Search Results for: always a lesbian

Always A Lesbian

lezzie-symbol

Twitter is a constant source of inspiration (or rather, consternation) regarding topics for posts.

Today’s post came about due to a battle that Dirt had last night with a purported “lesbian”. This purported “lesbian” claimed that nobody is a lesbian until we have had sex with a woman.

So, to give an example of this thinking (which closely corresponds to her own example):

To illustrate this woman’s idea, let’s say that a lesbian has sex for the very first time on her 25th birthday.  So, in this woman’s mind, our example was NOT a lesbian from birth up though the age of 24 years, 11 months, and 28-31 days, depending on her month of birth.

Then poof!  On her 25th birthday she does the naughty deed and wow!, our example suddenly becomes a lesbian at that oh-so-magical moment.

Hogwash.

When confronted by Dirt on the obvious flaws in this thinking, and when even given examples that refute this bizarre idea, this woman, like so many people on Twitter, got upset, spouted a ton of nonsense about “compulsory heterosexuality” and said the assumption is always that everybody is straight, and finally refused to discuss it anymore.

So I will break it down here in case there is any confusion lurking about.

Lesbians do not “magically become lesbian” at the precise moment we have sex.  We were lesbian all along.

In fact, we don’t need to even have sex to be a lesbian; we could choose celibacy if we wanted to, and yet we would still be lesbians.

Same principle with gay men; same principle with EVERYBODY.

Let’s look at a similar example with a straight woman.  Let’s say our hypothetical straight woman has decided to “save herself for marriage” (as the saying goes), deciding to be celibate until her wedding night.

Our fictitious straight woman meets the man of her dreams and they become engaged, and sure enough, they do wait until their wedding night to consummate their relationship.

Was our example NOT STRAIGHT until her wedding night?  Did she have to have sex to “become straight”?

Of course not.  She was heterosexual all along.

As another hypothetical example, let’s say a young lesbian had not yet had sex, but she plans to seduce a special lady this coming weekend. Tragically, she gets hit in the head by a softball on Thursday evening, and sadly dies immediately. Since she died before ever having sex, does that make her any less of a lesbian?

Of course not.  She was a lesbian all along.

What about a lesbian who never, for whatever reason, dates?  Maybe she is too shy to get out into the dating world, maybe she is a workaholic and doesn’t take the time to meet a partner, but for whatever reason, this woman never has sex before she dies. Guess what?  She is still a lesbian.

One more hypothetical example to illustrate this point, and I will be done.

In our next example, let’s say a young straight male teenager (who has not yet had sex) is marooned on an island because he is the sole survivor in a horrific maritime accident.  He is stuck on this island, alone forever until he eventually croaks. Since he never had sex before becoming hopelessly isolated on the island by himself, does that make him any less straight?

Answer: of course not. He was straight until the day he died. He was just likely very frustrated.

Being a lesbian isn’t about having sex.  Our identities don’t spring up out of thin air on the day we first make love.  I was a lesbian when I was a virgin, and I would still be a lesbian if I had still to this day never had sex at all. Always a lesbian.

This is basic common sense, folks.

UnStraightening Lesbian: Removing the Heterosexual Lens: Julie Bindel

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 ?…because 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 self-loathing she perceived came from herself. Again Bindel didn’t 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 doesn’t do so for glory, its simple biology and luck of the draw. Living a lie isn’t 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 women isn’t political and it most certainly is NOT Lesbian! This is reminiscent of American political lesbians” STRAIGHTBIANS 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,repugnant,revolting,disreputable,shameful,sordid, vile,reprehensible,reproachable,cowardly,unethical, and unscrupulous lies RadFem principles!

Bindel has never met a Butch, let alone danced with one, as this comment clearly indicates. But I’m sure the STRAIGHTBIANS whom Bindel did dance with whom were calling themselves butch wouldnt be too happy to see (when Julie didnt need a dance partner) what Julie really thinks of them: Butch is so last year. This comes from a past Bindel article she wrote poking fun at a butch cookbook by Lee Lynch, Sue Hardesty and Nel Ward, all three obvious and known STRAIGHTBIANS. Bindel being a STRAIGHTBIAN as well, cannot tell a STRAIGHTBIAN from a Dyke as the above comment and the cited article make clear.

