A column from the Sydney Morning Herald (the original link doesn’t work, and the SMH website was not helpful) about “freelance lesbianism,” which all the cool kids are doing these days:
I have checked out the stats and it seems that freelance lesbians outnumber full-timers and permanent part-timers. While 0.8 per cent of women identify as gay and 1.4 per cent identify as bisexual, those groups are swamped by the 15.1 per cent of women who report an attraction to women or sexual activity with women but do not consider themselves gay or bisexual, according to the Australian Study of Health and Relationships produced by La Trobe University in 2003.
Presumably that 15.1 per cent is a broad category including gay women in denial, girls who write into Dolly about how they are in love with their best friend and, of course, dance-floor lesbians.
I like a raunchy display of public sex as much as the next bloke, but I do harbour doubts about some dance-floor lesbians, the kind who always remark, “Wow, girls’ lips are so soft” and never go beyond a pash.
I wonder whether they give bisexuality a bad name. Or a worse name, I should say. Bisexuals have long been considered the ratbags of the sexual orientation spectrum, incapable of monogamy, carelessly spreading disease to innocent heterosexuals. Now, in the case of women at least, bisexuality seems to have become a kind of pornographic foreplay designed to titillate men or boost ratings on television shows such as the OC.
Those doubts aside, I think freelance lesbianism is a positive development, as long as the girls are enjoying themselves and not doing it purely for male entertainment. Even pretend lesbians can serve their purpose.
“You! Yes, you over there, the girl wrapped around the other girl! Are you doing this for my benefit? Is this a shameless display designed to titillate? Do you want to make out with me? Hello? Hello? Take your hand out of her blouse and look at me when I’m talking to you!”
Why doesn’t anyone ever seem to wonder that kind of thing about public displays of heterosexuality?
You know, one thing that has always struck me as unduly burdensome for bisexuals, as well as a likely source of intimidation and a disincentive to be out, is the idea that there’s some threshold below which one is a weekender, a tourist, a closet case, a faker, or–worst of all–heterosexual. Blithe ambivalence cannot coexist with scrutiny. (Exhibitionism, on the other hand, cannot exist without it.) A bisexual who is constantly pressured to evaluate the relative pitch and frequency of their same-sex and opposite-sex attraction is a bisexual who has a harder time simply loving and lusting. A bisexual who must weigh the potential joy of queer partnership against loathing and denigration from all sides is a bisexual who is less likely to nurture any queer romantic feelings, particularly if they seem supplemental.
There’s also this idea that there’s such a thing as a “true” or “real” bisexual–that sentiment is echoed here–and that they’re as rare as “true” transsexuals. All sorts of things can disqualify you from authenticity and turn you into a bad bisexual: a predominant attraction to one gender or another, a long-term relationship or god forbid a marriage to one gender or another (“ex-bisexual” women who end up with men are often mentioned, but I wonder how many bisexual men and women end up with same-sex partners and simply cease to refer to themselves as anything but gay and lesbian), any sort of cultural or geographic distance from queer communities, any presentation which seems overly dykey or overly femmey or overly faggy or overly butch, latency, virginity, youth. “Real” bisexuality seems to be a collection of pernicious stereotypes and arbitrary measurements for easier categorization. “Real” bisexuals are not monogamous. “Real” bisexuals do not have complex preferences. “Real” bisexual orientations are not subject to temporal or any other sort of flux.
So here are some arguments in favour of freelancers:
Oh, good.
-For a start, freelancers normalise gay sex as an active choice rather than something that is only OK if you are forced to do it because you “can’t help it” or were “born that way”. They clearly don’t believe God will strike them down for choosing to have sexual contact with a woman and they demonstrate this publicly, which is great PR.
Didn’t this columnist just get through pointing out that (a) casual girl-girl necking is no longer exactly transgressive and (b) ideas about labile sexuality can also be used to argue against queers? The problem with this argument is that it assumes a definition of gay sex that does not seem to be universal or altogether current. As the columnist goes on to say, “gay sex” in its other incarnations is still transgressive and not quite associated with this kind of gay sex.
