Rant of the Day

[mic0]

Totally agree with Craig that a lot of those questions were unfair and only tell part of the story.

I got 0.17 on hostile sexism, and 0.83 on benevolent sexism. I think if there had been equivalent questions for men (or something more fair, like "men and women are equally pure" or something), the benevolent sexism would have been even lower, because that's pretty much how I feel about things.

As for the "do people really think like this" point, yes! I surround myself mostly with people who share my views, but I have one coworker who has some extreme benevolent sexism. I mean, most of my male coworkers probably exhibit this and I don't notice, but this guy is just so much. We were talking about the transgender bathrooms "issue" and he kept saying we need to protect women, right? So we asked him, well what about young boys who are already in bathrooms with older men who might be perverts or something? And he seriously did not think that they were as vulnerable as grown women! Ugh.

eta: Realized you probably were asking "do people really think like this" about the hostile sexism questions, so my anecdote's not as useful.

[Portia]

In my (admittedly limited & biased) experience with Tinder, it's definitely a very hetero space. Women who check "yes" to both sexes may identify as straight, "bi-curious," bi, or just be looking for friendship /bored. I don't really think that it would necessarily be a good analogue for a brick and mortar lesbian bar. I'm interested to hear what TBS says, though.

Mormons tend to view bars differently than a non Mormon would, also. Lesbians, I'd imagine, might not feel like it's "their" space in a gay bar or a primarily-straight (is that accurate? not sure) bar.

It can be a communal space, not just about drinking.

[Shrinky Dink]

In my (admittedly limited & biased) experience with Tinder, it's definitely a very hetero space. Women who check "yes" to both sexes may identify as straight, "bi-curious," bi, or just be looking for friendship /bored. I don't really think that it would necessarily be a good analogue for a brick and mortar lesbian bar. I'm interested to hear what TBS says, though.

Apparently there's a dating app called Her specifically for LGBTQ women that was featured in a Buzzfeed article.

[wryness]

I completely agree with the basic premise of this article:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-shooting-media-20160618-snap-story.html

The type of media coverage that is given to a mass shooting only increases the likelihood of copycat crimes. If we spend all of our time focusing on the killer ("Why did he do this? Where did he come from?") then we are making the shooting about him (or her) instead of the people whose lives were lost.

The best coverage I've ever seen after such a tragedy was this BBC article that focused on the identities of the Paris victims, instead of the attackers.

I saw another really creepy news article about the culture of mass shooters that has come into being online. Most mass shooters are terrifyingly familiar with other attacks (especially Columbine) and often idolize previous shooters, or try to reference them in their "work." It just makes me sick.

[TheBlackSheep]

Well, first of all, I have a girlfriend so I am not any dating site's primary market.

I know some people who have used Her and it seems to work okay for them. However, dating sites in general are godawful for gay and bisexual women. I won't speak for women who have identified as gay up until now, but as a woman who has identified as bisexual, all you get is propositioned by couples and straight men (for not great reasons) and ignored by lesbians since a lot of people coopt the bi label to experiment. Not that there is anything wrong with experimenting (quite the opposite), but if I was gay I would rather not have to deal with the hordes who are think that openmindedness or good stories necessitate trying out dating/sex with the same sex only to return to the opposite sex after using some people in the experience.

As for lesbian bars and queer bars in general, gay history is rooted in the bars. That is where the gay pride movement started. They are some of the only places in the world where queer people can go and immediately know that they are surrounded by other queer people and friends. You don't have to worry about who is around and just how yourself you can be before you are going to have to worry about someone's feelings or your safety. You can just be. The narrative of your life makes sense there, effortlessly. As my girlfriend said recently, it's like being able to take off a heavy coat that most people never have to wear. Gay bars are still kind of that way for women. So while I know that no one said that queer bars aren't important or that lesbian bars aren't important, I just thought I'd say so. Like, I spent the end of May and beginning of June driving across the country with my girlfriend. We stopped at a "lesbian"/queer bar in Tennessee. It was karaoke night and this skinny gay guy in a colorful tank top sang "Ring of Fire" by Johnny Cash. Afterward, the lady bartender gave us glittery temporary tattoo rings and pronounced us married without batting an eye. It was natural and lovely, even if it was Tennessee. I don't really know how to communicate what that feels like. And gay/bi women still don't get that in gay bars to the full extent.