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

The Top 10 Things Straightbians Say When Told They Are Not Actual Lesbians

1). “Tell that to my wife/girlfriend!”

2). “Well, here’s a pic of me kissing a woman!”

3). “But I’ve dated/had sex with ___ (number of) 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 (insert year)!”

6). “But I love womyn!” or “But I am a womon-identified-womon!”

7). “But I went to Michfest!” (Or a women’s march, or a KD Lang concert, etc.).

8). “As Mary Daly said…” (or Sheila Jeffreys or Kate Millett or Andrea Dworkin or Adrienne Rich or any other famous Straightbian).

9). “Who are you, the Lesbian police?”

10). “But I really 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.

The End.

UnStraightening Lesbian: Removing the Heterosexual Lens: Adrienne Rich

Next up in our unSTRAIGHTening Lesbian series is poet/theorist/Radical Feminist Adrienne Rich.

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:

Shortly thereafter, her husband Alfred Conrad committed suicide:
Apparently she was such a hotty ALL the men in NY wanted a piece of her pie! Umm ~ sure, okay!

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 bitternessspinsterhood 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.

Moving on:

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

UnStraightening Lesbian: Removing the Heterosexual Lens: Andrea Dworkin

Note: This is another Unstraightening Lesbian joint post with Dirt, originally posted here.

Next up in our UnStraightening Lesbian series is the odious Andrea Dworkin, who routinely called herself Lesbian, used her Heterosexual privilege to speak for Lesbians, all the while being, living, breathing, and most certainly practicing Heterosexuality.

Dworkin was born in the fall of 1946, to an unhealthy mother and an overworked father, she had a brother who died in adulthood of cancer. For all intents and purposes Dworkin had a fairly middle class childhood in Camden NJ, where she enjoyed playing with dolls as a girl as much as she enjoyed playing strip poker as a teenager:

Dworkin claimed to have been fondled at a movie theater by a stranger when she was nine, a claim her parents either didn’t take seriously or didn’t believe, either way nothing beyond Dworkin’s claims ever became of it. Whether this story truly occurred or was merely hyperbole used as a feminist device, Dworkin referred back to it repeatedly in her fiction, non-fiction and other writings.

Dworkin early on had aspirations of being a writer, she read voraciously, as well as dabbled in poetry and short story writing by the time she was a teen. Her aspirations however never matched her talent, creating some very DEEP seated jealousy toward male writers. Not surprisingly it was precisely that writer’s jealousy clicked with Dworkin when she first read Kate Millett‘s Sexual Politics:

Dworkin ignorantly comforted herself in her Het female passivity by assuming male writers simply whip out a work, have publishers eagerly waiting to publish and make millions along with receiving tons of accolades. She later foolishly (and unfeministly) gloated over her imagined superiority over both Sylvia Plath-a genius- (who nailed the likes of Dworkin and a good many Het females past, present and future with one line of poetry “every Women adores a Fascists/the boot in the face“) and Anne Sexton (who had her own issues with mental illness but still managed to write some VERY good poetry) saying:

Apparently Dworkin failed to see her own slow suicide via excessive weight/food addiction.

Between early a bachelor’s degree Dworkin also spent a short time abroad in Greece:

After she graduated college in 1968, Dworkin left for Amsterdam, getting involved with the counter-cultural movement there and through whom she met her first husband. Dworkin claimed her husband was emotionally and violently abusive, a situation she Heterosexually mismanaged (at first?) by passively hoping the abusive partner would one day leave:

Elsewhere we have to wonder did the husband or other male sex partners even have an idea of Dworkin’s proclaimed dislike of them/their sex lives:

It is clear Dworkin’s male lovers were given no indication she was not into what they were doing. This isnt simply a lack of communication, it is NO communication! Yet it was through this nonlinear form of communication Dworkin and other RadFems believed change would magically happen:

And interestingly like the absolute lack of verifiable proofs of her various sexual abusesrapes, prostitution etc, beyond that which comes from her mouth or pen, Dworkin SPECIFICALLY refrained from publishing works about her claims of her ex husband’s abuse/rapes in his country (fears of libel?).