-Freelancers give lesbians access to a wider range of girls than ever before. The number of full-time lesbians is small. At least freelancers expand the options, even if many are eventually lured away by that love which dares to shout its name on embossed invitations, and the trinkets of heterosexual privilege that come with it: princess cut diamonds, free whitegoods, and an unlimited supply of sperm for making babies. Bitches.
Call me oversensitive, but this sounds like an argument in favor of even higher levels of paranoia about bisexual women.
-Most importantly, as gay sex becomes less taboo, even among the middle-of-the-road, it surely becomes slightly less traumatic to be a gay teenager. Rather than having to lock themselves away sullenly listening to the Indigo Girls, teenage lesbians probably have a fair chance of getting some action at high school these days, the stage when kids are usually at their most homophobic.
Wait, so the lesbians are supposed to be the ones having practice nookie before moving on to the real thing? I’m so confused. I can’t understand any taxonomy of queer female sexuality that doesn’t divide women into deprived and deluded.
These are not arguments in favor of flexible sexuality. These are arguments in favor of oppressive surveillance of flexible sexuality. These are arguments that posit that it can ever be revolutionary to evaluate what other people are doing in bed in terms of one’s own needs and preferences, that there is some positive social makeover for queerness, some perfectly marketable balance between comforting and transgressive. Maybe I’m just a selfish bisexual, but that makes no sense to me.
oh, for fuck’s sake. why is this so incredibly difficult for some people? they. are. having. fun. as far as you know. it doesn’t matter why or what their status in Sapphic Klub is.
not as far as -i’m- concerned, anyway.
“gives lesbians a bad name.” Yeah, you know what, though; the way more traditional problem wrt lesbianism? Isn’t so much “posers” as -we don’t exist at all, not really.-
signed,
probably would’ve come out a lot sooner if she’d seen more PDA’s of girlz making out, back in the day.
Piny,
No one cares about public displays of hetrosexuality because 1) we’re soooooo used to it by now and 2) men don’t like to see other men with women unless it’s specifically porn. I don’t know if you’ve ever read interviews with Mr. Skin, the owner of the largest celebrity nude database, but in several interviews debating full frontal male nudity he and other men all commented that they only liked to see women naked alone, or women naked with other women. I don’t get it but I think it has to do with the male competition aspect of how they’re raised. Guys want to be the object of desire and if there’s another guy already there well then that kills it for them. But if there’s a woman with another women they get that pornified, “that’s fine and good but what they really want is dick. my dick” and a lot of the girl on girl (i.e. Girls Gone Wild) is specifically for their visual titilation, not the visual titilation of women. What I think might piss off the author about this kind of “lesbianism” is that while the girls are fine and good bumping and grinding and kissing on the dance floor, when push comes to shove (so to speak) then these girls will draw the line at all out sex;
Apparently if they’re not willing to go all the way, especially to fulfill a male fantasy, then they just shouldn’t be bothering.
Piny, this is a great analysis, and I’m really starting to rethink the labels I use for my own sexual orientation. I love love love your examination and questioning of what makes a “good” bisexual.
All my romantic relationships have been with men (I’m a woman, in case that wasn’t clear). But I’ve been sexual with women, mostly female friends, off and on over the years. For a while I identified as bisexual, but after discussing it with my now-husband, decided it was better to identify as straight. My husband taught me that queer identity was at least partly about lack of heterosexual privilege, and I have that in spades. (i.e. the marriage thing, though I will note that I married in a jurisdiction that allows gay marriage). He felt it was a form of appropriation for me to identify as bisexual when I’ve never had any negative consequences of my sexual orientation.
My husband, on the other hand, hasn’t dated men in a long time, and yet identifies as bi. He came out as gay as a teenager in the 80s, and has quite definitely experienced homophobia. Then, when he started dating a woman, he lost more friends than he did when he came out as gay. So to him his bisexuality is an important part of his history and his identity, even though it’s not a part of his day-to-day life (except that he drools over, of all people, Vin Diesel, ick). But there are many within the queer community who would call our marriage a cop-out on his part: he gets all the straight privilege and yet gets to call himself queer.
