bindel did in 2015 in RadFem Collective:
Lying about your very nature and having copious amounts of sex with copious amounts of womenisnt political and it most certainly is NOT Lesbian! This is reminiscent of American political lesbiansSTRAIGHTBIANS who boasted of the daisy chains of Het female lovers they had all across America! Is it any wonder why Homosexuals are perceived to be so sex obsessed! The Heterosexuals like Bindel calling themselves some form of Homosexual are the sex obsessed! And not that I truly care what the religious right thinks about me/Lesbians, but I/we DO care when what they (voters) think/ the images they hold of us, have been driven by fucked up HETEROSEXUAL women! Like trying to adopt a rescue CAT and my wife and I are asked where we sleep and refused said cat for being sick/immoral, or worse refused the right to rent a home for the same reasons and those reasons exist NOT because of ANYTHING any Lesbian has done BUT because of the warped Heterosexuality of fucked up STRAIGHTBIANS (political lesbians), THAT FUCKING MATTERS!
No person born Homosexual can help it, that isnt an excuse, its pure biology and were it not for idiot Heterosexuals, it would be common sense! Bindel’s ignorance and hatred of Homosexual men is excessive and bleeds into many other interviews/writings. One has to wonder has she ever met a gay man. I read this and a few other things from Bindel to my brother and his husband and they were as perplexed as they were shocked and disgusted by her ignorance and Homophobia. I can only presume Bindel has read too much Califia/Rubin, two other STRAIGHTBIANS Julie; you notice those things when you’re actually a Dyke!
This quote is purely for the shits and giggles, name me ONE Lesbian who in the HISTORY of Lesbians EVER asked another Lesbian if she had orgasms! This is however the nonsense that Het women blather about daily. And RadFems actually ponder why men beat them at nearly everything. Sheesh!
This is the unrealistic dream world many RadFems sadly live in. Heterosexual females will NEVER stop being attracted to men, loving men, putting up with men or putting men first in many cases. Human biology functions today just as it functioned 5000 years ago. Bindel claims to be radical and brave but here she is being as passive as the day is long, passivity being a prime Heterosexual female trait. How are women suppose to use Radical Feminism as a springboard for change when the very women running radical feminist outlets are inactive/passive and impotent? And btw Julie, Lesbians are not passive, we not only say, we do! One more thing if Julie would like to answer, hun why are these campy men ridding around on anything and why a white van as apposed to a red or green or purple one?
From an article Bindel wrote in 2014 in the NewStatesman:
Clearly a RadFem refrain and favourite of Julie’s…
Julie? I’m not sure if this is simply you not bothering to do your homework or a convenient RadFem spin, but the UK GLF; particularly Bob Mellors and Aubrey Walter, took their example from both the US GLF and the US Black Panther Movement. Also the manifesto you site was actually a much later version heavily penned by Het women. Women like you Julie, who were/are ONLY interested in separating biology from Homosexuality so you can be believable/acceptable as something you are not-Lesbian! Readers, this is a prime example of ways in which Radical Feminists have slanted Homosexual history to suit their special needs. Somewhere between Het privilege, pipe dream and abhorrent, abominable, detestable, loathsome, odious, disgusting, repugnant, repulsive, revolting, discreditable, disreputable, ignominious, shameful, low, shabby, sordid, squalid, vile, reprehensible, reproachable, cowardly, craven, dastardly, unethical, unprincipled, unscrupulous…lies RadFem principles!
Bindel, along with many many many RadFems are notorious for calling out/calling attention to males whenever they coerce women into having sex with them, yet are completely silent about their decades long coercion of women into leaving their husbands/boyfriends and BECOME lesbians STRAIGHTBIANS! Where their is pressure and propaganda there cannot be choice, and RadFems will be the first to tell you choice is pivotal to feminism! Coercion however? Not feminist at all and most certainly NOT radical!
Jill Johnston Julie? Really? Jill Johnston was an admitted nutcase and Het woman, she was as sane as she was Lesbian, in other words she was neither. As mentioned earlier in this post, STRAIGHTBIANS are never flagged for being Lesbians, instead there has to be a concerted effort to get society (particularly men) to see them (RadFems) not wanting men by being seen as Lesbians! RadFems recruiting (coercing) other Het women into joining their faux lesbian groups wasnt enough, they needed men to SEE them eschewing men by wearing pseudo lesbian pins and staging dyke marches. Like all STRAIGHTBIAN sects, men are ALWAYS at the forefront of STRAIGHTBIAN’s fantasies/fairy tales/preoccupations and politics.