But for those Dworkin enthusiasts who never questioned beyond her lips or her pen regarding Dworkin’s male violence claims, it is impossible for me to understand how Dworkinites did/do manage to balance this:

or this:

or this:

or this:

with her claims of being a Lesbian? What Lesbian spends all her time writing about Heterosexual smut such as:

and:

Dworkinites are told/believe of course that Dworkin’s life long love affair with the cock was because she/females are conned by patriarchy from birth:

Patriarchy that threatens Lesbians STRAIGHTBIANS from leaving their HUSBANDS (i know right) because they might lose their children or calling Women Lesbians just to keep them in line:

This same Patriarchy that Dworkin claimed to socialize females into cleaning-baby-making-fuckbots for males, Dworkin with Malice of Homophobia rationalized was one big butt load of Homosexuality:

YET Dworkin also states that Homosexual males are nothing but bitches with dicks:

I suppose Dworkin comforted herself with this Homophobic bigotry in order to explain why Gay men, despite living in a near predominant Heterosexual world still manage to make gains/carve out niches for themselves.

Not surprisingly, at least to any Lesbian (no not the man hating Het Women raping Lesbian culture/violating the very fabric of Lesbian kind) Andrea Dworkin sans lube sodomized Lesbian for her own sick kicks! Speaking FOR Lesbians at a New York LESBIAN Pride rally, Dworkin clearly speaking to other mentally ill Het Women like herself said: (obviously she wasn’t speaking to us as her speech has shit all to do with Dykes-I’m including the entire speech as the Lesbian ignorance and heterocentric insanity she spouted bears being read in full):

Not a single one of her three reasons has ANYTHING whatsoever to do with being a Lesbian, not a fucking one! And lets ve perfectly clear, wanting to get into your mother’s panties, wanting to fuck your mother’s moist bloody membranes is S I C K, not Lesbian!

And the garbled batty bonkers ending to her speech doesn’t simply have nothing to do with Lesbians, it has nothing to do with basic mental coherence! Like Dworkin’s delusive child molestation/rapes/prostitution stints/battered spousal abuses etc, Dworkin with Heterosexual privilege, used Lesbian (“In 30-plus years of knowing her, I’ve never heard of a single romance with a woman—not one.”) to fuel her own personal fires for her own sick selfish gains. Dworkin didn’t give a toss about how her Hetsplaining Lesbian colluded in the struggles Lesbians face/d, didn’t care her oversexed-weak-warped-man-hating version of Lesbian maximized the myriad of struggles Lesbians face/d daily, struggles sometimes culminating in the deaths Lesbian youths then as well as now!

Dworkin had an equally warped debased passive plan for changing the Heterosexual nature she despised:

How did she propose Heterosexuality was going to be transformed? By recreating the sexes of course!:

Dworkin’s idea for the sexes sound like a demon seed baby born from the copulation of Firestone and Millet! As both Firestone and Millet were Het Women Dworkin greatly admired, we shouldnt be surprised Dworkin was in favour of Transsexualism, including believing some children were Transsexual:

Ironic how often we find Radical Feminists who are blatantly anti-Trans, yet quote Pro TransDworkin till the cows come home. I suppose though, no more ironic than Dworkin’s zeitgeist (anti-pornography) swimming in an ocean of Dworkin pornography. Perhaps irony is missed among Radical Feminists.

Whatever mental defects or illnesses Andrea Dworkin suffered, none give her or her Dworkinites permission (ethical or otherwise) to write, publish or preach in the name of Lesbian, about Lesbianism or as a Lesbians! Dworkin’s Heterosexuality was ALWAYS firmly intact; whether chasing after cock, riding cock, sucking cock, bending over for cock, Dworkin’s life was ALL cock cock cock! The only women who could think Dworkin a Lesbian were/are as fucked up as Dworkin herself.

Dirt & Mrs. Dirt

UnStraightening Lesbian: Removing the Heterosexual Lens: Kate Millett

First up in our next (ongoing) series of Unstraightening Lesbian is the recently departed Radical Feminist Kate Millett. Millett is best known for her sex obsessed (all her works aremuch ado about nothing book Sexual Politics, published in 1970; a huge tenet, gospel, and BIBLE of Radical Feminism past and present.

