Archives

Are Lesbians Ever Attracted To Men?

Recently, I received the following comment on a post:

“I am definitely a lesbian but have been attracted to men.”

So I thought I would do a post addressing this important question:

Question: Are Lesbians Ever Attracted To Men?

Answer: No!

TheEnd

Image: Pixabay: Michitogo: Creative Commons CC0

Well, That’s Queer

Every time I hear or see the word “Queer”, I involuntarily flinch. This word has become one of the banes of Lesbian existence, as it is used as a catch-all term to denote pretty much every Special Snowflake from here to San Francisco. Well, mainly San Francisco, but geography is irrelevant to my point. My point is, the use of the word “queer” has come to mean anything from any random individual with more piercings than common sense to the pro-pedophile freak Pat(rick) Califia.

As I have said before, Lesbian is not “Queer” and “Queer” is not Lesbian, and never the twain shall meet.

I remember hearing “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!” being shouted in Pride marches of yore. I didn’t mind the word then, because “queer” was being used to reclaim a slur that had been used against us. Quite simply, “queer” didn’t mean what it does now…and in that context, it certainly wasn’t being used to erase Lesbian reality in that context as the “queers” of today are seeking to do.

As my readers know, Dirt and I are quite outspoken about our thoughts and feelings on the on-going bastardization of the meaning of the word Lesbian. We are also very outspoken on the fact that there is no LGBTTQQIAAP+++ community.

So, you can imagine my surprise when I was asked to read/review a book called “Hashtag Queer: Lgbtq+ Creative Anthology (Book 1)“. In fact, I hesitated before accepting, because, believe it or not, I actually don’t enjoy controversy, arguments, and/or negativity.  I truly WISH we all were one big happy community frolicking hither and yon in peaceful harmony.  However, as much as I may wish for harmony and community, the stark fact is: reality always trumps feel-good naivete.

So I held my breath when downloading the copy they sent me, even feeling a little queasy with anxiety. However, despite my apprehension, I admit that I hoped that, amidst all the queer, perhaps a tad of Lesbian would peek through.

Sadly, I found most of it to be completely unrecognizable to me as a Lesbian.

Let’s just take a gander at just a couple of examples, shall we?

1). “How Jac Twist’d Turned You” by Emma Munro starts with:

“Jac Twist’d is staring and it is annoying. He is both female, femme, and Drag Kinging…”

And ends with:

“You now feel powerful in red heels and red lacquered nails, with your bosom sweetly strangled in a corset and a dildo dangling between your legs. Jac and you take the straight and bend it into shape. Any shape.”

2). “The Flip Side of Coming Out” by Eva M. Schlesinger starts with:

“I had just arrived at the coffeehouse, when I ran into an old friend. ‘What’s new?’ Kate asked. ‘I’m now partnered with a man,’ I said…I came out as a lesbian when I was nineteen…Being a lesbian made sense. I was certain a relationship with a woman would soon follow. Instead, I fell in love with a man.”

And ends with:

“I remembered running into another lesbian friend at the grocery store. She, too, had asked, ‘What’s new?’ Glancing at the cashiers, I turned back to her warm gaze. ‘I’m now partnered with a man.’ I held my breath, wondering what would happen next. I was surprised when she said, ‘I have felt that yearning myself.‘”

3). “I Like Dick” by Maddie Godfrey starts with:

“I like dick, Big dick, small dick, medium dick, I like dick that is thin and dick that is thick…”

And ends with:

“and maybe this is why I enjoy being choked during sex those gasps for air, like the feeling of drowning it almost reminds me, of her”

(To be fair, I should note that at least Maddie Godfrey states that she is a “straight-presenting bisexual” in this entry, so at least she doesn’t call her love of dick “Lesbian”. Thank goodness for small favors, huh?).

My point is: None of these entries are Lesbian. None of these entries are anything a Lesbian can even relate to.

Once again, Lesbian is hidden under the oppressive umbrella of queer.

This phenomenon is nothing new or shocking; in fact, it’s par for the proverbial course…but it is still disappointing nonetheless. I have said this before, and I will say it again, us Ls need to remove ourselves from the never-ending LGBT+++ acronym; in fact, we already are not a part of it except for our initial.

My feeling about this anthology is that it’s fine if you are interested in reading a variety of “queer” poems, essays, and stories without any expectation whatsoever of getting an accurate representation of Lesbian lives.

But if you are looking for an accurate representation of Lesbian lives through fiction, poetry, essays, or even non-fiction, I wish you luck, because a snowball has a better chance of surviving in Hell than Lesbian truth has in a queer anthology.

I’m not saying that this anthology itself was terrible; in fact, many entries were interesting, well-written, and heartfelt. They just weren’t Lesbian, which is my sole focus.

The only entry that I felt any true empathy or kinship with was “Presence and Absence” by Laury A. Egan; this was a moving poem about the mourning of the dying/death of a long-term partner. I felt that this piece was written in such a way that it is universally relatable.

In fact, a particular quote from “Presence and Absence” reminds me of how I feel about the on-going loss of Lesbian truth (although the speaker is referring to a now-deceased partner). Therefore, I think the quote is a fitting way to end this post:

“I want the nothing
that remains to become
something again
for the lost
to be found
transformed from empty air to real”

Black Mirror’s San Junipero: A Happily-Ever-After Lesbian Love Story…???

!!SPOILER ALERT!!

The 4th episode of the 3rd series of Black Mirror, “San Junipero” (and if you’re unfamiliar with Black Mirror, think Twilight Zone meets the technological age) has been much-ballyhooed as a triumph over the tired, homophobic “Bury Your Gays” trope.

And, in many ways, it indeed seems to be a happy ending. After all, the 2 lead female characters (Warning: Second, and final, spoiler alert!!) ~ after back-and-forth drama ~ do end up in virtual-reality eternity together, complete with a happy end-scene montage to the tune of Belinda Carlisle’s “Heaven is a Place on Earth”.

But…

There seems to always be a “but” when it comes to how Lesbian love is portrayed, and this particular portrayal has a big “but”:

Only one character (Yorkie) is a Lesbian; therefore, the relationship could never be mutual, happy, or true love. (And: Yorkie is a Lesbian whose family would not accept her, leading to tragedy…an all-to-familiar outcome for many Lesbians).