Bindel quoting STRAIGHTBIAN Cynthia Nixon takes the cake, it takes it and shits all over it and smears it on the faces of every Gay and Lesbian who has ever existed and will ever exist!
Julie Bindel despises Gays and Lesbians almost as much as she surely detests herself. Bindel complains about biological males using their power/numbers to don/redefine woman (mansplaining) but sees no problem with doing the same with Lesbian (hetsplaining). Julie Bindel, by her own admission, has never been a Lesbian and therefore cannot be a Lesbian now. She is a privileged Heterosexual woman muddying and uglying Lesbian, giving false testimony to who and what Lesbian is and when WE (actual Lesbians) are refused a job, kicked out of our homes or worse, murdered in the streets Julie Bindel strides on by us like our bloodied bodies are messing up her perfect view (that is if she notices us at all)!
Dirt and Mrs. Dirt
Some time after I wrote Stone Butch, From A Femme Perspective, I received a disgruntled comment that did not get published, because, quite frankly, I was annoyed with the wannabe commenter‘s attitude, plus I didn’t have time at that moment to address her points, but I want to revisit it now.
Here is the annoying comment:
Hi, stone butch here. To be honest your piece made me a little frustrated but I’ll try to be civil in my comment.
My being stone means that during sex, I prefer to give more than I prefer to receive. I receive sometimes but even though I register it as being physically pleasurable, I still prefer giving, and it makes me feel vaguely uncomfortable. It doesn’t have to do with a freakout about me being ‘butch enough’ or anything of the sort – I just enjoy the feeling I get when I’m giving more than the feeling I get when I’m receiving. The whole part about ‘pulling out phrases from the stone butch book’ is condescending and paternalistic. Before I read this article I had no idea that people even said things like that, but I knew that I’d said and thought similar things before of my own accord. How am I being brainwashed when I’d never known anything of stone culture before?
I have always felt this vague sense of emptiness and discomfort when receiving during sex, and it wasn’t until very very recently that I discovered what it was like to be stone, and that the experiences of stone butches very closely matched my own. Assuming that we’re just adopting this label because of external pressure or ‘brainwashing’ is just… wrong.
I’m also uncomfortable with your insisting that femmes should slowly try to work at their butches until they give in to being touched sexually, and that femmes with stone butches will inevitably feel unloved and lonely. As a stone butch I’ve allowed partners to touch me but I’ve never really enjoyed it the way I know I should (not because they weren’t good in bed – they certainly knew what they were doing). To me it just feels like eating something that tastes good or taking a nice nap. I don’t get turned on by the idea of someone touching me sexually. My immediate reaction is discomfort, and it always has been ever since I started having sex (which was when I was like 14, so this isn’t a recent thing).
If femmes are not sexually satisfied by stone butches, then they should find butches who aren’t stone to be with. This is not a dysfunction or fault of the stone butch, it’s just an incompatibility. Believe me, if I could just will myself into not being stone I would have a long time ago, because I realize this makes me undesirable to many femmes and may cause issues in the future. It also makes me enjoy sex less than other butches. But it’s really not a fixable thing for all stone butches.
It also just feels coercive to me. Similar to the rhetoric about how lesbians are just brainwashed and they just need a real man to slowly work at them until they give in and stop being lesbians. If someone doesn’t want to do something sexually, you shouldn’t force it. Period. You shouldn’t use self-pity and ‘boo hoo me I feel lonely and unloved’ to pressure them into giving in to what you want either. If a partner used that on me I’d probably feel like I had no choice but to give in and let them touch me sexually but it’d be completely opposite of what I really wanted. I’d like it, physically, but I’d still feel that sense of discomfort and wrongness. Same thing as a man pressuring a lesbian to sleep with him in my eyes.
