Tag Archive | Straightbian

UnStraightening Lesbian: Removing the Heterosexual Lens: Valerie Solanas

Note: This is a joint post with my sweetie Dirt, originally posted here.

The next Het Woman we are emphatically unSTRAIGHTening from Lesbian is the very damaged/demented Valerie Solanas, known as much for shooting pop icon Andy Warhol as for her erratic radical scribblings and all around hatred of men that culminated in her SCUM Manifesto.

 Some general information about her early life as is known/documented:

Valerie was described from an early age as very bright, but very troubled. Valerie was rebellious early on, a frequent shoplifter, school skipper and whom was filled with a level of anger she had difficulty controlling, and of which got her into trouble often at school.

Highly angry and highly sexual Valerie was sent to a Catholic boarding school (widely speculated to be a home for unwed mothers?) around age 14 in 1950 where she claims to have had her first sexual experiences with other girls. She was also pregnant and in 1951 gave birth to a baby girl (Linda, raised by Valerie’s mother as Valerie’s sister). The child’s father according to Valerie was none other than Valerie’s biological father, whom Valerie claimed (along with her step father) to have molested her since about age 6. Claims corroborated by Valerie’s sister later on.

A short time later Valerie dropped out of boarding school, dated a married man whom she became pregnant by, giving birth to a son David in 1953. In exchange for college tuition, Valerie allowed David’s paternal grandparents to raise the child, whom Valerie stayed in contact with till the child was age 4.

 

Valerie attended Uni of Maryland where she did okay academically, but still struggled socially/financially. Valerie regularly depended on a small circle of friends for hand outs but felt slighted/angered if friends could not afford these handouts, once even urinating in a friends orange juice bottle when the friend couldn’t give her any money. Valerie remained angry/violent at Uni and was force by Uni officials to get counseling. Her brightness helped to keep her from being expelled, but her anger got her repeatedly into trouble. While at college Valerie self-IDed as a bisexual. At this time Valerie both waitressed and prostituted herself when she needed money, something Valerie would return to whenever in dire straits. Valerie graduated in 1958 with a degree in Psychology.

After college Valerie drifted/hitchhiked from one end of the country and back to the east coast, living with various boyfriends at that time. In the early 60’s Valerie discovered Greenwich Village in NY and it was there she decided she wanted to become a playwright. The first (only) play (“Up Your Ass”) Valerie completed, was written during the mid 60’s along with an article for the Men’s magazine Cavalier entitled: A Young Girl’s Primer on How to Attain the Leisure Class, about how to prostitute yourself through college.

Valerie’s outrageousness earned her a spot on pre-conservative shock jock’s Alan Burke’s show in 1967.

The scene from the 1996 film I shot Andy Warhol accurately accounts what happened on Burke’s show:

A few years later and while still struggling to get her play produced, Valerie met pop artist Andy Warhol and begged him to read/produce her play. Warhol told Valerie he would read her play and get back to her. After reading the play, despite Warhol’s reputation for producing the avant garde, Valerie’s play was so pornographic Warhol wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole for fear the play was a police set up. A short time later Valerie contacted Warhol about the play, Warhol told her he wasn’t interested in producing it and when Valerie asked for the copy back which she had left Warhol, he claimed to have lost/misplaced it. Valerie began hounding Warhol for her play, so Warhol offered to pay her for being in a few of his short films.

Despite trying to give Valerie paid work in exchange for losing her script, Valerie’s obsession with Warhol grew, grew and was fueled by her deep hatred of men, blaming men/Warhol for her mucked up life. Valerie didn’t have a safe/comfortable home, she had little money, money made usually from prostitution, and she couldn’t become famous because no one (no man) would produce her play. It was at this time Valerie figured out if she wanted to get her play produced, she needed to be famous first:

In June of 1968 Valerie shot Andy Warhol, nearly killing him, wounding another man and only stopped short of shooting another man in the head point blank because her gun jammed.