The other character, Kelly, is a bored straight woman who was married for 49 years to a man. Early in the episode, Kelly vaguely alludes to some never-acted-upon same-sex attractions over the years of her heterosexual marriage:

“They were crushes…Never acted on any of it. Never did anything. I really was in love with him.

This fleeting reference to Kelly’s unrequited same-sex flirtations led some viewers to call her “queer” or “bisexual”…but the truth is, it is clear that Kelly is oriented toward males. She married and stayed with a man for decades; plus, only a week before she meets Yorkie in San Junipero, Kelly was f**king a random man for “fun”.

The creator/writer, Charlie Brooker, explains in a spoiler interview (in reference to the same-sex relationship which is central to this story):

“in terms of the writing of it, I tried not to think of that. It’s just two souls.”

The actress who played Kelly, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, chimes in with:

“And that’s sort of the beautiful thing about the characters—in relation to their sexuality—is it’s really not about that, it’s not an issue, it’s not a problem. Obviously they all have their own relationships, how they’ve come to be in San Junipero and their own histories, but I think it’s about human beings and love and souls. And it’s not about it being a problem. That wasn’t the focus of the story and I think that’s actually really refreshing.”

Of course, all of that sounds very accepting and liberal and oh-so-very-nice, doesn’t it?

But here’s the thing: That sort of “sexuality-is-fluid, it’s not about same-sex love, we’re all just people, it’s just two souls” rhetoric is completely dismissive and erasing of real Lesbians. Note that they cannot even say the word “Lesbian”; instead they both refer to us and our love as “that!

For Lesbians, our love is not just about “two sexless souls”; our orientation is not “fluid”; and furthermore, we deserve to BE the actual focus of a story.

But it’s not just the hetsplaining and (seemingly) benign ignorance of the creator/writer and the actress that  I had a problem with in this episode.

My MAIN problem is, as usual, the Lesbian was just expected to accept, even embrace, shoddy treatment from a Straightbian, as if we are somehow LUCKY to be graced by their presence.

I am referring to the scene that decisively showed Kelly’s true colors and her arrogant straight privilege: the scene in which she abusively slapped Yorkie in the face, then condescendingly lectured her:

You can’t begin to imagine. You can’t know the bond, the commitment, the boredom, the yearning, the laughter, the love of it. The fucking love.
You just cannot know! Everything we sacrificed.
The years I gave him. The years he gave me.
Did you think to ask? Did it occur to you to ask? We had a daughter. Alison.
Always difficult, always beautiful. Died at 39 years old, bless her heart.
And Richard and I, we felt that heartbreak as one.
You think you’re the only person ever suffered, go fuck yourself…I pitied you, and that’s the truth.I pitied you. Now you give me some sales pitch about how fucking peachy forever could be… You wanna spend forever somewhere nothing matters? End up like Wes? All those lost fucks at the Quagmire trying anything to feel something, go ahead. But I’m out. I’m gone.

(Gagging loudly).

Kelly obviously didn’t remember (or care) that she was the one who refused to talk about serious topics, opting on insisting on a “good time”, instead of forming a real connection. Kelly obviously thinks that Lesbian Yorkie couldn’t possibly fathom the “depth” of her heterosexual marriage. She admits she married Yorkie out of PITY…not love…or even friendship. Furthermore, Kelly is quick to dismiss and disparage the people in the Quagmire (a new-wave, punk-rock sort of “anything-goes” club) as “lost fucks” even though she herself visited there for recreational f**king! Hypocritical much, Kelly?

Many viewers discussed in reviews and in online discussions about how “touching” the above scene was, because they perceived it to show “depth” to Kelly’s character.

Um…no.

What this specific scene showed was NOT true “depth”…at all. Instead, what it showed was Kelly’s complete disrespect and disdain for someone who had been nothing but kind and loving toward her. It showed the writer’s casual and callous dismissal of Lesbian feelings in favor of the alleged fabled “bond” of a heterosexual union. It showed the underlying nastiness lurking below Kelly’s seemingly fun and free-spirited facade. It showed outright physical and emotional abuse. It showed Kelly’s true heterosexual orientation and straight privilege. It showed an utter lack of understanding of, and a complete lack of respect for, not only the Lesbian lover who Kelly purported to care about, but also for Lesbians in general. And there is absolutely zero acknowledgement of, or empathy for, the tragic and HOMOPHOBIC circumstances that ruined Yorkie’s life.

Instead of discussing the very real dilemma Kelly was facing in a way that would have shown respect for the woman she allegedly cared about, Kelly’s character was shown to lash out physically and verbally in a very mean-spirited, immature, unattractive, narcissistic, selfish, straight-privileged, and egocentric manner.

And instead of handing Kelly her ass on a platter as she should have done, the Lesbian character, Yorkie, ends up apologizing, as if she had anything whatsoever to apologize for.

Furthermore, despite Kelly offering no apology to Yorkie (nor did any scenes afterward indicate any real soul-searching on the part of Kelly), the audience is magically supposed to believe that Kelly suddenly decides to show up in San Junipero for a happily-ever-after eternity with Yorkie and we are supposed buy into the concept that Yorkie should be happy to get Kelly back.

The sad truth is that Kelly would be f**king a man within a month, and Yorkie would get her Lesbian heart broken.

This is not the happy ending Lesbians deserve. Instead, San Junipero turns out to be just another slap in the face. 

brokenhearts

#PicsArt #FreeToEdit

Mutiny On Lesbo Island

Note: This post is my long-overdue (sorry! ugh!) response to joannadeadwinter in our on-going conversation  about bisexuality. Specifically, this post is in response to her post, “Shipwreck on Lesbo Island.”

Joannadeadwinter made so many excellent points in her most recent post in our discussion of bisexuality that I found myself nodding so vigorously at my computer screen that it counted as a neck workout.

In her latest response, with her typical intelligence and insight, joannadeadwinter quickly hones into the actual crux of the matter, cutting efficiently through the layers of outrage, denial, argumentativeness, and occasional downright hostility that discussing this topic causes:

The real question is: What purpose does it serve to have the B lumped in with the LG? How does it add to, or undermine, gay activism and culture?

This is an excellent question, and, upon reading it, I realized that we had be focusing on the wrong question all along.

It became clear to me upon reading this question that my so-called “issue with bisexuality” isn’t really an actual “issue with bisexuality” per se, but rather, that my on-going consternation caused by seeing lesbians get hurt; lesbian space being invaded; lesbian resources being diverted; and lesbians being misrepresented because of people who are not lesbian.