That all being said, I think people have different reasons for being stone, so if someone is stone due to past sexual trauma or abuse then they can absolutely become un-stone with therapy and love and trust. Some stone butches may be mildly stone. But many stone people, like me, have had perfectly healthy sex lives and are still stone. I’m assuming your reaction to this will be pity, like ‘oh look another poor brainwashed butch who doesn’t realize that they aren’t stone but actually just have sexual dysfunction,’ but it’s really not necessary. Assuming that you, a femme with no real understanding of what it’s like to be stone, know more about being stone than actual stone people do, is honestly pretty offensive.
That’s my two cents. Kyuo
Here is my belated response:
First of all, and most importantly:
NOTHING…and I repeat, NOTHING…in that post (nor ANYWHERE else on this blog, for that matter) even remotely suggested that anyone should sexually coerce anyone else…FOR ANY REASON, EVER!
But, since that point was apparently unclear to our wannabe commenter, allow me to spell it out more clearly, for the record:
If, at any point, anyone ever says “no”, seems hesitant, seems uncomfortable, and/or otherwise indicates through ANY verbal or nonverbal means that she is uncomfortable with any part of sexual activity…STOP!
To our wannabe commenter: It seems like you really need to go back and actually read the post, because if SEXUAL COERCION is what you came away with, you obviously missed the proverbial boat.
Furthermore, nothing in my post implied that I or any other Femmes are, or ever should be, self-pitying, whiny, or otherwise manipulative in any way. If our wannabe commenter thinks that is how Femmes behave, she clearly is thinking of Straightbians who are pretending to be “
And the fact that our wannabe commenter could read my post and even remotely THINK that it meant that I was implying that Femmes should “use self-pity and boo hoo me I feel lonely and unloved to pressure” Butches into sex shows a complete and utter lack of reading comprehension and cognitive reasoning skills.
This wannabe commenter is clearly knee-jerking and projecting, rather than reading and actually comprehending.
Moving on: A one-sided sexual relationship will always be just that and only that: ONE-SIDED.
I won’t go into great detail on that point, since I already addressed that in the original post, but bottom line:
If your partner is perfectly, 100% satisfied with being a pillow-princess long-term, YOU ARE DEALING WITH A STRAIGHTBIAN.
Furthermore, yes, I agree that a Lesbian always has the right to leave her partner if she is unsatisfied with the relationship for any reason, but our wannabe commenter’s assertion that “If femmes are not sexually satisfied by stone butches, then they should find butches who aren’t stone to be with” is just an overly simplistic cop-out which doesn’t address the true root of the issue, which is:
YES, STONE BUTCH IS A SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION. Being Stone Butch is not simply a “preference”. A Stone Butch becomes acutely dysphoric at the very thought of having a reciprocal sexual relationship with a loving partner.
The fact that our wannabe commenter incorrectly purports that some people might “
become Stone Butch” due to sexual trauma/abuse shows that she doesn’t even understand what Stone Butch really is.
Granted, yes, sexual abuse and trauma can indeed create many issues, including an aversion to sexual contact. But NOBODY “
becomes a Stone Butch” due to sexual abuse and trauma. Aversion to sex due to sexual abuse/trauma is a completely different issue, and for a completely different reason, than being Stone Butch. Theoretically, the 2 issues could indeed coexist and interact to create an even bigger issue, but they are NOT the same thing. At all.
And people aren’t “mildly Stone” ~ Stone means STONE; you either are, or you are not. Of course, general sexual dysfunction does exist on a continuum, but that is not the same thing.
My final point before I let this topic go for now and let our wannabe commenter get back to stewing in her own juices:
Based on the whiny, snarky, put-upon, petulant tone of our wannabe commenter, I strongly suspect that she is NOT a real Butch, nor even a Lesbian at all, but, rather, a Straightbian who is play-acting “
A real Butch wouldn’t “give in” to anything, including sex, if she didn’t want to.
A real Butch would know what it actually means to be Stone Butch.
A real Butch would know that a real Femme does, in fact, have a comprehension of what Stone Butch means. (We may not experience it ourselves personally, but we do recognize it and we also have every right to speak about it. Furthermore, all Lesbians have a certain amount of dysphoria anyway).
A real Butch wouldn’t (deliberately) “
misinterpret” my post to assume I was suggesting coercion or manipulation.