The column you quoted is part of a long line of recent media criticism of “freelance lesbianism” and I have to admit it’s been making me feel guilty. I have, in fact, publicly made out with women, in majority-heterosexual environments. And these types of articles have made me question my reasons for doing so, and whether I can tease out my sexual orientation from my exhibitionism. And question whether I do these things for male titillation. Though it can’t be *all* for male titillation since I’ve had sex with women in private as well.
But maybe I need to think even more about this. In a way, what does it matter what my reasons are? I’m consenting, she’s consenting, the observers aren’t complaining.
I hate trying to label myself. It’s too hard. It sucks.
Thanks for this. I know the community you ganked this from, and the comments there were disappointing.
There were so few; postqueer has been slow of late. But such is livejournal.
twf –
You label yourself what *you* want to label yourself.
If what you self-identify as is “purple fluffy-animal bonker,” what the hell does it matter if you have/have not gotten any cap over it?
It’s how *you* self-identify, not how your husband/acquaintences/world-at-large identifies you.
I’m pretty irredeemably hetero, so of course I’ve got all the “straight privilege”
As for your husband losing more friends when he started dating women, well, that says a lot more about the “friends” than anything else.
How would that scenario any different, in the fundamental (non-violent) manner, than the homophobia he says he experienced when he came out as gay?
oh, for fuck’s sake. why is this so incredibly difficult for some people? they. are. having. fun. as far as you know. it doesn’t matter why or what their status in Sapphic Klub is.
It occurs to me that this is the same dichotomy as last week’s femme feminist dust-up. One must either be selling out to excite the boys or Very Earnestly be advancing the queer cause. You can’t just kiss for fun! Are you crazy?
Obligatory Reading of the Day – Femiphobia
Provocative and excellent post by Sara Robinson: There’s Something About The Men. Most definitely read the comments as well. Then come back here in half an hour and read an old post of mine that I have scheduled for republishing…
For sure, and that’s exactly why I brought it up. I think it says something about the defensiveness of the gay community at that time: having someone go outside what was expected was really seen as a threat.
And it might even be true that his arc has been “bad for queers” in some way overall. For instance, his mother, a homophobic through-and-through, is fully convinced that he “went through a gay stage” and thus in some sense he’s promulgating the myth of homosexuality being a youthful tangent, before one settles down to “real life.”
This is a very touchy point for a lot of queers, I think. The problem that arises for me with this definition (i.e., queer = oppressed) is that it has so much baggage tied to it. For one thing, who stands in judgment of who has suffered “enough” to be “really queer”? On a fundamental level, the idea that being queer is predicated on suffering at all is worrying to me, as well. I certainly don’t view that part of my identity as based in anything aside from my sexuality & gender identity. I suffer problems as a result of my identity, of course, but that is neither here nor there in terms of how I self-identify.
I’ve definitely been terribly offended by friends who think being queer is the ultimate accessory, and thus behave inappropriately when they are in public with me (e.g., outing me by acting as if we are a couple, etc.) Until/unless they understand their own orientation (whatever that may be) and its real-life consequences, they have no business endangering me with their lack of understanding of what it is to be oppressed as a queer. But I don’t think these experiences “prove” that I am a “real queer,” whereas my friends are merely imposters who have no right to experiment and self-identify. It’s more a question of them needing to examine what privileges they are exercising over me in those situations, not necessarily they way they are identifying.
I do think it’s true that a large part of contemporary queer experience is coming to terms with and navigating our lack of certain types of privilege. And I think this is an important thing to keep in mind when one is wondering whether one identifies as queer, not the least because understanding the history of one’s identities is so vital. But to say that a queer who hasn’t experienced that particular type of oppression isn’t “queer enough” is ludicrous and offensive.
Besides, I’m pessimistic enough to think that almost any queer will inevitably be confronted with it sooner rather than later.