My actual attitude, which probably surprises many who have completely misunderstood the Straightbian posts, is that I honestly don’t care what people do nor who they do it with! All Dirt and I are saying is that people should be honest with themselves, and with their potential partners, before embarking on romantic and/or sexual relationships.

For example: I don’t have a problem with a woman who states up-front that she is bisexual; but I do have a problem with a woman who says she is a lesbian when she isn’t.

Joannadeadwinter goes on to say:

On a superficial level, it makes sense. Unlike gender, bisexuality is about sexual minority status, or being not-straight in a straight-and-narrow world. Anyone and everyone, whether they are really homosexual or not, needs legal protection and cultural acceptance in the event that a) they are caught engaging in same-sex relations and/or b) are perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be homosexual. Laws that prevent discrimination don’t just protect oppressed classes, but also those perceived to be associated with oppressed classes.

Agreed.  Everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, deserves legal rights and protections.

Initially, it likely made much sense to include everyone possible in the ever-increasing LGBTQQIAAP2S acronym (how much more are they going to add…??!!). The idea being: Power in numbers; protection for all.

At the beginning, on the surface, it likely indeed seemed to be a good idea to lump all of us, despite our obvious differences and conflicting interests, into a Crockpot and leave us there to simmer, our disparate groups remaining entangled politically, seemingly blended, for years, until some of us eventually started to reach a boiling point and started trying to climb out of the curdled stew.

Joannadeadwinter goes on to state:

Furthermore, I think the concept of bisexuality may have been helpful once upon a time when homosexual was scary, deviant, and criminal. The idea that even people straight as an arrow can and do have homoerotic desires and have same-sex encounters perhaps assisted society in seeing themselves in the gay/lesbian community and hence normalized same-sex attraction. Having more members of a minority in society, and having those minorities in the ranks of “normal” people, tends to have that effect.

Yes, I agree that the concept of bisexuality may have helped to “normalize” homosexual desire/activity to some extent back in the times when same-sex activity was illegal and downright scary, by making such desires more visible/understandable to the general public, and that is a good thing.

The unfortunate backlash, however, has been the ever-popular but false notion that being a lesbian is a choice available to all women, and the related (and equally dangerous) idea that sexuality is “fluid” which leads people to incorrectly believe that lesbians could be with men if we would just choose to.

Joannadeadwinter goes on to distinguish between “homosexual leaning bisexuals” (“Violets”) versus “hetero-leaning bisexuals” (“Lavenders”).  Her discussion, and my reply, are both focused mainly on the “Lavenders” because of this issue which is described perfectly by joannadeadwinter:

Rather it’s hetero-leaning bisexuals (lavenders) who have a habit of crashing onto the shores of Lesbo Island, then leaving when the next male rescuer comes along, but leaving the remains of the shipwreck behind. In other words, they dominate lesbian time and space, marginalize lesbians, and yet don’t contribute to the movement or culture or accept the risks of being publicly visible as lesbian

Every time a lavender joins the lesbian community, then leaves it for a male partner, a marriage, children, and straight ambitions (aka the flat with the white picket fence and apple tree), she creates the impression that this is the proper trajectory for a lesbian. Lesbianism is a phase. Lesbians really want men, eventually, once they heal from whatever trauma or brainwashing they supposedly endured. Lesbians should aspire to get married, have children, or otherwise blend into the straight lifestyle. It normalizes straight culture and straight expectations in the ONE place it shouldn’t be happening

I have also heard, more than once, about so-and-so who was convinced she was a lesbian…until she met this amazing guy! When people who call themselves lesbians or bisexuals do this in large numbers, it leaves the rest of us in the dust, coerced, not believed.

I won’t argue here whether these women are actually Straightbians all along, although that argument certainly would be made by Dirt, LOL!

Instead, let’s assume, for the sake of our discussion, that these women (“lavenders”) are indeed truly bisexual, but since, being “hetero-leaning bisexuals” who are predominantly attracted to males, they have ended up with a male and all the accroutrements of straight culture.

One of the main problems that Dirt and I are trying to address is the problem when non-lesbians purport to be “lesbian experts; and make alleged “contributions” to “lesbian herstory” which are both inaccurate and detrimental to Lesbians.

It should be understandable to all how “lavenders” defecting to Straightville are devastating to Lesbian lives.

These “lavenders” suddenly crashed upon our Isle of Lesbos, were welcomed with open arms and open hearts, seemingly integrated into our world for a time, but then suddenly were swept away by the tidal wave of hetero-privilege; leaving broken hearts, confusion, sadness, misery, anger, and miscellaneous debris for the Lesbians to clean up.

The Isle of Lesbos isn’t some temporary vacation destination to visit on the way to Heteroville, like some kind of Sapphic Bachelorette party.

But, all-too-often, lesbians are used when it is convenient and/or popular to do so, then unceremoniously tossed away like last Tuesday’s tofu when the Wienermobile pulls into town. And that is not right.

2016-25-9-12-17-26

Joannadeadwinter goes on to say:

The more time we spend focusing on the ways lesbians are Just Like Everyone Else, especially in family life and motherhood (a STRAIGHT priority, c’mon!), that is precious time and energy not spent on supporting lesbians who don’t fit the mold-childless lesbians, unmarried or domestically partnered lesbians, lesbians adopting or fostering, single lesbians, lesbians who want and NEED a safe, validating, and SEPARATE space to be lesbian their way…the way most lesbians were throughout most of history, both out of necessity and out of desire….

When you fail to honor lesbian and woman-centered culture, when you abandon us, leave your shipwreck on our island…you destroy lesbian culture and thus lesbian lives. When you leave us for straight culture, you drag us with you without our consent or leave us to get figuratively beat up by the dominant culture. And I just won’t go, and I won’t take the blows.

A recent commenter here bemoaned her observation of what she believes is the tendency of many lesbians lately to be “trying to fit into heterocentric culture”.  I understand this point, because I have seen this trend too, and I do agree with the concerns voiced by both joannadeadwinter and the recent commenter.

However, I do want to point out that, looking at this trend from an overall perspective, I feel that this tendency is at least somewhat understandable because — FINALLY, woo-hoo!! — lesbians are allowed to marry in the US; allowed to believe that we have the same opportunities in the world as do our straight peers.

Lesbians have forever been treated as different, less-than, denied the legitimacy and everyday acceptance of our heterosexual counterparts.