A real Butch wouldn’t passive-aggressively throw around pseudo-“
feminist” terms like “paternalistic” to express herself, nor would it even occur to a real Butch that what a Lesbian wrote could possibly be “paternalistic”. I guess our wannabe commenter thinks I wrote “in the manner of a father”. Well, I don’t know about your Dad, but my Dad never wrote about Lesbian sex, LOL. Seriously, though, the fact that our wannabe commenter took so much offense at my words that she had to use the tired old Straight/bian trope of comparing us to MEN essentially proves her heterosexuality. A real Butch would not assume another Lesbian was communicating, in any way, “like a man.”
Finally, a real Butch would communicate directly and assertively…in other words, like the actual LESBIAN she is.
1). “Tell that to my girlfriend!”
2). “Here’s a pic of me kissing a woman!”
3). “But I’ve dated (or had sex with) women!”
4). “It is up to every woman to decide what she wants to ‘identify as’!”
5). “I haven’t been with a man since 1993!”
6). “But I love womyn!”
7). “But I went to Michfest!” (Or a women’s march, or a KD Lang concert, etc.).
9). “Who are you, the Lesbian police?”
10). “I like to _______ (insert offensive hypersexual euphemism, usually referring to oral sex).”
News Flash, Straightbians: BEHAVIOR DOES NOT EQUAL ORIENTATION.
It simply does not matter whether you have “eschewed” men (or “eschewed femininity”); whether you have had sex with 1 woman or 4,257,890 women; whether you have had a relationship with a female for 4 minutes or 40 years: NONE of those things makes you a Lesbian.
Being a Lesbian is NOT about what you wear, how you cut your hair, making a political “choice”, “eschewing” men, or who you f*ck (or even whether you f*ck) — nor any other action you take (or don’t take).
You are either born a Lesbian, or you are not one at all.
Note: This post is part of our ongoing UnSTRAIGHTening Lesbian series, and was originally posted here.
Next up in our unSTRAIGHTening Lesbian series is Radical (“political lesbian“ — AKA Het) Feminist Sheila Jeffreys.
Jeffreys was born/raised in England and later moved to Australia, taking up a professorship at the University of Melbourne. Jeffreys is known as much for her criticism of lesbians
Jeffreys’ introduction to feminist campaigning began in the early 70s when she joined a socialist feminist group (she was later thrown out for suggesting men were to blame for the oppression of women). Sandra McNeill, who met Jeffreys in that group, remembers her as “the Andrea Dworkin of the UK. She was, and still is, seen as an extreme, man-hating feminist”. Dworkin, as it happens, lived with a man, whom in 1998 she married.
Not Jeffreys. She became a lesbian in 1973 because she felt it contradictory to give “her most precious energies to a man” when she was thoroughly committed to a women’s revolution. Six years later, she went further and wrote, with others, a pamphlet entitled Love Your Enemy? The Debate Between Heterosexual Feminism And Political Lesbianism. In it, feminists who sleep with men are described as collaborating with the enemy. It caused a huge ruction in the women’s movement, and is still cited as an example of early separatists “going way too far”.
“We do think,” it said, “that all feminists can and should be lesbians. Our definition of a political lesbian is a woman-identified woman who does not fuck men. It does not mean compulsory sexual activity with women.” Although many of the more radical feminists agreed, most went wild at being told they were “counter-revolutionary”.
These few quotes alone, are more than enough proof of Jeffreys’ innate Heterosexuality and her calculating Hetero=privileged co-option of Lesbian for her own selfish purposes, we really do not need to write anything further.
BUT due to Jeffreys making a long career out of Hetsplaining Lesbian and dressing/strapping actual Lesbians in STRAIGHTBIAN frocks, we are!
In the Spinster and her Enemies Jeffreys looks back on early male sexologists like Havelock Ellis to devise how/why early suffragettes/feminists were scared away from girl on girl relationships:
Interestingly, while Ellis fails to truly define real Lesbians (biological), he comes closer to understanding us than Jeffreys EVER has or will. That point aside, Jeffreys like Adrienne Rich or Radfems in general, Homophobically fear/ed being seen as real Lesbians (ugly/mannish per Het norms). Jeffreys/Radfems fears were/are so great as to stop them in their tracks (according to Jeffreys) from “BECOMING”lesbians!