Millett (she was married to a man for 20 years, mind you) is equally known for her tenets on “CHOOSING” Lesbianism for the sake of sisterhood and the destruction of the family, but I digress.

Sexual Politics was the brain child mental diarrhea of Het female excuses blamed for personal failures/unhappinesses in (Het) Women. In Sexual Politics Millett tried to detach biology from males and females by redirecting real and perceived Het female inequalities toward collective (Het) man-Patriarchy, using a warped version of Marxism lite.

The gist going something like this: (Het) females are conditioned by males/male systems of power to act/function in ways approved of by males/male systems of power and there is little (Het) females can do about it. Therefore, if some of the higher thinking (Het) females (like Millet) raise the consciousness of less conscious (Het) females, together they can challenge these male power systems and smash the Patriarchy! Female roles will be cast off and with the removal of socially conditioned roles, so to will fall the inequalities held in place by constructed sex differences; sexual construction being propped up and maintained by Patriarchy.

 

Millet went about dismantling biological sex differences among males/females by primarily utilizing (homophobic) Robert Stoller and (pro-pedophile) John Money’s THEORY that males and females are RAISED (brains are malleable) masculine/boys/men and feminine/girls/women, they are not BORN that way. So, if the next generation of humans can be raised without the sex roles assigned to males/females, the next generation of females would be inclined to be more equal/equal to that of males.

Millet also proves her case for social construction by use of HOMOPHOBICALLY HETSPLAINING French Gay author Jean Genet/his semi auto-bio novel the Thief’s Journal. Millet says in Sexual Politics on Genet’s novel:

I didn’t leave Millett’s quote from Genet in as it served no purpose for her point, yet interestingly Millett quotes “female figure” where no such phrase exists in the Thief’s Journal. Millett being fully ignorant of Gay male culture, filters Genet’s/Genet’s homo character’s homosexual experiences through her own privileged heterocentric lens.

Millett, with Het privilege intact, accuses Genet of grotesquely mimicking the very Heterosexual roles SHE herself despises! Millett cannot see/comprehend Homosexual Genet or his Homosexual characters outside of HER Heterosexual framework! That Sexual Politics was such a huge seller isn’t at all surprising, Millett’s Homophobia runs rampant in this book, a book published at a time when Gays and Lesbians were just beginning to make headlines and headway, and if the world isn’t ready for that today, imagine nearly 50 years ago.

Millett goes on to say that Homosexuality is a:

Painstaking exegesis of the barbarian vassalage of the sexual orders, the power structure of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ as revealed by a homosexual, criminal world that mimics with brutal frankness the bourgeois heterosexual society . . . . In this way, the explication of the homosexual code becomes a satire on the heterosexual one.”

In a NUT shell, Millett is Homophobically saying that through Homosexuality’s mock version of Heterosexual roles, Heterosexuals can better see where Heterosexuality shines and where it needs polishing.

Around the time of Sexual Politics, Kate Millett’s sister visited Kate and her husband Fumio in New York and arrived to this:

Homosexuality to Millett being a role like the masculine and feminine roles assigned to Heterosexuals via Patriarchy; by casting off the role of Heterosexuality Millett and other Feminists could simply put on Homosexuality:

As bizarre as it sounds, and was, Kate Millett/Radical Feminists believed/preached (through a warped/flipped-on-its-head act of sublimation) that by taking up Homosexuality (I know, right!) they could destroy Patriarchy!

In other words, rather than directly confronting the issues they had with males (singular/collective), in typical Het female form, they (and with Het privilege) redefined/used/abused and colonized Homosexuality (Lesbian), through which they could then fuel their collective anger (real or imagined) at men.

And obviously another upshot of gay liberation for Millett and her fuck friends, creating more fuck friends! Because marriage (heterosexuality) according to the married Millett was:

But when Kate Millett embarked on one of her many excursions into her Radical Feminist CONSTRUCTED lesbian relationships, Millett speaks of her female partner not unlike how Radical Feminists squall at men for doing:

Millett also wanted to shout NO when at a conference at Columbia University she was publicly confronted head on about whether or not she was a Lesbian:

Private lezziefied fun fuckfests for Millett was one thing, but publicly calling herself a Lesbian was “unspeakable” (without pressure) and “shameful”:

An orgy with her husband and another Woman, how very NOT Lesbian! In her book Sita, Millett says of her sexual relationship with Sita:

Millett admits she was not sexually fulfilled until/unless a woman dominated her/her pussy in the same way as did a man. But Millett’s sexual relationship with the older, multiple-times-married-with-children Sita didn’t last beyond the sex. Millett’s selfish disdain and jealousy for Sita’s children and her occasional male lovers ended their affair and Sita’s life through suicide.