It is predictable that when suddenly offered the opportunity to participate in the rituals and privileges of society, that some will instinctively grab for what is perceived to be the apex of existence: for instance: marriage, family, and/or the white picket fence.

Like starving wanderers in the desert, some of us will understandably rush toward the perceived sustenance of “legitimacy” without fully comprehending their own underlying reasons.

Another point I would like to make is that most lesbians, including myself and Dirt, are just (so-called; I hate the word) “normal” people living “normal” lives.  What I mean is that we typically are not exotic, exciting creatures living a life of wild sex, drama, and debauchery. Lesbian is not a “lifestyle”. We do the same things that everyone else does: we work, we grocery shop, we watch TV, we floss our teeth, we pay taxes, we argue on Twitter, we feed our beloved furry family members.

So for some observers, seeing most of us living our “normal” lives, it may seem like we are trying to assimilate, when, in reality, we are simply being ourselves.

As I said to the recent commenter, I feel that lesbians have the right to create whatever lives we want for ourselves (of course, I mean as long as we are not harming others in doing so!).

So if we want to buy a house in the suburbs and put up a white picket fence, that is our right to do so.

Similarly, it is our right NOT to do so too: we don’t have to accept society’s ideals of a “perfect life”.

Lesbians have the right to carve out our own lives in whatever ways work best for us: whether single or partnered, whether urban or rural, whether mind-numbingly boring or chockful of thrills, whether “traditional” or “non-traditional”.

Nobody, not even another lesbian, has the right to tell us that there is a right or a wrong way to live our own lives.

However, I do think it is always in everyone’s best interests to analyze our reasoning and attempt to uncover our subconscious  motivations.

And I believe this is true for everyone, regardless of orientation.

If you feel that the fancy-white-wedding-and-white-picket-fence is your dream, it pays to look at why (literally, because these things are expensive!).  Is it truly YOUR dream, or are you trying to live up to someone else’s expectations? If you feel that it is your dream, why?  What are your life goals and what do you hope to accomplish with your life?  Would that $32,641 (the typical cost of a wedding now) be better spent on savings, investment, and/or charity?

Similarly, if you feel the need to have children, it is useful to consider your reasons and expectations. Again, is this your dream or are you buying into society’s dream?  If you do decide to have a baby, does the baby need to be your biological child or is adoption a possibility?  What are the issues and drawbacks of artificial reproduction? Etc. (Joannadeadwinter gives a detailed analysis of reproductive issues…please refer to her post for details).

By exploring all of the relevant life questions before acting, we will know that at least the options and reasons will have been thoroughly considered, no matter what the ultimate outcome is.

Circling back around the the earlier question that is at the crux of our discussion:

The real question is: What purpose does it serve to have the B lumped in with the LG? How does it add to, or undermine, gay activism and culture?

There have been recent unsuccessful attempts to separate out the never-ending LGBTQQIAAP2S acronym (such as the “Drop The T” petition, which was universally ignored and derided by the organizations purporting to stand up for ALL of our rights).

My thoughts on this are: Lesbians need to stop asking permission. We need to take what is ours. We don’t need the Human Rights Campaign’s  nor Lambda Legal’s permission to state that Lesbian is a discrete category with specific issues and needs.

What we do need to do is stop giving these organizations our money, attention, support, and time. We may have to create our own new, unspoiled organization.

Bottom line, I feel that there may have been initial practical reasons for all of the myriad groups in the acronym to have banded together at one time, but: at this point, our issues and needs are quite disparate and very frequently at odds with each other.

As a Lesbian, I have different issues and needs than an asexual, a bisexual, a transgender person, a gay man, a questioning adolescent, an intersex individual, a 2-spirit person, a pansexual, etc. And I am most certainly NOT queer either.

Lesbians have a right to demand that our unique needs are met. Lesbians need to ignore all attempts to guilt us into “being nice” and “getting along” with other members of the never-ending acronym.  Just because Lesbians are an oppressed minority ourselves doesn’t mean that we have to be sympathetic to, nor respond to the needs of, any other oppressed minorities. We don’t have to share our space and resources unless we choose to.

I feel that it is time for Lesbians to file for an amicable divorce from the “GBTQQIAAP2S” under the grounds of “irreconcilable differences”. It’s time for the L to focus on ourselves. We can wish the others of the acronym well on their journeys as we wave from the shore, and we may even provide assistance, support, and friendship to our former acronym-mates on our own terms, but it’s time to throw a coup and retake Lesbos Island for ourselves.

Shipwreck On Lesbo Island (Joannadeadwinter’s Response To Me)

Note: This is joannadeadwinter’s excellent & thought-provoking response to me originally posted on her blog here as part of our ongoing back-and-forth conversation about bisexuality. Please read and join the discussion!

You don’t get to puff yourself up that you’re building the future, then crow about choice when people challenge you on the future you’re building.

I guess that’s as good a place to start as any. Saye Bennett wrote on her blog that she is “still skeptical” on the topic of bisexuality. Well, the post, and particularly the comments, sent my mind abuzz and one post will not adequately address it. But Lao Tzu said that the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Here is my first, single step, and that is to make sure we are even discussing the right questions.

Thus far, we have discussed whether bisexuality exists, and if so…why does it *seem* that they are all straight? Those questions still matter, especially to those who dodge critical examination by hiding behind nature (“Don’t judge me you mean old lesbians! I was born bi! I don’t control if I love a man or not!”) Upon reading and writing comments, however, I realized that wasn’t the crux of the matter.

The real question is: What purpose does it serve to have the B lumped in with the LG? How does it add to, or undermine, gay activism and culture?

On a superficial level, it makes sense. Unlike gender, bisexuality is about sexual minority status, or being not-straight in a straight-and-narrow world. Anyone and everyone, whether they are really homosexual or not, needs legal protection and cultural acceptance in the event that a) they are caught engaging in same-sex relations and/or b) are perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be homosexual. Laws that prevent discrimination don’t just protect oppressed classes, but also those perceived to be associated with oppressed classes. A good example is disability law: Just as an employer cannot deny reasonable accommodations on the job, they also cannot force you to use accommodations or alter your job descriptions and responsibilities because your boss *thinks* you have a disability that requires it. It’s the same with religion. If you are perceived to be Muslim and discriminated against because of that perception, the law protects you and employers cannot claim that the law doesn’t apply because it turns out you’re not really Muslim. I feel sexual orientation law can, and should, work in the same way.