Jeffreys continues, but extends her Homophobia by dragging in Radclyffe Hall’s novel, The Well of Loneliness. Jeffreys cannot see past her own Heterosexuality to realize that Radclyffe and her novel’s characters were also Heterosexuals PLAYING at their Hetero notions of Lesbian.
Jeffreys obsessive hatred of Butch/Femme shows itself through this passage. Jeffreys ignorantly attributes Hall’s warped STRAIGHTBIAN ideas about Butch/Femme as proof of her own STRAIGHTBIAN notions of Butch/Femme.
In a nutshell, the STRAIGHT leading the STRAIGHT about STRAIGHTS who are pretending to be Lesbian.
In Unpacking Queer Politics Jeffreys begins:
Like many RadFems, Jeffreys hatred of men isn’t limited to Het males, she equally despises Gay men and blames her Heterocentric ideas of “lesbian” masculinity/masculine worship for early “lesbian” transitions. One only has to read where Jeffreys got her information from (Halberstam/Devor etc.) to understand where Jeffreys fucked up. If you are going to write about Lesbians in ANY capacity, in order to obtain accurate information, you just might want to get your information from actual Lesbians and not STRAIGHTBIANS. (Duh).
Jeffreys continues her Homophobia by citing more Radfem garbage from one of the BIGGEST Homophobes and known STRAIGHTBIANS-Adrienne Rich!
Again, Jeffreys criticises lesbian role playing by citing the likes of mentally fucked up Heterosexual Women (STRAIGHTBIANS) like Joan Nestle/Sally Munt/Leslea Newman/Judith Halberstam.
Jeffreys again uses faulty information from warped STRAIGHTBIANS. It is well known at this point that the inappropriately named “
lesbian sex wars” were fought by hypersexual STRAIGHTBIANS on one side and prudish STRAIGHTBIANS (like Jeffreys) on the other… actual Lesbians were NEVER involved!
MOST interesting, though, is that Jeffreys (“
lesbians who criticized“) admits to being turned on by what SHE calls dominance/submission/sado-society! Jeffreys merely convinces herself that she is better than the Califia’s and Nestle’s because she fights her NATURAL Hetero/sexual urges!
Sheila, honey, Lesbians don’t have urges to be fucked by men regardless of who’s on top!
Jeffreys then cites pro-pedophile STRAIGHTBIAN faghags Gayle Rubin and Pat Califia
to cast more aspersions on Gay men leading poor little “
lesbians” astray! Sorry, Sheila, you would have to be either a complete fucking idiot or STRAIGHT (or both) to know neither of these warped freaks are Lesbians.
Well, Sheila, you got one thing right in your Julia Penelope description(STRAIGHTBIAN), she is from the US!
From Lesbian Heresy Jeffreys continues her warped Homophobic diatribe of STRAIGHTBIAN ROLE PLAYING, or, as she INCORRECTLY deems it: “
Yes, Sheila, Lesbians actually agree these STRAIGHTBIANS are sick motherfuckers, but what they are most certainly NOT are fucking LESBIANS!
Sheila just about gets it (close, but no cigar…pun intended): Yes, sexual abuse often informs warped Hetero/sexual role playing…among STRAIGHTBIANS!
Sheila fails over and over and OVER to understand the obvious fact that these women are not Lesbians, but, rather, they are Heterosexuals who are role-playing “
lesbian“… JUST LIKE SHEILA HERSELF!
Sheila, Carolyn Stack? Really??? Straight therapist giving advice to STRAIGHTBIAN couples about STRAIGHTBIAN sex/lack thereof has fuck all to do with Lesbians again, how???
Sheila, Sheila, Sheila. You’re striking out yet again! Margaret Nicholls and Joann Loulan might be therapists, they are certainly not Lesbians!
Despite having much to say about Homosexuals, Jeffreys fails miserably to write with any accuracy about Lesbians, Gay men, or Homosexuality period and the same is true of much her ideas on Transgenders:
Statement From Dirt: “Sorry, Shelia, as a Butch Lesbian who has spent more than a decade documenting female transition (Who is Transitioning), I have yet to find a single Butch Lesbian who has transitioned. While I’m sure there might be some, they are VERY. VERY rare. You, Sheila, again confuse sexually abused STRAIGHTBIANS playing at being male who transition, NOT Lesbian and most certainly NOT Butch!”