Highly sexual, highly paranoid, highly disordered and now highly violent! Valerie turned herself in a short time after attempting to murder multiple men. At her arraignment Valerie said she didn’t regret what she did and she didn’t want a lawyer, preferring instead to represent herself. The judge ordered her to be taken to Bellevue Hospital for psychiatric evaluation/observation. When back in court, Valerie was indicted on charges of attempted murder, assault, and illegal possession of a gun, she was declared incompetent and sent back to Bellevue.

An aside, believe it or not some RadFems declared Valerie to be “butch” in this picture! (I kid you not!).

Around Valerie’s time in Bellevue, Radical Feminist and member of NOW lawyer Florynce “Flo” Kennedy along with Radical Feminist and member of NOW Ti-Grace Atkinson contacted Valerie about mounting a defense for her. Ti-Grace Atkinson believed (besides Lesbian being a smart choice for Het Women), that Valerie’s shooting Warhol was the culmination of the Feminism Movement! Betty Friedan. however, didn’t agree: Valerie and Atkinson exchanged a handful of letters about Valerie’s situation and Atkinson’s desire to USE Valerie for NOW’s personal platform:

As was usual for Valerie, she readily and viciously bit the hand that fed her; her anger at Ti-Grace Atkinson remained with Valerie years later:

Valerie served about three years confinement and was released, the short sentence believed because Warhol chose not to attend Valerie’s parole hearing.

After Valerie’s release she spent the remainder of her life drifting around the country, in and out of mental facilities and living in run down quarters. She was found dead at age 52 in a hotel in San Francisco by the superintendent.

Valerie Solanas was a HIGHLY disturbed/mentally ill HETEROSEXUAL female, likely sexually abused from an early age, likely informing her hyper sexuality that led to occasional sex with other disturbed Het females (Direct quote from Valerie: “The girls are okay. They’re willing to help any way they can. Some of them are interested in nothing but sex though. Sex with me, I mean. I can’t be bothered …. I’m no lesbian.”), as well as leading to prostitution. Valerie’s SCUM Manifesto was filled with a combination of sexual obsession and hatred of men (daddy).

And it was precisely THAT combo (sex/hatred of men) that led (and still leads) Radical Feminists to hold Valerie’s rotted corpse/corpus up in effigy. Radical Feminists conclude Valerie was a Lesbian, for two reasons 1) Valerie had sexual experiences with other females and 2) Valerie hated men, neither reason having anything to do with being Lesbian. 

Like ALL female hero’s of Radical Feminism, Valerie Solanas was heterosexual and a victim. Like most Het females, Valerie could never accomplish anything without male assistance, even shooting Warhol was a subservient gesture to find fame through someone else (a man).

Valerie Solanas was no more a Lesbian than she was/is a Hero. And while we can find some sympathy for her tragic life, we cannot maintain the Radical Feminist LIE that Valerie was a Dyke.

Dirt and 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

Why Most Published “Lesbian Research” Is Completely Unrecognizable to Real Lesbians

Dirt and I and I have written before about how most alleged “Lesbian experts” are neither Lesbian nor expert, and we have previously given many specific examples of how what has been published about Lesbians is total and utter nonsense. JoAnn Loulan is just one example of these Straightbian windbag dingbats who we exposed as having spread copious lies about Lesbians. In fact, we did an entire Unstraightening Lesbian series on a dozen of these boneheads.

I wish we could say that we have written about all of the faux “Lesbian experts” who are neither Lesbian nor expert, but sadly, we have barely even scratched the surface.

We focused the first Unstraightening Lesbian series on the more obviously well-known Straightbians such as Susie “I Lied About Being A Lesbian In Order to Sell Kinky Books” Bright and Pat/rick “Pro-Pedophile Pervert” Califia, but the huge underlying problem with Unstraightening Lesbian lies in the continual odious garbage being spewed throughout academia (and beyond) by Straightbian blowhard professors.