Between juggling Radical Feminist conscious raising brainwashing sessions, her husband, multiple (Het) Women, teaching and a multitude of mental breakdowns/forced incarcerations, Millett bought a farm she hoped to make into a Radical Feminist utopia. She also carried on with yet another affair with another (Het) Woman (Sophie Keir), whom she purportedly recently married despite saying this about both Sophie and same-sex marriage:

The RadFem all female farm life also proved a bit much for Kate Millett:

Kate Millett was clearly NOT a good person, NOT a Lesbian, NOT Radical, NOT Feminist and, frankly, NOT all there! Millett shows in her earliest writings a deep connection with SEXologist/pedophile and all around pervert John Money, and regardless of my personal anger at Kate Millett for co-opting Lesbian for her own selfish/sick reasons, what I find most fucking abhorrent about Kate Millett is her promoting PEDOPHILIA! Or rather FEMALE PEDOPHILIA:

Millett’s biggest beef with adult/child sex (after removing exploitation) was legal/moral legislation has always been directed at man/boy and not at all toward grown Het Women having sex with little girls! 

Mental illness threads itself through Radical Feminism creating a most ugly, warped, and demented tapestry. And Kate Millet’s morally bankrupt needle pierced more than just the hearts of Lesbians, because, by publicly advocating sex with children, Millett and ANY and ALL proponents of Kate Millett severed the very head of Humanity!

Dirt and Mrs. Dirt

Lesbians and Emotional Cheating: A “Dear Lesbian” Question

I recently received a “Dear Lesbian” request via my Contact Form to write on the topic of emotional cheating and Lesbian couples. This link to an article entitled “Emotional Cheating And Lesbian Couples: Why It’s An Issue” was included as an overview of the topic.

This is an excellent question, and I appreciate that the reader took the time to ask me to write about it.

First, let’s define “emotional cheating”. Although there are many ways to define it and the definition is certainly open to interpretation (as it is certainly subjective to the people involved), I would define “emotional cheating” as when a friendship between one member of a couple and an outside person crosses an invisible but tangible boundary and veers sharply into the area of inappropriateness.

Some examples of one member of a couple veering into inappropriateness with an outside person include, but are not limited to:

  • Flirting (Note: I don’t mean simply being friendly/fun and having a good time…I mean actually flirting in a way that is romantic/sexual, as if you are single and available);
  • Fantasizing about kissing/contact/sex or fantasizing a relationship with the outside person;
  • Being secretive by not telling your partner about your contact with the outside person (for instance: meeting for lunch secretly; sending private text messages without your partner’s knowledge; etc.);
  • Telling the outside person intimate details of your relationship with your partner that you know damn well your partner would be embarrassed/upset about (for instance: complaining about your sex life, or lack thereof, with the subtext of “I’m  on a bit of fishing expedition here to see if you will bite”);
  • Telling the outside person significant things that you should be telling your partner (for instance: telling the outside person that you are unhappy in your relationship; or telling the outside person something significant that you haven’t told your partner like you lost your job 3 weeks ago; etc.).

Please note that I am not saying that you shouldn’t have an outside friend who you can confide in.

What I am saying is: When your behavior/thoughts veer into untrustworthiness, nefariousness, secrecy, affair-fantasies, flirtatiousness, and/or evasiveness, you have crossed the line into unsafe territory. (Get it?) 

I think we all know the difference between being close to and confiding in a trusted platonic friend versus the slippery slope of emotional infidelity.

The article which was sent to me as an overview of the topic states that emotional cheating “happens all too often in lesbian relationships“.