Also, can we retire the term bi-curious? There is a term (questioning) for that which does not trivialize bisexuality or contribute to its stereotypes.

Anyway, I agree with you, Craig, about those two conditions to opening a lesbian bar. I just don't understand why they are increasingly rare, since most lesbian bars I know did better business than comparative dives.

[Portia]

However, dating sites in general are godawful for gay and bisexual women.

This confirmed my suspicions exactly.

As for lesbian bars and queer bars in general, gay history is rooted in the bars. That is where the gay pride movement started. They are some of the only places in the world where queer people can go and immediately know that they are surrounded by other queer people and friends.

I'm glad you found a good one in the middle of Tennessee. I actually strongly feel that hordes of inebriated bridesmaids should take their business elsewhere, but YMMV I suppose. Straight/mostly straight female displays of sexual desire and behavior is still something that is somewhat foreign to me, being something of a prig at heart. But I know there are plenty of gay men who aren't fond of having their space invaded/co-opted. Not sure how lesbian women feel. What's your sense?

A lot of people coopt the bi label to experiment. Not that there is anything wrong with experimenting ...

Also, can we retire the term bi-curious? There is a term (questioning) for that which does not trivialize bisexuality or contribute to its stereotypes.

It seems to me that "questioning" implies much more romantically, socially, and physically than "bi-curious." I agree with you that there are a lot of straight women/couples who experiment, who want to "spice things up" in the bedroom and use dating apps to expedite that process.

Would "women who have sex with women, very occasionally, under XYZ conditions" cover it? What if two women have sex but don't identify as being homoromantic at all? What if they could, but choose not to? I think that "bi-curious" captures the idea that such a woman would still benefit from straight privilege. If I'm misreading that, I'd like to hear your thoughts. I kind of take issue with the idea that such persons really need the LGBT movement as much, though I suppose being "out" could lessen stigmatization? Mmmmmaybe? I think it might actually increase it because then more people may assume same-sex behavior is merely situational.

Which it can be, of course.

(Zed and I have discussed how MFF threesomes still imply the presence of the male gaze, which is in itself interesting to me and would make me think that opposite-sex desire is still in play in these scenarios. And no, we haven't had any steamy threesomes together or something, if people are going to assume that!)

[Portia]

Also since tone is hard to read online ... I'm definitely not trying to police your terms, and if bi-curious is indeed offensive or trivialize, I'm interested to know what would be better. I think there needs to be SOME term for the types of folks that make Tinder, etc. hell for gay women, though, right?

[TheBlackSheep]

Not sure how lesbian women feel. What's your sense?

As a bi woman, I have been repeatedly turned down by gay women out of hand because I identify as bisexual and that label carries the baggage of a lot of women who misrepresent themselves, their intentions, and their sexuality. So yeah, gay women feel strongly about this. In my experience, they feel more strongly about it than gay men. As for the appearance of straight women in gay/lesbian bars, they are welcome, unless they are using the space to further their own personal agendas. The whole world is full of places for straight people to fulfill their agendas. That isn't what gay/lesbian bars are for. They are for a marginalized group to feel safe. They are not for straight people to try cute new adventures for their own privileged sex lives. I kind of struggle to see how straight people don't see the difference.

It seems to me that "questioning" implies much more romantically, socially, and physically than "bi-curious." I agree with you that there are a lot of straight women/couples who experiment, who want to "spice things up" in the bedroom and use dating apps to expedite that process.

Back in the day, waaaaaaay back, I very briefly used bi-curious to describe myself when I was in a questioning place. I suppose people could use bi-curious as a much more flippant expression, but that lessens my faith in them still. There are terms for that too (heteroflexible, homoflexible) that remove the poor, stigma-laden reference to bisexuality and better communicate what those people are: gay or straight, except in very certain circumstances.

