News:

All you can say in this site's defence is that it, rather than reality, occupies the warped minds of some of the planet's most twisted people; gods know what they would get up to if it wasn't here.  In these arguably insane times, any lessening or attenuation of madness is maybe something to be thankful for.

Main Menu

I'm a lesbian marrying a man

Started by ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞, October 30, 2014, 02:44:39 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞

Quote from: Junkenstein on October 30, 2014, 09:40:58 PM
There's something about the uniform of "lesbian" that the woman seems far too desperate to attach herself to and I have no idea what the deal is with that.

I'm glad we have the uniform metaphor to help make sense out situations like these, but I'm still mystified as well.
P E R   A S P E R A   A D   A S T R A

ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞

Quote from: Cain on October 30, 2014, 09:11:32 PM
But it's pretty amazing, the mental hurdles one has to jump through to continue to define as a lesbian while in love with a man.  No wonder she quotes a theologian at the end - they excel at precisely this kind of nonsense, ignoring self-contained definitions, creating new ones, appeals to emotion and identity over usage and custom.

I kind of skipped over that bit when I read it, but that's a great point.
P E R   A S P E R A   A D   A S T R A

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 30, 2014, 03:17:21 PM
Quotesource="the comments"
danicastone Aug 4, 2014
The problem here is in people who are not in the bisexual community, and don't identify as bisexual, defining bisexuality in a way that lets them keep their old identity. Instead of learning what people who do use the label, who understand it deeply from within their history and culture and community and shared experience, mean by "bisexual".

In the bi world, "bisexual" doesn't just mean being equally attracted to all genders. Or being "as a rule, attracted to men" as well as women. It very frequently - maybe even most often - means "I simply fall in love with people and don't hold their gender against them."

There are also scores of Kinsey 4.5s in the bisexual community - people who are, as a rule, with people of one particular gender, but who are sometimes attracted to others, who dated others in the distant past, who have dated or married people whose gender identity changed, or who just are open to the possibility that they might be drawn to someone different.

The best analogy might be the "straight" woman who falls in love with another woman but doesn't want to give up the privilege and emotional security that comes with continuing to call herself straight.

It's hard to give up the idea of your identity as fixed and secure, and to give up the familiarity and security and visibility and sense of normalcy of being straight... Or even of being gay, compared to being bi. It's easier to deny those people's reality and define them as whatever will keep them different than you. Even if that means perpetuating their invisibility and "otherness" by writing articles like this one.

So much this goddamn it.

That was really well put.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


hooplala

Maybe she's one of those people who don't think bi people exist. 
"Soon all of us will have special names" — Professor Brian O'Blivion

"Now's not the time to get silly, so wear your big boots and jump on the garbage clowns." — Bob Dylan?

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
— Walt Whitman

xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)

Holy shit. I was just looking for an example of shitty Salon.com clickbait for a rant/article and this is perfect. The Goddess provides.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Hoopla on October 31, 2014, 03:43:56 AM
Maybe she's one of those people who don't think bi people exist.

Or one of those people who thinks that her personal definitions override everyone else's experiences.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Cain

Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on October 31, 2014, 05:47:06 AM
Holy shit. I was just looking for an example of shitty Salon.com clickbait for a rant/article and this is perfect. The Goddess provides.

I've been trying to make the point on Facebook that Salon is basically Gawker.  This article certainly doesn't disprove that notion.

xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)

Quote from: Cain on October 31, 2014, 07:18:54 AM
Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on October 31, 2014, 05:47:06 AM
Holy shit. I was just looking for an example of shitty Salon.com clickbait for a rant/article and this is perfect. The Goddess provides.

I've been trying to make the point on Facebook that Salon is basically Gawker.  This article certainly doesn't disprove that notion.

Salon is worse than Gawker IMO. Gawker rarely pretends to be much more than an empty distraction on your way to the grave. Salon doesnt just crank out churnalism and clickbait, it cranks out churnalism and clickbait with a message.