I have no doubt that it does happen all too often in Lesbian relationships. However, I believe that it happens all too often in ALL kinds of relationships, not just Lesbian relationships. I truly don’t believe Lesbians are uniquely at-risk for emotional cheating, although I admit that the nuances can sometimes be trickier for Lesbians than it is for heterosexuals.  (Probably the same is true of gay men too, but I cannot speak for them).

First of all, the situation is trickier for Lesbians because…well…we’re all Lesbians.

With heterosexual couples, it would not typically be kosher for a husband of one couple to call the wife of another couple and invite her out to lunch without the other spouses present. It’s a clear boundary that is typically not crossed.

But when everybody in both couples are Lesbians, how would anyone know when things are awry?

So let’s say Lesbian Couple A (let’s call them Xena and Gabrielle) meets Lesbian Couple B (let’s call them Idgie and Ruth) and they all hit it off. Next thing you know, these 2 couples are drinking beer and eating chicken wings every Saturday night at The Watering Hole on Main Street, USA. All is a-okay, so far.

But then let’s say one day Xena calls Ruth and invites her for lunch without their partners.

Hmmmm. As a Lesbian, I must say this would strike me as amiss.

But would it strike me amiss if Xena had called Idgie and asked her to go to the gym or to go play tennis?

No, it wouldn’t.

Why?

It is difficult to explain, because it is at least partly Lesbian intuition, rather than concrete evidence, that is guiding that gut-level feeling that something is “off”.

Additionally, this topic is difficult to explain to heterosexuals because heterosexuals basically seem to think that any 2 random women could suddenly start making out and POOF!, they are suddenly in a “Lesbian relationship“. (Nope, it’s not a “Lesbian relationship” unless actual Lesbians are in the relationship).

My point is, heterosexuals don’t seem to understand that Lesbians aren’t attracted to just any female….instead, we, like everybody else, have our own tastes/preferences for partners. Lesbians aren’t simply interchangeable with each other like one-size-fits-all Legos; we’re not all going to be attracted to the same people. Like straight people, Lesbians tend to have a general “type” of person we are attracted to.

So, when 2 Lesbian couples meet, if they have a significant amount of things in common with each other, it’s often (not always, of course, but often) likely that the other couple will be similar to the original couple in their basic “types” (examples: Butch/Femme, softball dykes, golf dykes, Lipstick Lesbians…etc.).

This is most certainly NOT to say that this means that there will automatically be attraction with someone who falls within our general “type” though. Just like how all straight females are NOT attracted to all straight males, Lesbians are NOT attracted to all other Lesbians…not even all of those who are our general “type”.

My point being that if, in our hypothetical example, Gabrielle is Xena’s “type”, then it’s likely that Ruth would be Xena’s general “type” too. And if Xena is Gabrielle’s “type”, then it’s likely that Idgie would be Gabrielle’s general “type” too.

So crossover friendships between two Lesbians who find the other person in the friendship to be their “type” are potentially fraught with difficulty.

Does this mean, to use another example, that a Butch cannot be platonic friends with a Femme (or vice versa)?

No, it doesn’t mean that at all. I truly believe that mature adults can indeed be platonic friends and leave it at that. But it does mean that the Butch and the Femme involved in the friendship and their partners need to be fully informed and fully aware at all times. No sneaking, no secret messages, no flirtation, no coyness, no lying…basically, no bullshit at all.

Let’s give another hypothetical example. Let’s say Dirt and I met another Butch/Femme couple and started hanging out with them every weekend. (This scenario is highly unlikely, due to the rarity of Butch/Femme making it very unlikely that we would meet a local couple, plus the fact that Dirt and I are both extreme introverts, so we aren’t ever going to see ANYBODY all the time…but hey, it’s just a pretend example anyway, so let’s just go with it).

In our hypothetical example, it would be considered highly irregular for the Femme of the couple to start emailing/texting Dirt privately and/or for them to meet for lunch or coffee without me and the Butch in the other couple present. It would be a major warning sign…not just because of the secrecy involved, although that would be a big tip-off, but also because they would be each other’s “type” so it would be atypical to cross over like that.

Similarly, if the Butch suddenly started calling me privately to talk about personal things behind the backs of Dirt and her Femme partner, it would be a big warning sign.