Straightbian

Image: Pixabay: Creative Commons CC0

In fact, I will even venture an educated guess that EVERYTHING that has EVER been written by an academic about Lesbians is dead wrong. While I clearly haven’t read every single journal article or book written by academics about Lesbians, I have read AN AWFUL LOT and I have never…I repeat, NEVER…seen anything whatsoever that remotely resembles Lesbian. (If you know of anything about Lesbians written by an academic that is actually and accurately LESBIAN, by all means, please let me know).

The main problem with these faux “Lesbian expert” academics writing about Lesbian lives is that most of the academics who have done so are Straightbians. Straightbians, obviously, are not Lesbian, so they are appropriating what they think Lesbian is, which is grossly inaccurate (as well as arrogant, presumptuous, and just plain wrong).

These academic Heterosexual/Straightbians’ horribly inaccurate perceptions of what Lesbian even means results in faulty hypotheses for research, faulty subject selection, faulty interpretations, and faulty conclusions. Since nothing accurate (that I know of) has EVER been published about Lesbians by these Heterosexual/Straightbian academics, even their citations of others’ research is hideously inaccurate.

So, basically, what has happened is one inaccurate study built upon another, built upon another, built upon another, and so forth and so on, until we now have a heaping pile of stinking excrement disguised as “scholarly research”.

Dirt and I are planning another Unstraightening Lesbian series to tackle some more liars and charlatans, so I won’t give specific examples here…I will save them for our future Unstraightening Lesbian posts.

But, in general, here is a synopsis of what is wrong with all of the “academic research” articles/books published about Lesbians:

  • Research is only as good as the researcher.  If the researcher is Heterosexual/Straightbian, she is basing her research questions/premises/hypotheses/etc. on her own incorrect (hetsplained) presumptions about what Lesbian is…therefore, her research is going to be as flawed as her own hetsplanations.
  • There is nothing accurate (that I know of) in the current academic literature about Lesbians, so any literature review is going to be based on a stack of shameful lies. Furthermore, the Heterosexual/Straightbian academic literally won’t be able to see the flaws in the previous research/literature, because she doesn’t have the basic reasoning skills to see past her own straight-privileged hetsplaining.
  • When the researcher is a Heterosexual/Straightbian, she cannot even accurately define “Lesbian”, much less pick one out of a crowd, so she won’t know that her subjects are also Straightbians.
  • If the Heterosexual/Straightbian researcher herself doesn’t even know what a Lesbian is, much less how Lesbians actually think/act, she will accept whatever bizarre bullshit her Straightbian subjects shovel.
  • The prevailing definition of Lesbian for research (and for everything else, for that matter) is based on ultra-simplistic self-report, which is incredibly flawed. All it takes is for someone to simply claim she is a Lesbian and everybody usually takes her word for it. BUT: that premise is 100 percent wrong. Any woman cannot magically “become a Lesbian”, and all the lies in the world won’t turn her into one. So if a ton of the research subjects are LYING about being a Lesbian, guess what? The data gathered is NOT ABOUT LESBIANS. Duh.
  • Research gathers A LOT of data. It is up to the researcher to determine what data to assemble, how to analyze the data, how to decide what data to even analyze, and how to interpret the data. If the researcher herself is basing the very definition of “Lesbian” on her own skewed perception, while using a faulty hypothesis with a false set of subjects, it is inevitable that the results and implications will be wrong.

The above list is just a basic, general overview of why the information in the academic books/articles about Lesbians which has been written by academic Straightbians is completely unrecognizable to biological Lesbians (which, after all, are the ONLY real Lesbians). Future posts will elaborate on specific Straightbians and the flaws in their thinking, theories, research, and conclusions.

Obviously, Dirt and I cannot stop all Heterosexuals/Straightbians from hetsplaining Lesbian ~ but we can, and will, continue to expose these people for their multitudinous lies, misinformation, perversions, and all-around inaccuracies about Lesbians. We will do our best to OUT them to the Lesbian community. The more information Lesbians have in our arsenal, the better chance we have of fighting the onslaught of lesbophobia harming our lives.

“Not Femme Enough”…?

This is a post I have been slowly working on, a little at a time, because I am finding it quite difficult to process and articulate this topic; also, recently, I have been focused on my beloved sick cat, Ari, so it’s been hard to focus more than a few minutes on anything else.