“Identified” being the operative word, Sheila! They weren’t “proud
lesbians“, Sheila….they weren’t Lesbians at all, hence “identifying as gay men” early in their transition. You might want to familiarize yourself with cross-sex hormones and their effects on Hetero/Homo brains.
Holly Devor, Sheila, is a Heterosexual female who transitioned…NOT a Lesbian and therefore NOT a reliable source for Lesbian accuracy!
Because Sheila has no actual knowledge of real Lesbians, she likes to recycle STRAIGHTBIANS who she incorrectly believes are fucked-up sicko Lesbians in effort to give heft to her hatred of STRAIGHTBIANS who are not like her/other Radfems.
Sheila fails to make the simple connection that “CHOOSING to be a
lesbian” and “CHOOSING to be a femme” amount to the very same thing: TOTAL BULLSHIT!
Sheila, clearly Sally here isn’t even a fucking Dyke, yet here you are wholeheartedly taking her word as “
Butch Lesbian” truth. Why? Because she states what YOU want to hear! That’s not very good investigative writing ,Sheila, and it’s certainly not “academic research”: any fucking 3rd grader could do a better job!
Heather Findlay isn’t a Lesbian Sheila, therefore, she cannot be a Femme Lesbian! Those responsible for male and female transitions are Homophobes (like you, Sheila) and ALL the Radical Feminists who backed pedophiles like John Money simply because you IGNORANTLY dreamed/hoped gender was/is a mere construct, despite clear evidence to the contrary! Instead of tackling sex-based inequalities head on, Radical Feminists passively blamed gender for all Heterosexual female ills! The plague of Identity Politics jump-roped through the gender loophole left by Radical Feminists.
Sheila Jeffreys, being a STRAIGHTBIAN herself, willfully took at face value the word of all STRAIGHTBIANS, without a care as to how these Lesbian inaccuracies affected actual Lesbians, then or now. Sheila and her ilk succeeded in helping de-sex “gender“, which has led us to where we are today.
I have written before about how being a Lesbian is NOT all about sex.
But it bears repeating, again and again and AGAIN, because straight people make that mistake over and over and OVER…and that includes Straightbians who are pretending to be Lesbians.
Others chimed in with their own tales of “riding butches”; here is one such (too-much-information) comment:
First of all, ewwww.
Secondly, the fact that some females have the appalling nerve to dismiss another female’s thoughts/concerns with the heterosexist, DICKsgusting notion that “getting laid” is somehow a magic bullet simply defies belief. (The “you-need-to-get-laid” concept is exactly the kind of riDICKulous, rude, and unwelcome nonsense that men have said to women for the purpose of dismissing their concerns since the beginning of time).
Thirdly, and most importantly for the purposes of this post, this apparent fetishizing of Butches (and even the Straightbians who pretend to be Butches) is a gross and completely inappropriate sexual objectification. Butches (and even the Straightbians who pretend to be Butches) are not sex toys to be used. How would these Straightbians feel if their lovers were talking publicly about “riding” them like a Harley on a bad piece of road? Would they embrace being objectified, used, and depersonalized in such a crass and uncaring way? Maybe…but I doubt it.
The point is that this response is soooooo common for Straightbians. When confronted, many Straightbians typically respond with some sort of sexual comment. Why? Because they think that having sex with a female means they are a Lesbian. They are wrong.
Once more for the record: BEING A LESBIAN IS NOT ALL ABOUT SEX.
Straightbians: You are NOT proving your “
Lesbianism” by bragging about how much sex you’ve had with females. In fact, you’re proving instead that you absolutely have no clue what it actually means to be a Lesbian; and you’re proving that you mistakenly think that such hypersexualized playacting is “ Lesbian”.
So, keep on riding, ladies, if that is what floats your boat…but don’t dare think that makes you a Lesbian, because it doesn’t. Not in any way, shape, or form.
Oh, and you may want to consider that nobody really gives a crap about your sex life. If your sex life is great, by all means, please enjoy yourself…but just be aware that most people really don’t want to hear the details about it. Just sayin’.