I think there’s a lot of disappearing bisexual — gay when with same sex, straight when with opposite sex.
i really object to the whole wave of women on women to get the men going trend right now. let’s see men on men to get women rolling. no? well gee i wonder, then…
Why not? I know a lot of women who get rolling from men on men. what’s “objectifying” is if you keep hassling people, intruding on their space and won’t take “no” for an answer. Otherwise, have at it as far as I’m concerned.
>’ve definitely been terribly offended by friends who think being queer is the ultimate accessory, and thus behave inappropriately when they are in public with me (e.g., outing me by acting as if we are a couple, etc.) Until/unless they understand their own orientation (whatever that may be) and its real-life consequences, they have no business endangering me with their lack of understanding of what it is to be oppressed as a queer. But I don’t think these experiences “prove” that I am a “real queer,” whereas my friends are merely imposters who have no right to experiment and self-identify. It’s more a question of them needing to examine what privileges they are exercising over me in those situations, not necessarily they way they are identifying.>
Oh, ick.
the term for that is “slumming,” i think.
or rather: experiment all you like; just make sure you experiment -with-. What you’re talking about is experimenting -on.- Not okay.
…more and more and more these days, I keep thinking it all boils down to: empathetic/aware/at least possessed of a social clue or two versus up-one’s-own-asshole. If you’re the former (and yes, it’s a continuum, not an either or…BUT)…if you’re the former, more, you might fuck up in any given situation where you don’t speak the lingo or just weren’t aware, but you’ll -learn-, because you’ll -want to,- for the -other person’s sake.- If you’re not; in a way, kind of doesn’t matter how many whatever the left versions of Miss Manners’ rules of etiquette are you memorize; sooner or later, one way or another, chances are good you’ll end up being an asshole. Know what I’m saying?
I just wish people wouldn’t assume bisexual women are all Girls Gone Wild, who love having threesomes, open marriages, etc. Some of us do prefer monogamous relationships. Not that that’s better, but it should be understood. Also, it’s not my business if women want to experiment, but if they call themselves bi when they don’t mean it, just to please their boyfriends, I think it feeds into the porn stereotype that all women want men and lesbian action is just done to please men.
I was gonna comment myself, but TomCody already said what I’d say, and far more eloquently, I might add. Although (if only to fan the flames of discussion), it is interesting to consider — if men don’t like looking at other men being with women because of the jeolousy factor, etc., does that indicate that men who look at hard core, straight porn perhaps are actually more empathetic (e.g. they are able to identify with the man in the porn, who is another person outside of the viewer), less jeolous, etc., than those of us men who cannot stand hard-core porn … perhaps, because we are secretly jeolous Nice-Guy(TM) types who simply cannot stand to see other people “getting some” when we’re not?
Wait, so the lesbians are supposed to be the ones having practice nookie before moving on to the real thing?
This reminds me of perhaps the oddest aspect of this whole “dance floor lesbian” phenomenon. In many animal species, these sorts of displays and/or practice sessions occur between males, i.e. so males can have enough experience before they attempt to mate with the females. In many species where the male has to have appropriate sexual technique in order to successfully mate, the young males spend a lot of time practicing on each other before moving on to the females.
It would seem that male sexual technique matters a lot for (straight female) humans. So you would think if practice is a motivation, it would be the men who would be dance-floor gays … but it’s the other way around due to social constructions. I guess we humans are just a strange species, nu?
where i come from, there was a wise old saying: “ain’t no such thing as a bad bisexual.”
We were very intentional about discussing ranges of sexual idenity and expression…and “seeking/questioning” folks made up a pretty fair number in our bi discussion group. But we also kept our own community independant (though not unrelated) to the more gay and lesbian oriented groups on campus. And i think this helped us steer clear of trying to mediate between good and bad bisexuals…
With nobody in the room who identified as het or homo, but were at some point of negotiation, it was a little easier to not always make our idenitity statements in relationship to the polar ends of the spectrum. Not to say there weren’t the fair share of…unfortunate statements, but outright purity fights just weren’t on the table.