Does that mean that they could never call/text or see us separately? No, of course not! There are plenty of reasons such contact might happen (for example, contact might be made with one partner instead of the other due to simple convenience, like if one person is more reachable than the other; getting advice about a birthday present or surprise party;  needing specific advice on a topic that one partner knows more about; etc.).

It does mean, however, that if the situation continued to occur all the time (beyond casual contact), escalated, and/or showed any of the warning signs above, it would be certainly be a problem.

Bottom line: If you feel yourself starting to keep things from your partner and start turning toward someone else instead of your partner, it’s time to stop and seriously consider what exactly is going on before proceeding any further.  Deep down, under layers of rationalizations and denial, you know if you are romantically/sexually attracted to someone. And if you are attracted to someone, you need to admit it to yourself. You owe it to yourself and to your partner to be the kind of person who does the right thing. Be that person.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This blog is NOT intended to be professional advice, nor to substitute for the advice of a licensed professional. The reader should consult with an appropriate professional regarding all mental health needs.

“How Very Dare You?” (How Hets Respond To Lesbians)

Amidst all of the general nonsense Dirt and I deal with on a daily basis, a recent recurrent theme I have noticed in many argumentative comments and tweets to us is:

HOW DARE WE?

How dare we speak about/as Lesbians?

How dare we say that any woman cannot magically “become a Lesbian”?

How dare we say that words like “Lesbian”, “Butch”, “Femme” etc. have actual meaning and should be used correctly?

How dare we imply that we are “experts” of any sort?

How dare we say that many are falsely calling themselves “Lesbian”?

How dare we challenge the currently in-vogue idea that everything is all about “identity”: the idea that if you simply “identify as” ________(fill in the blank: Lesbian; Butch; Femme; Hippopotamus; Whatever) you ARE ___________?

The list goes on and on and on, but I think you get the basic idea, which boils down to “How very dare you?”

I recently replied that there are about 3,468,576,823,845 STRAIGHT blogs, books, articles, TV shows, magazines, etc.; yet NOBODY ever comments such things to them: Who are YOU to talk about being straight? What would YOU know? What gives YOU the right to talk about straight people/relationships? How would YOU know about being straight? Who are YOU to say who is straight? Etc.

Nope, that never happens, and I will tell you why. Because nobody questions “straight”. First of all, straights are the HUGE majority. Secondly, straight is pretty…well…straightforward: Nobody has hijacked “straight” like “Lesbian” has been hijacked repeatedly. Nobody is falsely speaking for all straight people, implying that they are all perverts and weirdos or that it’s all “just a choice” or any other such idiocy.

Even when a Lesbian comes out later in life, she didn’t hijack straight out of privilege; in fact, it’s the opposite: she felt she had to pretend to be straight in order to please family, society, or church. She got hijacked BY straight.

Think about it: For a straight person to even question our right to speak out as/regarding Lesbians smacks of privilege.

Let me be clear: While straight people are always very welcome to read our blogs and to comment, and while we still sincerely hope that some straight people will be capable of seeing the light, Dirt and I are not writing for straight people. We hope that some straight people will understand, but we don’t actually expect them to.

Instead, we are writing to Lesbians. And we are writing as Lesbians.

We not only have the right to do so, we have the duty. 

Attention: straights and Straightbians: We DO dare.  And all your arguing, snarkiness, denial, rudeness, subtweeting, and straight privilege in the universe won’t stop us.

In summary: Suck it up, buttercup(s), because we’re not going away.

Buttercup

Image: Pixabay: CC0 Public Domain

Being a Lesbian Is NOT All About Sex

I have touched upon this topic before, but it deserves a specific post. Heck, it deserves multiple posts!

Due to the fact that being a Lesbian is labeled a SEXUAL orientation, people in general, including Lesbians, often equate Lesbian with SEX.

ThisSucks

(Pun Semi-Intended)

Here’s the thing: Yes, Lesbians do have sex. But: Um, hello, so do straight people!

But somehow, when straight people talk about their romantic relationships in general terms, nobody…NOBODY…assumes that they are talking about SEX…well, unless they’re actually talking about sex!

If a straight woman says, “My boyfriend and I went to the Farmer’s Market on Saturday”, nobody tells her, “I don’t need to know about your sex life!” or “I don’t care who you sleep with, because love is love!”  And nobody asks a straight woman, upon learning that she has a male romantic partner who accompanied her to the Farmer’s Market, “How does that work? Who’s on top?”