Adrienne Rich, or ACR as Sylvia Plath referred to her, made her way to “lesbian” (STRAIGHTBIANISM!) via the same route most Radical Feminists did/do; unexpressed voluminous anger for her own poor life choices she readily blamed the men in her life for (father/husband) and collective man (patriarchy). Rich said of her marriage:
“I married in part because I knew no better way to disconnect from my first family,” she says. “I wanted what I saw as a full woman’s life, whatever was possible.“
Rich marries hoping to escape familial confines/duties only to find herself unhappily in the same trapped place, only worse, with children.
“I wanted, then, more than anything, the one thing of which there was never enough: time to think, time to write.”
Rich’s dishonestly in the marriage lead to both her and her husband having affairs:
After cheating on her husband with both men and women, once her hubby was out of the way/dead, Rich embarked through Radical Feminism, on a mission to remove Lesbian from those gross, vile, dykey/mannish/wannabe men/act like men/think like men Lezzies SHE incorrectly perceived actual Lesbians to be/look like, and to give Lesbian an air of upper middle class academic redressing, making Lesbian more appealing/palatable and acceptable to greater Feminist groups/women.
Like Radical Feminists in Rich’s day and RadFems now, Rich desperately needed the IDEA of Lesbian to both vent her anger and (mistakenly) use as a means to remove herself from (in her mind) Heterosexuality/Heterocentric confines rendering her helpless/afraid/weak and ineffectual. As a Heterosexual woman, Rich could only access Lesbian through lying:
We will show shortly in Rich’s piece de resistance that Rich (unlike some STRAIGHTBIANS), selfishly planned and executed her lies.
It is precisely codswallop like this that fully seals ANY question (were you to have any) of Rich’s obvious Heterosexuality. Radical Feminists like Rich tell themselves collective man enforces Heterosexual female grooming/dress etc (when actually it is Heterosexual females who both desire/enforce beauty standards) yet cannot explain why Lesbians en masse do not fall prey to the same heterocentric grooming standards.
Lesbians have always existed and have never required validation for our existence. Women, particularly damaged Radical Feminists like Rich spend their lives/careers seeking some sort of warped validation and blame men for not GIVING it to them!
Rich often talks out of both sides of her mouth; on one side she claims her “erotic” feelings for women have been stifled via Patriarchy and on the other side she claims sexual feelings between women are not necessary for qualifying them as Lesbian! Rich ignores, or doesn’t bother to notice, that most Lesbians do not have the luxury of a closet, most Dykes are visibly Lesbian. Lesbian visibility shines for some Lesbians physically and mentally and other Lesbians less physically and more mentally. Either way, Dyke thought processes alone peg us for Lesbian, as any Lesbian can attest to since the advent of the internet. Even online with a genderless name and no image of ourselves, we are often assumed/believed by Hets (usually Het women) to be men!
In Diversity and Variability in Women’s Sexual Identities STRAIGHTBIAN Carla Rappaport Golden said of Rich’s lesbian:
Lesbian was problematic for Rich precisely because of the ugly depraved dykey sexually perverted masculinist ideas held by Hetero society/Heterosexuals like Adrienne Rich herself. But Adrienne Rich desperately needed Lesbian because it encompassed (to her) anti maleness, what she didn’t need was the alienating baggage attached to Lesbian. So Rich tried to simultaneously redefine Lesbian for Heterosexual Feminist inclusion while distancing the debauchery attached to Lesbian, thus Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence was born.
Adrienne Rich begins Compulsory Heterosexuality with a Straightbianesque quote from Doris Lessing‘s The Golden Notebook:
This quote not only sets the stage for the rest of Rich’s essay, it IS the stage Rich starred for the rest of her life! A Heterosexual privileged life whereby Rich and Radical Feminists like her, chanted to themselves and in Radical Feminist groups like an incantation; I’m a lesbian! And don’t think for a minute Lesbians missed the degrading walls Doris Lessing sandwiched Lesbian in this passage! This was Rich’s fear, without a man, her only choices were bitterness, spinsterhood or Lesbian. Rich CHOSE lesbian, not actual Lesbianism, but a Hetsplained version she could somewhat live with. Like Lessing’s Anna, Rich was too weak to forge a relationship with a man where SHE was willing to or capable of, living her new found consciousness.