Also, for the record: I did not include those links in my original post. If you wanted to include them, it would have probably been better form for you to include them in what you wrote. Just gentle feedback. Doing otherwise feels manipulative and, frankly, like straight-splaining.

Would "women who have sex with women, very occasionally, under XYZ conditions" cover it? What if two women have sex but don't identify as being homoromantic at all? What if they could, but choose not to?

I think heteroflexible covers all of that. Or they could do like the men do, and call themselves WSW (women who have sex with women). Or sure, that whole phrase could be used. I just hate bi-curious. It has been used against me, as a bisexual person. It is laden with stigma, from straight and gay people alike, that bisexual people have to bear the brunt of.

As for homoromanticism v. homosexuality, there just isn't any way to sum all of this up in any label. When you talk to my gay girlfriend and I, we describe our levels of sexual attraction, sexual enjoyment, and emotional attraction to men very similarly. I chose bisexual years ago because I can also enjoy sex with men. She chose gay years ago when it became clear to her that she only wants to emotionally connect in certain ways with women. Labels don't do everything. Some labels, however, are much more dismissive and stigma-laden than other ones.

I think that "bi-curious" captures the idea that such a woman would still benefit from straight privilege.

I think that all of the groups we are talking about except for gay people benefit from straight privilege. Bisexual people certainly do, depending on who their partner is. I try to own that. Privilege isn't so cut and dried in the LGBTQ community. If a group is made up of gay people and trans people, gay people have more privilege. If it is gay men and gay women, the gay men frequently have more privilege. Bisexual people, depending on the group, may have less privilege than the gay people. Straight and cis people have more privilege than all of them, but some trans people benefit from cis privilege (if they pass, whether they are trying to or not) and bi people sometimes benefit from straight privilege.

I kind of take issue with the idea that such persons really need the LGBT movement as much, though I suppose being "out" could lessen stigmatization? Mmmmmaybe? I think it might actually increase it because then more people may assume same-sex behavior is merely situational.

I appreciate that you care about this and that you are engaged, but gentle reminder to watch your wording. It isn't really your place to "take issue," at least not with those words' connotation. More to the point, however, by definition, any straight-identified (cause that's what so-called bi-curious people are, if they aren't really trying to figure out whether they are bisexual or gay) people do not "need the LGBT movement as much." Sex is important, and our society could do with way more openness on the subject, but people do not commit suicide or face systemic discrimination because they enjoy bringing another woman into the bedroom every so often. If that is really the depth of people's same-sex activities that we are talking about, it is laughable to consider that they need the LGBT movement at all. Certainly they benefit from it and from the reduced stigma associated with same-sex sexual acts, but they get all the benefits with none of the risk. And again, there is nothing wrong with having exactly the sex life someone wants (as long as it is consensual between adults, etc.), but taking advantage of LGBTQ spaces or terms to further that is inconsiderate at best and terrifically wrong at worst. If we are talking about really all-encompassing sexual lifestyles, like the kink/BDSM community, the lines are obviously different as far as position in the community and needs for support/acceptance.

Which it can be, of course.

Of course. And we need to have conversations about that and how it does not take away any needs as far as LGBTQ acceptance and rights go. I am pretty sure that we are moving toward everyone being somewhere other than the hard limits on the Kinsey scale, but that does not mean we should trivialize the bisexual experience in the meantime. If you aren't bisexual, I am telling you now that you probably do not understand the various ways that gay and straight people alike misunderstand and mistreat bisexual people, even without meaning to. And that is one definition of privilege.

(Zed and I have discussed how MFF threesomes still imply the presence of the male gaze, which is in itself interesting to me and would make me think that opposite-sex desire is still in play in these scenarios. And no, we haven't had any steamy threesomes together or something, if people are going to assume that!)

I've been the proverbial unicorn, and of course it has a lot to do with the male gaze in almost all circumstances. Few threesomes are born of a man being married to a bisexual woman. Most couples simply want to spice things up, and lesbianism is incredibly fetishized in our culture. In many cases, those threesomes have everything to do with the man enjoying the idea and the woman being interested enough to give it a go. But yeah, as a unicorn who was not only game but also attracted to women (which is different) I can tell you that those experiences, compared to actual lesbianism, had everything to do with the, as you put it, male gaze and fetishization of same-sex female relationships. Which is its very own issue.