Ben Shapiro


Junkenstein

Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on October 31, 2014, 07:37:52 AM
Quote from: Cain on October 31, 2014, 07:18:54 AM
Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on October 31, 2014, 05:47:06 AM
Holy shit. I was just looking for an example of shitty Salon.com clickbait for a rant/article and this is perfect. The Goddess provides.

I've been trying to make the point on Facebook that Salon is basically Gawker.  This article certainly doesn't disprove that notion.

Salon is worse than Gawker IMO. Gawker rarely pretends to be much more than an empty distraction on your way to the grave. Salon doesnt just crank out churnalism and clickbait, it cranks out churnalism and clickbait with a message.

I look forward to the coming rant. Hop to it.
Nine naked Men just walking down the road will cause a heap of trouble for all concerned.

Pope Pixie Pickle

One of my friends was a complete "gold star" (never slept with men) lesbian until last year. Then she hooked up with Joey and redefined her sexuality as pansexual.

I'm wondering, tho, if her brief attraction and sex with one dude (if the relationship with Joey didn't last long) and she is still mostly attracted to women would she lose her "lesbian" card forever?

I don't think one relationship in a history of only being with women, if it was a short one, would take away from that.

it's a moot point for Jess but "lesbian" was a massive part of her identity up until very recently. (She also realised she'd been dating genderqueer and trans dudes also- hence the "Oh, wait, I'm pan"

Luckily in my social group no one gave her shit for "going to the dark side" as most of us are pan or bi. the straight and gay people are in the minority.

Cain

Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on October 31, 2014, 07:37:52 AM
Quote from: Cain on October 31, 2014, 07:18:54 AM
Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on October 31, 2014, 05:47:06 AM
Holy shit. I was just looking for an example of shitty Salon.com clickbait for a rant/article and this is perfect. The Goddess provides.

I've been trying to make the point on Facebook that Salon is basically Gawker.  This article certainly doesn't disprove that notion.

Salon is worse than Gawker IMO. Gawker rarely pretends to be much more than an empty distraction on your way to the grave. Salon doesnt just crank out churnalism and clickbait, it cranks out churnalism and clickbait with a message.

I dunno, I see a lot of professional progressive cheerleading going on both at Gawker and Salon.  I think Gawker is the smarter of the two, as it isn't quite so earnest as Salon and more targeted at a slightly savvier demographic who are turned off by Salon's obviousless overtness, but it's there.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Pope Pixie Pickle on October 31, 2014, 08:47:19 AM
One of my friends was a complete "gold star" (never slept with men) lesbian until last year. Then she hooked up with Joey and redefined her sexuality as pansexual.

I'm wondering, tho, if her brief attraction and sex with one dude (if the relationship with Joey didn't last long) and she is still mostly attracted to women would she lose her "lesbian" card forever?

I don't think one relationship in a history of only being with women, if it was a short one, would take away from that.

it's a moot point for Jess but "lesbian" was a massive part of her identity up until very recently. (She also realised she'd been dating genderqueer and trans dudes also- hence the "Oh, wait, I'm pan"

Luckily in my social group no one gave her shit for "going to the dark side" as most of us are pan or bi. the straight and gay people are in the minority.

I'm old enough that I feel I have the luxury of just saying "fuck your labels, I do what I want". I'm not pansexual, I'm neither straight nor lesbian, I don't identify as bi, and basically fuck it, it's none of anybody's business anyway. I'm much more interesting than who, how, or what I fuck.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Cain

If Salon paid me for the article, I'd gladly ruminate on my sexual identity for 800 words or so, even though I don't care and I doubt anyone else does either.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Cain on November 01, 2014, 06:21:38 AM
If Salon paid me for the article, I'd gladly ruminate on my sexual identity for 800 words or so, even though I don't care and I doubt anyone else does either.

Good point.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."