Furthermore, I think the concept of bisexuality may have been helpful once upon a time when homosexual was scary, deviant, and criminal. The idea that even people straight as an arrow can and do have homoerotic desires and have same-sex encounters perhaps assisted society in seeing themselves in the gay/lesbian community and hence normalized same-sex attraction. Having more members of a minority in society, and having those minorities in the ranks of “normal” people, tends to have that effect.

Lastly, we may not have a choice as to whether L, G, and B are lumped together. Just as LG were lumped together by larger society during the AIDS crisis, aka the plague, the dying times (!), trans activism may well have the same effect on the LGB. Lesbians have been fighting transactivists for decades, as have gay men (although they have not been as viciously targeted). Bisexuals, though, are new to the fray. It has come to my attention in the past year that bisexuals are transphobic for defining their sexuality in terms of two (bi) biological sexes (sexual). At least one person in my circle calls herself queer and outright refuses the bisexual label because bisexual is “reductive” (“I love people, not body parts!”) and exclusionary (“Think of the trans!”) So I am forced to add bisexuals to the ever-growing list of people who aren’t allowed to say no to cross dressing creeps. If bisexuals ever got a clue and took a stand against this trend, LGB could work well together.

With that said, working well in a crisis involving a common enemy doesn’t necessary translate into working well as a matter of course. That brings us to today’s topic…the drawbacks of the B in LGB.

I don’t imagine that there’s much harm to lesbians when homo-leaning bisexuals (which I call violets) and homoflexible women align with the lesbian community (provided they’re honest) because these women have presumably committed themselves to women’s communities, women’s issues and also strongly prefer women sexually. I could be wrong on this, but they don’t seem to be the issue. Rather it’s hetero-leaning bisexuals (lavenders) who have a habit of crashing onto the shores of Lesbo Island, then leaving when the next male rescuer comes along, but leaving the remains of the shipwreck behind. In other words, they dominate lesbian time and space, marginalize lesbians, and yet don’t contribute to the movement or culture or accept the risks of being publicly visible as lesbian.

Saye and Dirt have talked at great length about straightbians and the damage they do to lesbian communities, as well as talking about what distinguishes later-in-life lesbians from straightbians. I will not belabor that here, in part because they do a better job and because I do not have the expertise in that area. I want to talk about lavenders (assuming that they really are bisexual-leaning-straight, and NOT straightbians) and their impact on lesbian communities. Here is where I question whether it makes sense to lump lesbians and bisexual women together.

Because let’s face it: Lavenders by definition are more straight in their romantic and sexual interest and relate far more to straight culture, and spend far more time in it, than lesbian culture. And lesbian IS a culture. Think of an ethnic group. They are ethnic in their genetics and their appearance, but also their language, their history, their traditions, their way of life. It’s a culture, an identity, and a biological link, all in one. Lesbian is the same way. Every time a lavender joins the lesbian community, then leaves it for a male partner, a marriage, children, and straight ambitions (aka the flat with the white picket fence and apple tree), she creates the impression that this is the proper trajectory for a lesbian. Lesbianism is a phase. Lesbians really want men, eventually, once they heal from whatever trauma or brainwashing they supposedly endured. Lesbians should aspire to get married, have children, or otherwise blend into the straight lifestyle. It normalizes straight culture and straight expectations in the ONE place it shouldn’t be happening.

When I came out, I knew I was different but didn’t know how. I never wanted to get pregnant or get married. I had fantasies early on of just magically creating a child or hatching a child. When I discovered adoption and fostering, I knew I found my place. I always wanted to work, to live independently, by my own rules. I never played at getting married, never really liked boys that much (and no, I wasn’t sexually abused as a child). Yet all I would ever hear was how “You never know, they all say that, you might change your mind!” (Curious how they never say that to little girls who dream of a princess wedding to a handsome prince and lots of little babies.) I have also heard, more than once, about so-and-so who was convinced she was a lesbian…until she met this amazing guy! When people who call themselves lesbians or bisexuals do this in large numbers, it leaves the rest of us in the dust, coerced, not believed. Where does it leave us? It leaves us in one of two places

The more time we spend focusing on the ways lesbians are Just Like Everyone Else, especially in family life and motherhood (a STRAIGHT priority, c’mon!), that is precious time and energy not spent on supporting lesbians who don’t fit the mold-childless lesbians, unmarried or domestically partnered lesbians, lesbians adopting or fostering, single lesbians, lesbians who want and NEED a safe, validating, and SEPARATE space to be lesbian their way…the way most lesbians were throughout most of history, both out of necessity and out of desire. How many people know that when adoption laws were first drawn up, not only were single parents allowed to adopt, they were among the first to adopt and many of these “single” parents were gay and lesbian parents going stealth. Gays and lesbians were instrumental in devising family structures outside of marriage and children and fighting for the rights of unmarried and non-straight people. How many people are aware of the fate of gay and lesbians teens in foster care or in religious cults (beyond the sensational Duggar headlines in tabloids of course?)

Note: Yes, lesbians and gays can get married now, and I feel they should enjoy the benefits available to any other couple. However, I don’t agree with legal rights being exclusive to married couples, straight or not. I hate the wedding industry and the wedding culture, which, like it or not, was built by and for heteropatriarchy, and no amount of “subversiveness” will change that to any significant degree. Get married if you like the symbolism, get married if you want, or need, the rights and privileges attached…but let’s not stop there. You shouldn’t have to get hitched to be set. It’s one step of many to get to our real goal. 

But not many people know this, and even fewer people care. There is, however, a lot of buzz about all the different ways to get pregnant and the details involved in each method. There is plenty of buzz about fancy lesbian weddings with the white wedding dresses, the huge cake, and who takes which partner’s last name. We talk about our houses, our school involvement, our thoroughly assimilated lives. We talk about issues mostly related to heterosexual married mothers because of lesbian assimilation and lavender infiltration, even though there is a whole world devoted to these very issues, and precious little space for those that don’t conform. No, straight people and lavenders must have attention on them at all times. Any little space or time not available to glorify them is a horrible assault on their rights.

What is left out are those who cannot or don’t want to assimilate. Anyone that wants to discuss the alternatives, anyone who criticizes the dominant cultural forces that affect lesbians and, by extension, violets and celibate women, is accused of being exclusionary, of interfering with their right to choose, of judging, etc. How, exactly, little old me and my curmudgeon alter ego have the power to stop two multi-billion dollar industries (wedding and artificial baby industries) and overwhelming cultural forces is not explained.