[Portia]

Thanks for your responses.

I was looking back at some of my old Board responses on gay marriage, and that was horrifying. (I certainly tied myself in knots to justify the LDS Church's then-status quo, going so far as to quote Elder Oaks. And I def projected my own abandonment issues onto same-sex parents, wooooo. -_- Anyone who stumbles on those, I'm sorry.)

So, I'd definitely rather engage and risk being wrong/looking foolish than decide that the LGBT community's concerns don't matter to me. This isn't to get some kind of liberal "ally" brownie points, but because (a) I have close friends who identify as LGBT, and I care about their feelings and (b) I draw a direct line between hate speech and hate crimes.

Frankly, I find the LDS Church's explicit association with right-wing "Defending the Family! (That We Like, Guys)" groups and continuous need to invent their own terms and march teenagers into "therapy" and make people paranoid they can't march in parades to be morally reprehensible. I had/have my own faults and blind spots on this issue, but even when I put my foot in my mouth, I tried to see the humanity of people unlike me. I don't get that sense from the leaders of the LDS Church and other conservative religious groups. And it does make me angry.

You don't have to go to lesbian/gay bars (or drink at all), or participate in sexual activities you don't want to, to care.

My mom got pregnant with me in the city where Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered. Anti-gay slurs weren't exactly foreign to the milieu and mindset in which I grew up, although I don't think that my family and friends were hateful. Does that matter, though? Can we pat ourselves on the back and think, well I don't go on crazy murderous rampages if that's the world we live in?

I am close to marrying a vanilla straight dude who has had one sexual partner, ever. I guess we're forming the "right" kind of family, in the eyes of much of society and the church we grew up in. If we feel like showing affection in public, no one's going to bat an eye. We could go full-on PDA in the middle of Brigham Square and probably suffer fewer negative repercussions than a queer person blinking wrong. (This disparity is not going to stop me from marrying him. I love him!)

I know that queer people don't need my/our stamp of approval, but I don't know what to do when s&$% like this massacre happens. :-\ I want to see legislative action. Let's start with explicit anti-discrimination in housing and jobs in Utah, governor. Thoughts and prayers don't cut it for me anymore.

[TheBlackSheep]

I'm glad that we are having this discourse, but I am still struggling with some of your responses. This is not just about you. It's definitely a larger problem, but you are the one I am talking to right now.

You say you would rather engage and risk getting things wrong than not be involved in the conversation. I am legitimately, seriously glad. I also appreciate your awareness of where contributed to homophobia/transphobia/biphobia/heteronormativity/cisnormativity in the past. You also say that you aren't doing this for ally brownie points. But then look at how many times you said "I" in your comments and discussed your own straight experience in a conversation about bisexual issues. That is a problem.

Being a good ally is incredibly important. Since the whole LGBTQ population weighs in at around 10% of the population, we need allies to care so we can have things like respect and basic rights. Allies are also sometimes the only people who can make an impact on other straight/cis people. We need allies, and we are grateful to our allies. That being said, the only way to be an ally is to behave in certain ways. Sure, you gotta stay informed and you gotta be willing to speak up. Allies should be willing to help in situations where an LGBTQ person is in crisis or needs support. More to this point, however, allies need to be able to do the following:

1. As more than one article out there says, shut up and listen. If a queer person is telling you how something is related to being queer, allies get to take their word for it. This doesn't mean that any queer person talks for the whole or is necessarily right all the time, but it does mean that allies shouldn't assume that they know more than any queer person about what being queer means. They should also listen to see what the whole group is saying so they can better understand.

2. Cede the spotlight. Queer discussions aren't about allies. It can be hard to be an ally, and that is a worthwhile discussion to have... with allies or other more privileged groups. Not with queer people and not in queer spaces or conversations. Ditto to lengthy discussions of straight experience in discussions about queer experience. Ditto to taking up the emotional energy in a conversation about queer topics.