Before I start trying to explain today’s topic, I wanted to mention that I’ve written before about being a Femme Lesbian, and this post will continue with that topic.

If you are interested in reading those previous posts, which are directly related to this post and which provide some important background to this post, here are the links:

Deciphering Butch/Femme

Femme: Defining Ourselves

Femme: Fact Versus Fiction

Do Femmes Wear Lipstick?

For additional related information, please also refer to Hekate’s blog, Genuine Femme, which addresses similar topics.

Today’s post is about the rampant misconceptions and outright lies about Femmes, and how these misconceptions and lies are prevalent, even within the Lesbian community.

There is a huge gap between what people THINK Femmes are versus what we ACTUALLY are.

Many people incorrectly THINK Femme Lesbians:

  • are hyperfeminine;
  • are obsessed with makeup, clothes, hair, shoes, etc.
  • are overtly seductive and hypersexual
  • are helpless, dependent, clingy, needy, etc.
  • are dumb, flighty, stupid, etc.
  • are Stepford Wives
  • are uninformed, unfeminist, old-fashioned, etc.
  • are “mimicking heterosexuality”
  • are an “identity” that can be chosen by anybody
  • are “performing gender”
  • are “really Straightbians
  • are subservient to Butches
stilettos

Shoes People THINK I Wear: Image: Pixabay: Pexels: CC0

These stereotypes have been perpetuated by a huge number of sources, including, but not limited to, so-called Lesbian experts” who are neither Lesbian nor expert, by purported Femmes who are actually Straightbians, by allegedly  Lesbian magazines/media/blogs/etc. which are decidedly NOT Lesbian, and by websites/forums which falsely proclaim to be for Butch/Femme Lesbians, but instead are just hideous mockeries, chock-full of Straightbians mingling with a few lonely, confused dykes.

Here is the truth about Femme Lesbians ~ we are:

  • REAL LESBIANS;
  • Born this way;
  • Equal partners in our relationships;
  • Independent, capable, strong, practical, etc.;
  • Typically outspoken;
  • Just being ourselves (Meaning: We are NOT mimicking heterosexuality, NOT performing gender, NOT playacting, etc.);
  • NOT obsessed with looks, makeup, hair, nails, clothes, shoes, etc.;
  • Dress appropriately for the task; function is important;
  • Can/do dress up if/when we choose to, but we don’t feel the need to impress the guy bagging our groceries;
  • NOT an “identity” which can just be adopted by anyone; because you either ARE a Femme Lesbian OR you are NOT…period.
Converse

Shoes I ACTUALLY Wear: Image: Pixabay: Wokandapix: CC0

So, you would assume that most actual Lesbians would be free of such misinformed assumptions, but sadly, this is rarely the case.

This widespread ignorance, even within the Lesbian community, results in real Femmes often feeling invisible. Sometimes, this invisibility presents itself in the form of being rejected and/or unrecognized by other Lesbians. At other times, paradoxically, this invisibility presents itself as being thought of as “not Femme enough” to some dykes who have issues of their own which leads them to partner with Straightbians.

Please see Dirt’s companion post, here, about some of the possible issues dykes might have which would lead them to partner with Straightbians. I won’t be covering that in this post.

Instead, I wanted to address the issue of my being perceived as “not Femme enough” by some dykes.

This phenomenon has happened to me, although I didn’t fully understand it until recently.

For instance, I was told repeatedly by 2 previous Butch partners that I was “too athletic”, and I was encouraged incessantly by both of them to dress more provocatively and to wear more makeup, etc.

I didn’t EVER stop working out, nor did I change my appearance/clothes (because I am a particularly stubborn person, LOL!), but I will admit that such comments did bother me and make me feel criticized and unwanted.

Interestingly, although not surprisingly, both of these Butches had only dated Straightbians before me, and both went back to dating Straightbians after we broke up.

In other words, both of them were comparing me to Straightbians, and found me lacking in the hyper-femininity department.