But mark my words, something WILL be explained, over and over, forcefully as needed, by yours truly, until the day I die…artificial reproduction favors men and undermines women and lesbians. Certain forms of artificial reproduction, in particular artificial insemination, drastically favors male babies. We damage our health and spend larges sums of money bearing and raising these male children. We spend time making sure they don’t grow up to be toxic masculinity personified (which is men’s issue, something men should solve, not women), instead of protecting women from said toxic masculinity. Even if artificial reproduction equally distributed the sex of babies, or even favored female babies…guess what? We don’t need more babies. There are plenty of FEMALE babies, young children, older children, teenagers, young adults in foster care, in institutions, on the streets and in shelters, in abusive households, worldwide, who NEED us. Yet while REAL, ALREADY LIVING women and girls suffer, get abused, die, and are ignored, we pour our resources into creating designer babies, families, lives…and we pretend that this benefits women or advances the lesbian cause. It’s pop culture feminism at its finest. We buy the right media, wear the right clothes, make the right statements…and utterly fail to change the real, material conditions in which women as a class live. More perverse, those that DO try to critique and change material reality are silence by the choosy choice brigade. I’m not buying it. I’ve spent too much of my young life being bullied into silence and acquiescence. I refuse to let my space, my life, be co-opted and dominated for that purpose anymore.

Remember back in the day of King Henry and his many wives? How he killed them for failing to bear sons? Lesbians are being damaged and the soul of lesbian culture is being slaughtered to bear and raise male babies by heteropatriarchal standards. Yes, it’s history repeating itself. Wake up.

When you fail to honor lesbian and woman-centered culture, when you abandon us, leave your shipwreck on our island…you destroy lesbian culture and thus lesbian lives. When you leave us for straight culture, you drag us with you without our consent or leave us to get figuratively beat up by the dominant culture. And I just won’t go, and I won’t take the blows.

Lesbo Island doesn’t care much for passing visitors, but immigrants and displaced members of the lesbo diaspora are always welcome. Think hard about which category you fall into. Enjoy your stay.

Still Skeptical: My Response To Joannadeadwinter

This post is my response to joannadeadwinter‘s latest post Ooh, Look, A Bisexual! as part of our ongoing and respectful conversation about our views on the topic of bisexuality.  I wanted to say “thanks again” to joannadeadwinter for initiating this discussion and for her thoughtful, intelligent, insightful, and respectful interactions!  Everyone, please feel free to join the conversation, either here or on her blog…

Love

Image: #PicsArt #FreeToEdit

I admit my thinking about sexual orientation has always been rather black and white.

My admittedly strong opinions are based upon my own absolute certainty of my sexual orientation from the time I was a child, as well as my observations over the years of other women I have known, and have known of.

And: in my observations, all of the women who I have known, or known of, who have said they were bisexual turned out to be straight women who ended up with men, including the famous women who have come out as bisexual.

In one comment on a previous post regarding this topic, Chonky mentioned that some lesbians initially said they were bisexual to sort of  “ease into” coming out as a lesbian, noting Martina Navratilova as an example, a fact which I didn’t remember (or perhaps I simply never knew).  This comment added a new dimension to the topic which I had not previously observed/considered (thanks, Chonky!).

My point is: through this ongoing back-and-forth discussion, I am considering aspects which I had not before, and that is always a good thing.

So, on to my response:

Joannadeadwinter makes the following points in her response to me:

“I theorize that very few women (or men) are 50-50% attracted, that most lean one way or the other. That has certainly been the case with me, and apparently, most “Straightbians.”;) This would explain why there is not a population-wide trend towards bisexuals ending up with men vs. women in equal numbers…

…The majority of bisexuals end up with men because the majority of bisexuals lean straight. Just as the majority of humans on the planet are orientated straight, I believe most bisexuals are oriented straight also. This would confer an evolutionary advantage in the event that a large number of humans were dead or otherwise unable to reproduce.”

These are excellent points which help to explain my perpetual conundrum of “Why does it seem that most, even, it seems, perhaps all, women who say they are bisexual end up with men eventually?

Joannadeadwinter goes on to explain:

“My idea is that, to the extent that bisexuals enjoy the non-preferred sex, they are attracted to partners that remind them of their preferred sex.”

and:

“It makes sense that a straight-leaning bisexual targets masculine women and seeks to maximize her partner’s presentation and style of interaction to mimic her preferred love interest-straight men.”

Again, after consideration, I agree that these are all great points which make both intuitive and logical sense to me.  I believe that everyone has, to varying degrees, a certain “type” that we find attractive; so, of course, it also makes sense that we will gravitate toward those who fall into whatever “type” we find attractive.

For instance, I find Butch women attractive and Dirt finds Femme women attractive; so, naturally, we both ended up marrying a partner who fell into our preferred category.  So, even within the broader category of “lesbian”, most lesbians will likely have preferred “types”, and the same general principle for everyone else too. For example, my straight friends definitely have “types” of males they are attracted to.

Joannadeadwinter goes on to explain further:

“Sexuality, in my view, is 50% internal and 50% external. What you are drawn to, what you imagine, and how those attractions and imaginings make you feel comprise the internal aspect of sexuality. A discussion of bisexuality will not make sense without integrating the internal aspect of sex into what makes a person bisexual. So how do you explain self-identified bisexuals who only act on their desires with women? Wouldn’t they just be lesbians?

A bisexual person who is primarily or exclusively interested in partnering with women, and has been for a long period of time (not just the rebellious college girl phase) may still find men physically, intellectually, and emotionally fascinating to the extent that it goes beyond friendship and into love.”

Hmmmm…

Please note that I am not trying to argue with what joannadeadwinter is saying, because I certainly can’t speak for everyone else’s fantasies and desires (and don’t even want to try to).

But: I must say, as a lesbian, I will admit that I am still having much difficulty conceptualizing how it’s possible for a woman to be primarily/exclusively attracted to women, but yet still have the capability of finding men physically, emotionally, and/or intellectually fascinating, especially to the extent that it could extend beyond friendship into love.

Miep commented on my first post that it is difficult to conceptualize of a sexuality that is different from our own, and while I definitely agree that this statement is true and that it is a part of my puzzlement, I have realized that it is not the entire issue for me.