Rich believed that Lesbian scholarship was forced into hiding by a patriarchal driven Compulsory Heterosexuality that even mid range Feminism enforced. Rich failed to understand that Lesbian erudition wasn’t (isn’t) quashed or silenced by patriarchy, it wasn’t (isn’t) understood by Heterosexuals, particularly Het women! Rich feared losing academic clout by choosing
Lesbian and through RadFem-speak tried to make HER brand of lesbian acceptable to greater Feminism.
Rich assumes Homophobia alone inhabited Feminists (Het women) from trying to coral Het women toward a political lesbianism via feminist theory and why lesbian art/literature etc remained rare. Rich failed to see how her own warped man-hating RadFem agenda was responsible for biological Lesbian invisibility in the arts and elsewhere than was/is Homophobia, because she blinded herself of our existence.
Further in the essay Rich says:
Rich brings up Lesbians being closeted in the workplace but the exact experiences she uses to make her points are the experiences Heterosexual women (like her), claiming to be Lesbians (like her) had with the luxury of being closeted! Most Dykes NEVER have that luxury and most Dykes even if they did would NOT put some fucking job over their entire lives! The only Homophobe here is Adrienne Rich!
Because Rich herself (a Heterosexual woman) didn’t feel or experience blatant Homophobia (why would she?), she ignorantly theorized compulsory heterosexuality was to blame for Feminist silence about Lesbians/Lesbian issues, including the reason Feminists wouldn’t platform Lesbianism as a possible choice against patriarchy/men! Rich claims non Radical Feminists were in collusion WITH patriarchy! Non-Radical Feminists, according to Rich, helped provide patriarchy with pussy, pay, and passion!
Rich found the term Lesbian limiting because Lesbian didn’t include STRAIGHT women like her and because Rich didn’t like the psycho-logical definitions defining Lesbian or the societal connotations coloring Lesbian by Het society. By expanding Lesbian to include all female relationship types, not simply “genital” as Rich crudely puts it, Lesbian wouldn’t be so foul an idea, for women or society. Rich fails to acknowledge the LIMITS, limits based on HER HETEROSEXUALLY driven assumptions about biological Lesbians, that real Lesbianism isn’t defined by pussy licking or KFC pussy (AKA finger licking good). Lesbian was crude, vulgar, plebeian — NOT because it actually was/is — BUT because it was based on Adrienne Rich’s own sick, fucked up, homophobic, warped fucking views of Lesbian!
Being a Lesbian has fuck all to do with taboos or rejecting Heterosexuality, it has ONLY to do with being born physiologically Lesbian! Lesbians aren’t saying no to patriarchy, patriarchy doesn’t factor (collectively) anywhere into a Lesbian’s life. Lesbian past, present and future grew/grow/will grow up without any/little knowledge of Lesbians; fortunately abilities innate to our survival ensure we find each other and are capable of survival even if we don’t. The ONLY destroyers of Lesbian records or histories are Radical Feminists like Adrienne Rich! What has been recorded as “
lesbian” experiences/narratives etc, are instead the experiences/narratives etc of STRAIGHTBIANS like ACR!
Adrienne Rich, in typical Heterosexual fashion, was a little SHIT TON obsessed with genitals/sex.
In other words, Adrienne Rich and Radical Feminism itself are NOT LESBIAN! Bizarrely in this strange (sick) passage Rich twice brings up/equates a child/mother being turned on during infant feeding. I refuse to think past Rich’s statement here, because to do so is just toooooo fucking SICK — and it most certainly is NOT Lesbian!
Adrienne Rich said of women’s diminutiveness art/history in When We Dead Awaken:
Precisely because of STRAIGHTBIANS like Adrienne Rich, Lesbians/Lesbian youth flounder and flail trying to find ourselves in the world. Thanks to the likes of Rich and her warped RadFem ilk, most of the signs and symbols labeled Lesbian are false. They point us right back to female Heterosexual mindset and body that paints us into a corner of dysphoria, reinforcing Lesbian confusion and resulting in a so-called lesbian
community made up of Heterosexual women…where Lesbians STILL do not exist.
Adrienne Rich discovered Lesbian in the same way Christopher Columbus discovered America: she ignored those already living here, and those she couldn’t ignore she kindly smothered in blankets of smallpox.
dirt and Mrs Dirt