Nope, they just ask whether they bought heirloom tomatoes.

But let a Lesbian mention our Lesbian partner in a general, non-x-rated conversation, and BOOM! We are quite likely to hear a variation of the above comments, get a barrage of intrusive questions, or, at the very least, potentially face an awkward moment.

For a hilariously accurate overview of what would happen if Lesbians suddenly started acting like straight people, watch this video. Then watch it again, and let it truly sink in.

The incorrect over-emphasis on the SEXual part of orientation leads to a variety of problems and misunderstandings, ranging from mildly annoying to outright dangerous.

First, to focus solely on sexual activity as the basis for defining Lesbian opens the door wide open to the problem of Straightbians of all sorts falsely claiming to be us and spreading misinformation to and about us. Having sex (or even a long-term relationship) with another female does not make anyone a Lesbian. Behavior ≠ Orientation.

Second, to oversexualize Lesbianism leads some men to think of us as available sexual objects. To make matters worse, Lesbians are typically falsely portrayed as hypersexualized nymphets just WAITING for a man to sweep us off of our feet. Ugh and double ugh.

Thirdly, and most importantly, for Lesbians to define ourselves as simply a SEXual orientation denies the very real fact that Lesbians are different from straight females in ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with who we f**k ~ or even whether we f**k.

How Much Sex Is “Normal”?: A “Dear Lesbian” Question

I just received an anonymous comment on my Lesbian Bed Death post, and since I think others may have the same questions/concerns, this comment will be the subject of today’s “Dear Lesbian” post.

Here is the comment:

The comments about happy couples still having sex after years worry me. I am a 45 year old lesbian. My girlfriend of 3 years never wants to have sex. Well, maybe not never, but hardly ever. Maybe like once every 3 months if I am lucky. I have been assuming it was lesbian bed death, but now I am worried. Does this mean my girlfriend is a Straightbian?

Without any further details, I am going to have to speak very generally, but first of all, I want to stress that there is no “normal” amount of sex to have.

What is “too much” for one person may be “too little” for another. Some people might want to have sex once a day, others once a week, others once a month, others once a year, others the 12th of never. (And any variation thereof).

While there is no “right” and “wrong” amount of desire for an individual, things can get tricky when we partner with another person, because one partner’s preference for frequency of sex may differ significantly from the other’s.

Ideally, couples will be (at least mostly) compatible regarding desire for frequency of intimacy, but sometimes, one partner will want to have sex much more frequently than the other, and when there is a big discrepancy, that is a really tough position to be in, for both partners.

This situation can happen with heterosexual or gay male couples too; so this issue is definitely not limited to Lesbian couples.

Bottom line: It’s impossible to say whether or not this person’s partner is a Straightbian, and it’s really not my place to do so anyway.

It is unclear whether the sex is still good when it does occur, or whether there has been a sudden and/or significant change at some point. Those are questions that the commenter will need to consider herself.

There are many non-Straightbian-related factors that can potentially decrease a woman’s sexual desire, including, but not limited to: thyroid dysfunction, parathyroid issues, chronic fatigue, chronic illness, chronic pain, stress, overwhelming responsibilities, perimenopause/menopause, post-hysterectomy issues, body image issues, grief, surgical recovery, hormonal issues, relationship issues, mental health concerns, etc.

And since so many issues can potentially inhibit sexual desire, it’s not always easy figuring out the cause(s).

As difficult as it will be, if the discrepancy in sexual desire is an issue (and it sounds like it is indeed a concern for this reader), the only way to start is by having a kind and supportive, but frank, conversation about the situation, approaching the issue directly but sensitively.

But don’t just assume that if your partner doesn’t want to have frequent sex that it must mean she’s a Straightbian. The discrepancy in desire may be caused a variety of other issues, and those answers can only be determined by the individuals involved, using good communication/problem-solving skills, and seeking professional help if needed (while also using our Lesbian intuition at the same time).

Hope this helps explain further, and as always, please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This blog is NOT intended to be professional advice, nor to substitute for the advice of a licensed professional. The reader should consult with an appropriate professional regarding all mental health needs.