Something has been nagging at my subconscious, and until now, I just could not pinpoint exactly what it was.

But I think I have figured out, at least in part, the cause of my consternation, and I will attempt to explain my thoughts here:

So, as in the example given above, let’s say a bisexual woman who leans straight becomes involved with a Butch woman because that Butch woman superficially (**See Note) resembles her preferred love interest, a straight male.

**NoteI use the word “superficially” here, because, even though Dirt and other Butch lesbians are frequently “sir’ed” and “pass as male” (even though they are NOT trying to), Butches are most certainly not men in any way, shape, or form. Butches are 100% female; they just “carry female differently”, as Dirt often says.  In fact, Dirt and I don’t like and don’t use the word “masculine” to describe Butch women (although it is commonplace to see that terminology), because Butches are not male and therefore Butches are not “masculine”.

Back to focusing on our hypothetical example, I think the key words that have been nagging at me are “preferred love interest”.

Let’s state our example again, and this time, let’s really, really, really think about the implications of these statements:

Our hypothetical bisexual female’s preferred love interest is male.  This woman in our example has the capability of falling in love with a male, even if she never acts on it

Here’s my deeply felt problem with this scenario: no matter who we are, I highly doubt most people would be comfortable with falling in love with someone who has a preference for, and the capability of falling in love with, someone we are not, and can never be.

I think this gut-level resistance and skepticism explains so-called “biphobia” in the lesbian community, which isn’t really a phobia, but rather a fear of, and an aversion to, having our hearts broken, and to the feelings of insecurity and confusion that would accompany a relationship on those terms.

For a Butch or a dyke who is pursued by our hypothetical bisexual female, who gravitated toward her because of superficial resemblance to the preferred male love interest, the resulting situation can be much more than merely upsetting: it could potentially be devastating.

In the worst case scenario, the Butch or dyke might even be tempted to transition in a tragic, misguided, and ultimately ill-fated attempt to try to become her lover’s preferred love interest, a male.

So, even if I eventually were to come to believe that bisexuality is a true orientation (I am still skeptical and leaning toward bisexuality as behavior rather than a true orientation), I still would feel very hesitant, and very protective toward lesbians who might become romantically involved in such a situation.

Contrary to what some people apparently think, I am not saying that most women who identify as bisexual, or even most Straightbians, are bad people, nor am I saying that they are intentionally trying to hurt lesbians. In fact, I think most are likely well-intentioned and don’t even realize how/why lesbians can be hurt in these scenarios.  

I guess my bottom-line thought is this:  No matter what a woman calls herself, if a woman’s preferred love interest is a male, I honestly believe that she should just stick with dating males.

Why?  It’s not because I am trying to be mean, harsh, and/or exclusionary, but rather because I truly feel that if a woman has a preference to males, I honestly don’t believe that being with any female would ever truly and totally satisfy her, which will inevitably lead to dissatisfaction, even if the relationship lasts.

In our hypothetical example, it is not fair to the lesbian partner to be a sort-of stand-in surrogate to her lover’s preferred male love interest, and it is also not fair to our hypothetical bisexual female to not obtain her actual preferred male love interest.

I truly believe that lesbians deserve to be with a partner who wants us, prefers us, desires us, and loves us wholeheartedly, completely, and unreservedly…as only another lesbian can. 

Joannadeadwinter’s Response to Me on “Where the Bisexuals At?”: Ooh, Look, A Bisexual!

My Notes: The post below is joannadeadwinter‘s response to my initial post, here. Thanks again to her for suggesting this conversation, and let’s please keep communicating, so please feel free to comment below or at this original post on her blog, here.  

Also, please note this update which joannadeadwinter mentions in the comments, below:  “Just note that PSF didn’t say that most bisexual women lean straight (my idea). PSF said, rather, that bisexual women end up with men more often because male partners are more available.”

So, without further ado, here is joannadeadwinter’s response to me:

If you haven’t read the honest and probing post by Saye Bennett on bisexuality, you can either read it on my blog or hers. It will make this post make a lot more sense.;)

The biggest puzzle to bisexuality in the lesbian community is the 50-50% theorem, the idea that bisexuals are naturally oriented towards sexual interest in both sexes at an equal rate. In real life, however, as all too many lesbians know, the real breakdown later in life is…100% straight. Ironically enough, very often, the most straightedge, conservative straight that there is! What the hell happened?

First, I theorize that very few women (or men) are 50-50% attracted, that most lean one way or the other. That has certainly been the case with me, and apparently, most “Straightbians.”;) This would explain why there is not a population-wide trend towards bisexuals ending up with men vs. women in equal numbers.

Thanks to Purplesagefem’s comment on Saye’s guest post, I have another theory. The majority of bisexuals end up with men because the majority of bisexuals lean straight. Just as the majority of humans on the planet are orientated straight, I believe most bisexuals are oriented straight also. This would confer an evolutionary advantage in the event that a large number of humans were dead or otherwise unable to reproduce. Even if the majority of the population were not straight, there are still enough around that are capable of draw towards heterosexual activities. Likewise, as homosexuals are the minority, so are homo-leaning bisexuals.

It appears that bisexuality does indeed have a presence in nature and isn’t just a human construct. Some fun facts can be found here. This includes evenly split bisexuality, homo-leaning, and hetero-leaning bisexuality. One species in this series, the lizard, even has something of a modified butch/femme dynamic. For the animals in this series, their bisexual behaviors often serve an evolutionary purpose, as in the case of the deep sea squid. If you need to reproduce, rarely encounter other members of your species, and never know at a given time if your partner is male or female…it makes sense that you would have sex with whomever you came across, just in case. It is also clear from the article that their bisexuality is influenced by their environment (deep sea living conditions, captivity, etc.) even when they would not ordinarily be inclined towards bisexual behavior.

Even if we accept the idea that bisexuals lean one way or the other, what sorts of attributes arouse interest in a bisexual towards a member of their non-preferred sex? As Saye noted, sex with men is very different from sex with women, almost to the point of being paradoxical. What could possibly compel a woman to break with a pattern that is working and swing the other way? My idea is that, to the extent that bisexuals enjoy the non-preferred sex, they are attracted to partners that remind them of their preferred sex.