My favorite job perk of being a bi-queer-ambigious dude is that i constantly have to refute the notion that “science has proved that you don’t exist.” Even and especially to myself. Love that when there’s conflict in my relationship, I sometimes question my idenity. Thanks, biphobia!
My actual favorite job perk is confusing the hell out of people. Switching genders when i’m talking about attractions, throwing in a neuter pronoun then and again for kicks, and watching the gears grind. It’s for their own good, really…and I will explain if they have the courage to actually ask a question.
“Until/unless they understand their own orientation (whatever that may be) and its real-life consequences, ”
Amb gets it here…there is a difference between ontological status as queer, and the reality of having actually done one’s idenitity work, figuring out how to survive in a hostile world.
Oh, how familiar this all is! I’m a bi woman, in a LTR with a man, and the ‘disappearing bisexual’ issue is one I’m way too familiar with. I’ve been lucky in that most of my friends have understood that being in a mostly monogamous relationship doesn’t maginally transform me into a lesbian or a straight woman, but there are the ‘prove your bisexual bed cred’ moments, which suck.
Something I’ve always found interesting is that folks who identify as bisexual often have to ‘prove’ it by having a balanced ledger of past partners, fuck-buddies and crushes, to show that there isn’t some hidden gender preference. At the same time, many folks who identify as straight or gay/lesbian are ‘allowed’ to have multple genders on their sexual histories – so long as their idetity lines up with their current situation, it’s very often unquestioned. Past behavior can ‘disqualify’ bisexuals, but it can’t drag others into the category.
Add this to the multiple conversations I’ve had trying to ‘prove’ that bisexuals exist (to folks with advanced degrees in human sexuality!), and I just end up tired.
He felt it was a form of appropriation for me to identify as bisexual when I’ve never had any negative consequences of my sexual orientation
By that standard, a gay man who was born and raised in the Castro and never set foot outside San Francisco is ‘appropriating’ the queer label. And while it’s important to recognize that many bisexuals can pass as het, I can’t help but wonder where all the thunder about heterosexual oppression goes when we’re talking about bisexuals.
Nothing wrong with girls just having fun; the problem is when they do so with the understanding that it’s only OK if you’re not, like, into it–you don’t call yourself a lesbian or queer, you don’t fall in love with women ever, etc. etc.
[...] ng against them or via giving them an official religious representative. Piny writes about bisexuality, and how there are many more bisexual women than self-i [...]
I like this discussion about being bi. It took me a bit to be ok with it. In tiny little stages. Im still taking tiny steps really.
First I ignored it and was still straight. Then I worried about it. I was luckly and had some bi male friends, who let me hear about it and talk about it. Im finding it easier and easier to look at women and find them attractive and be ok with that.
If I ever end up splitting with my current so who is male. I might be ok going to a gay club and chatting to women. I was slow to date men, so I’m ok not rushing. I’m even ok if I dont ever date a women. I love the person I’m with. So I’m happy. I’m even ok I think with the possibility I might be more interested in women than men. But I know I like both.
Piny, I agree with what you say in your post, but using the term “a bisexual”? Not cool. Not cool at all. If I’m not mistaken, a while ago you raised the point that calling a transgendered person “a transgender” was dehumanizing, and the same goes for “a bisexual”. Referring to queer people as “a queer”, “a gay”, “a bisexual”, or what have you is derogatory and offensive.
Piny, I agree with what you say in your post, but using the term “a bisexual”? Not cool. Not cool at all. If I’m not mistaken, a while ago you raised the point that calling a transgendered person “a transgender” was dehumanizing, and the same goes for “a bisexual”. Referring to queer people as “a queer”, “a gay”, “a bisexual”, or what have you is derogatory and offensive.
Actually, that was “a trans,” which isn’t the same thing. I frequently refer to myself as “a transsexual” (although “a transgender” is a little different, in part because it’s like referring to someone as “an LGBT”), so I didn’t think this was dehumanizing. Still, if it offends you, and if you think that “bisexual” sounds similar to “trans” as a noun, I’ll use “bisexual people” in the future.