Both of them wanted another kind of woman (a Straightbian!) who would meet the male fantasy of a sexy, seductive woman, and that is so NOT me.

Another instance in which this scenario has affected me is when someone Dirt and I know online (from our blogs or Twitter or Facebook) wants to meet us in person. I always worry about what people’s reactions will be when I don’t meet their incorrect Straightbian/sexy/seductive/MALE-fantasy notions of what a Femme “should” be.

Often, it feels that people are expecting me to show up looking/dressed like I plan to be on the cover of Vogue, but when they meet me, I am always dressed as I normally do (which certainly does NOT include high heels, skimpy dresses, or plunging necklines).

It is impossible not to feel that such people are somehow disappointed with me for not being the femme fatale of their imagination.

When I was younger, I was both puzzled and hurt by such situations. Now that I am older (and hopefully at least a little bit wiser), I finally realize that I am fine as I am; heck, I always was. I am proud to be a dyke. If anyone has the nerve to feel like I am doing it wrong, she is the one with the problem, not me.

The Price of Truth

Since Dirt and I started speaking out about Straightbians and the multiple ways in which they harm Lesbian lives, we have both received numerous emails and private messages thanking us for speaking out. 

Sadly, though, the majority of our private supporters do not have the courage to say so in public. 

As just one example, here is what one person said to me privately, versus what she later said publicly: 

Private


Public:

Well, I know that it is difficult for some Lesbians to come out of the closet, but that issue has nothing whatsoever to do with Straightbians.  (You either are, or are not, a Lesbian, and if you are, you aren’t a Straightbian…zero overlap). 

I wish I could say such a gap between private versus public behavior was limited to this one person, but, alas, it is not. 

It seems that the price for speaking the truth is too costly for most people. 

For me, truth trumps popularity.  I won’t lie in order to be popular and tell people what they WANT to hear. 

The truth is: Any woman cannot just magically “become a Lesbian”, and all the wishful thinking and denial in the world won’t change that simple fact. 

PS: You may be wondering why I am bringing this up. Well, the answer is simple: It is because I am frustrated  and burned out with fighting with straight women on Twitter over what it means to be a Lesbian, while knowing that other (real) Lesbians agree, but nonetheless won’t publicly support the (very) few of us who are willing to speak out.  

“Sexuality is Fluid”: The Great Big Hoax

NOTE: This is a follow-up to Dirt’s post, With Lesbians Like Sue Perkins, Who Needs Enemies?!

Lately, it seems that you can’t swing a cat (Public Service Announcement: PLEASE DON’T SWING CATS, PEOPLE!) without hitting an article or interview where somebody or other is saying that “Sexuality is fluid.”

You’ll notice, however, that it is always FEMALE sexuality to which these articles/interviews are referring; it’s quite unlikely that Men’s Health magazine will ever come out with an article about the best techniques for sucking dick.

Hmmmm…why is that? There are likely many reasons, but I believe that the main one is that females/Lesbians are routinely hypersexualized, and the idea of watching so-called “Lesbian” sex often appeals to straight men. However, the very same men would quite likely be freaked out by the thought of having sex with a man. Therefore, the myth that female sexuality is “fluid” is appealing and persists, while male sexuality remains “static” in the public’s mind.

It is especially disappointing to me when a famous Lesbian makes such a erroneous and damaging claim. Dirt wrote about such a situation here, in which one of my favorite comedians, Sue Perkins, who starred in the hilariously quirky Lesbian-trying-to-come-out-of-the-closet sitcom Heading Out, said in an interview that “sexuality is fluid”.

In Sue P‘s case, I think a combination of internalized homophobia and a desire to fit in with the currently in-vogue “queer” crowd, along with parroting the nonsensical storylines of Straightbians, are major driving factors in such a spurious claim. However, I don’t know her, so I can only guess as to her motivation(s).

Well, let’s all just think about the whole “sexuality is fluid” claim for a moment, shall we?

First of all, the correct term is ORIENTATION, NOT SEXUALITY. Being a Lesbian is NOT all about sex, and to reduce our entire lives, our very being, to “having sex” is both incorrect and insulting. We are always Lesbian, regardless of whether we even ever have sex.