As Dirt and Saye have noted, a key indicator that a lesbian’s partner is not, herself, a lesbian is that she targets butch or otherwise masculine women, encourages them to transition, or to otherwise pretend to be male (i.e. stand on a curb while expressing affection publicly so the butch partner looks more imposing), viewing the butch personality as a facsimile of the dominant heterosexual male prototype. It makes sense that a straight-leaning bisexual targets masculine women and seeks to maximize her partner’s presentation and style of interaction to mimic her preferred love interest-straight men.

Likewise, homo-leaning bisexual women will gravitate towards male partners that remind her of her preferred female love interest. As a homo-leaning bisexual, all of my male love interests (in fantasy) have been feminine or androgynous men, both physically and in their personalities and interaction style. No manly men need apply in this group. They have just enough of a “masculine” energy force to be exotic and thus an adventure for the homo-leaning bisexual, but overwhelmingly flatter their own, and their partner’s, feminine proclivities.

So we have discussed how bisexual desire is distributed. Now let’s work backwards…what IS bisexual desire anyway? What is sexuality made up of?

Sexuality, in my view, is 50% internal and 50% external. What you are drawn to, what you imagine, and how those attractions and imaginings make you feel comprise the internal aspect of sexuality. A discussion of bisexuality will not make sense without integrating the internal aspect of sex into what makes a person bisexual. So how do you explain self-identified bisexuals who only act on their desires with women? Wouldn’t they just be lesbians?

A bisexual person who is primarily or exclusively interested in partnering with women, and has been for a long period of time (not just the rebellious college girl phase) may still find men physically, intellectually, and emotionally fascinating to the extent that it goes beyond friendship and into love. They may, and very likely will, fantasize about them sexually. So what makes them different from a non-bisexual person? They have no intention of acting out these fantasies. Anything can be pleasurable in fantasy land, but in real life, a homo-leaning bisexual will want nothing to do with seeing, touching, or intercoursing with penis. They are unlikely to pass a strange man on the street and be aroused. Generally, their sexual interest in men is nurtured to some degree. On the other hand, if the right woman walks by, she might experience an instant draw, more indicative of an innate sexual response than something nurtured by familiarity and affection over time.

How are these women when they migrate to the bedroom? Do males ever make an appearance. They might not…or they might, but not in the way you would think. Because the homo-leaning bisexual may have a handful of fantastical male characters that she has sex with in her mind. If the other partner enjoys role play, either she or her partner will play the masculine role. This merges the fantastical appeal of the male character being played, and the fantastical-plus-real-life sexual, aesthetic, and romantic appeal of a female sex partner.

Perhaps the homo-leaning bisexual did more than just fantasize. Perhaps earlier in life they had sex with men and enjoyed it. They were attracted to, and loved, their partners. Their partners might even have been good in bed. Perhaps the woman experienced orgasm. All animals experience orgasm when the right physical stimulation occurs. It is not necessarily an indication of will or pleasure. Both males and females can experience erection or orgasm while being abused or raped, but that is not an indication that the victim “wanted” it. As I mentioned in an earlier post, women breastfeeding infants can experience arousal and orgasm while breastfeeding, because the breasts are an erogenous zone and…the job of an erogenous zone is to respond sexually in ways that we cannot consciously control. That doesn’t mean a nursing mother is really a pedophile. Likewise, a woman experiencing orgasm as a result of PIV doesn’t necessarily enjoy men as much as, or more than women. Her partner either intentionally or accidentally provided stimulation sufficient to cause a response, and if she consented and liked her partner, she probably enjoyed in to some degree. Once she finds women, however, she may experience an attraction and pleasure that she has never felt with men before. In that sense, she is capable of enjoying men but doesn’t have anywhere near the interest in men as she does in women. The problem here is that these women rarely identify as bisexual, instead referring to themselves as lesbian, which is an accurate descriptor if you love women and only women for the rest of your life. It just reinforces the idea that women who identify as bisexual and end up with men are generally straight and do not admit as such. If you want relatively recent scientific evidence that lends support to my theory, I have the following article from Current Directions in Psychological Science, Volume 12, Number 2, in April 2003.

Disclaimer: There is significant conflating of orientation and self-identification, resulting in some cringe-worthy phrases, such as “change in sexual orientation over time.” It’s hardly complete but it’s a good start.

More or less, it supports the idea that women find intimacy erotic moreso than men, which could explain why women are able to eroticize encounters with people they are not really sexually interested in. Likewise, their sexuality is more responsive to cultural forces than that of men, which further explains why women are drawn to bisexual behavior and experience secondary sexual interest outside of their orientation. This article is more “similar food for thought” than it is direct evidence of my idea, but it inspired me and I thought you would enjoy it.

The same phenomenon happens in reverse. Hetero-leaning bisexuals may appreciate women aesthetically, emotionally, intellectually, and will achieve orgasm with a lesbian partner that is competent in bed. That does not automatically mean she is a lesbian. Does she initiate contact with a potential same-sex partner or feel immediately, deeply drawn, i.e. in a sexual sense, to strange women (which, as we discussed earlier, indicates an innate sexual reaction?) Rarely will a hetero-leaning bisexual or a straightbian do this, but won’t shy away from making similar comments about men, because that is her locus of interest. I don’t know what hetero-leaning bisexuals do in the bedroom, but I have two ideas. The first idea is a reverse of my earlier scenario with homo-leaning bisexuals: that to the extent that hetero-leaning bisexuals enjoy women, they enjoy women primarily in fantasy and may ask her male partner to role play this fantasy partner. The other, and in my view, more likely theory is that hetero-leaning bisexuals do not do this kind of role play. Unlike LGB individuals, straight people tend to be more gender-conforming (although this has changed with social acceptance of feminism ideals and gay rights and gay people). As such, unless they are part of the BDSM scene or identify as “kinky,” hetero-leaning bisexuals tend not to engage in his same-sex role play with their male partners. It remains a topic open to research.

In the previous installment of my behavioral theory of bisexuality, I discussed straight-leaning bisexuals. In my next installment, I will discuss homo-leaning bisexuals who may not actually be bisexual at all, but lesbians. I will discuss research that implicates that malleability of sexual orientation of women as well as the eroticizing of trauma and power dynamics. I theorize that for some lesbian women, this would lead to bisexual desire and activity among lesbians that goes away when a) the lesbian is able to heal with time and either therapeutic or natural supports in an environment that affirms lesbian identity and b) the eroticized triggers for trauma and power dynamics are removed from her environment and psyche.

Enjoy!