Secondly, if orientation were really “fluid”, there would be no reason to “come out of the closet”, would there, Sue P.? Everyone would just “flow” back and forth, willy-nilly, including the very parents that you had to “come out” to, Sue! Why would anyone have to “come out” if there were no true orientation to begin with, since everyone would be “fluid”? Why are there heterosexuals and homosexuals in the world?

Think, Sue, THINK!

The (incredibly obvious!) answer here lies in the difference between Behavior Versus Orientation.

As an example of behavior versus orientation:

Anybody could have sex with anybody (Behavior), but a female having sex (or even a long-term relationship) with another female does NOT magically make her a Lesbian.

You either are a Lesbian (Orientation), or you are not.

Later-in-life Lesbians (those who initially date/marry men, before coming out later) were never straight to begin with; so their orientation is NOT “fluid”; they just did not act upon their true orientation for a variety of possible reasons (family, society, religion, internalized homophobia, peer pressure, etc.).

Here’s the thing:

Behavior is changeable. Orientation is NOT changeable.

BehaviorVsOrientation

So, whenever you see the claim that “sexuality is fluid”, I beg you to remember this formula:

Behavior ≠ Orientation

Behavior ≠ Orientation

Behavior ≠ Orientation

Behavior ≠ Orientation

Behavior ≠ Orientation

Behavior ≠ Orientation

Behavior ≠ Orientation

Behavior ≠ Orientation

Behavior ≠ Orientation

Behavior ≠ Orientation!!!!!!!!!!!

As for Sue Perkins, I still believe that she is hilarious and talented and I truly wish her all the best, but she really needs to stop towing the “queer” party line and start telling the truth…not just for the sake of her Lesbian fans, but, ultimately, for her own sake.

Do Dirt and I Hate Straight Women?

Since Dirt and I have been speaking out about how Lesbians are different than straight women and how straight females (even many alleged “allies“) and Straightbians harm Lesbians, we have received a lot of feedback which typically boils down to: “Be nice! We need to support our straight sisters! You HATE straight women! Etc.

In fact, I recently accidentally noticed someone on Twitter subtweeting “She (Dirt) hates straight women”. I already addressed it directly with that person, but the incident made me realize that some people seem to actually think that, so I felt I needed to do a specific post on it.

So, here’s the official answer:

NO, DIRT AND I DO NOT HATE STRAIGHT WOMEN.

(Sighing loudly).

NoHate

Image: Pixabay CC0 Public Domain

Pointing out that there are actual differences between straight females and Lesbians beyond who we f**k does NOT equal “hate”.

Pointing out that Lesbians have been harmed in numerous ways by Straightbians and even many straight allies does NOT equal “hate”.

Look, if Dirt and I actually hated straight females, we’d just SAY it. It’s not like we are known for mincing words, is it? 

Falsely claiming that what we are saying equals “hate” is a typical but transparent way to try to dismiss what we are actually saying and to attempt to alienate people from us.

Both Dirt and I have many straight female friends, relatives, and coworkers who we get along with just fine, thank you very much.

The key factor with these relationships is the fact that NONE of these women who we remain close to are pretending to be Lesbian, speaking for Lesbians, lying about Lesbians, appropriating Lesbian, profiting from Lesbians, or in any other way harming Lesbians.

Because if they were doing any of that, we would NOT remain close to them.

Our true friends stay in their lane, and we stay in our lane. They don’t tell us what it’s like to be a Lesbian, and we don’t tell them what it’s like to be straight.

It’s really simple, Sherlock:

Standing up for ourselves and for Lesbian lives/rights is NOT “hate” nor is it inappropriate in any way. What is actually wrong is when straight women attempt to hetsplain Lesbian to actual Lesbians while refusing to listen to us.

Bottom line: Dirt and I do NOT hate straight females, but we do, in fact, hate what is often done to Lesbians by straight females. There’s a HUGE difference between the two, and it would behoove our detractors to learn what that difference is.