3. Focus on other allies. The people allies need to be educating/convincing are allies, not queer people. If you aren't already aligned with supporting queer people's views, you aren't being an ally.

4. Avoid restating broad truths as if they are that ally's individual discovery. Chances are, the queer people you are having a discourse with have a more nuanced view of those truths than the ally does, and the queer person is then made to validate the straight person, again, during a conversation about queer issues. Allies should make sure they are educated, ask questions, and focus on listening.

5. Conversations about queer topics are not a chance for allies and supposed-allies to show how compassionate or enlightened they are. It isn't a chance to throw out buzzwords or point out one's good behavior. Again, these conversations should not be about making the less privileged person devote emotional energy toward the more privileged person to acknowledge/thank/whatever them or engage them on their level.

You absolutely do not have to be gay/bi or be a bargoer to care. It's just about how you do the caring.

Also, please be careful about where your cited experience comes from. I spoke to you in my other posts and shared by reactions to what you said based on an adult life full of dealing with homophobia/biphobia/heteronormativity on a very personal level as a bisexual person. While I am sure you did grow up with a lot of anti-gay slurs around, as we all did/do, that is not exactly comparable experience. Also, please be careful when drawing experience based on unrelated events. Your being conceived in Laramie, WY does not mean you understand more or less about the gay/bi experience than if you had been conceived anywhere else, especially since you were conceived some 10+ years before that terrible hate crime and you did not grow up there, and Matthew Shepard himself wasn't even there at the time. Bringing up that hate crime based on a tangential spatial relationship separated by over a decade feels patronizing and emotionally manipulative to me. (I don't doubt that Laramie was a terribly gay-unfriendly place in the 1980s. I'm sure it was. But the entire country was back then. What makes the Matthew Shepard murder so horrifying is that it could have happened, and did happen, in any town.) Sometimes it helps, when considering those kinds of comparisons, to substitute other groups and see if it makes you feel uncomfortable. Example: My mom got pregnant with me in the city where Rodney King was beaten. It would make me uncomfortable to write that sentence in a post about how I can still care about black rights even though I am white. Therefore, as a straight person, I probably would not include it in a similar discussion about queer issues.

If you don't know what to do when terrible things like the massacre happen, ask a queer person. I saw many, many ideas on social media about things to do to be a good ally in the immediate aftermath. Most of us just want to know that our friends and family thought of us and wanted to support us.

I realize that this can seem like nit-picking since you are trying to be supportive and do the right thing. This ally stuff is incredibly important, though. Incredibly, incredibly important.

[Portia]

I'm sorry for the hurtful/clueless things I said.

Thanks for sharing your feelings and experiences. I apologize for contributing further to any pain for you, personally, or other LGBT folks.

(Since the majority of members this board are affiliated with BYU, I especially perceive the uniquely difficult situation that LGBT Mormons/BYU students are in, and that it's probably exhausting. I'm sorry that you had to go through that and legitimately grateful you've come out alive at the other end. At my new academic institution, it's a very different atmosphere, and since I'm very much a books-and-school person, I think that educating myself formally in a Queer Literary Theory class may be wise in addition to continuing to listen.)

[TheBlackSheep]

Thank you for the apology.

[Emiliana]

Thanks for the list of things allies can focus on. That's helpful.

[Shrinky Dink]

2. Cede the spotlight. Queer discussions aren't about allies. It can be hard to be an ally, and that is a worthwhile discussion to have... with allies or other more privileged groups. Not with queer people and not in queer spaces or conversations. Ditto to lengthy discussions of straight experience in discussions about queer experience. Ditto to taking up the emotional energy in a conversation about queer topics.

This point kind of reminds me of the drama related to this American Apparel Bag which has the words "Lesbian/Gay/Bi/Transgender/Queer/Ally" printed on it three times in rainbow. I don't think it's a problem that they mentioned allies, but since they had space to print it three times they definitely could have printed it just once or twice and included asexual, agender, intersex, and more if they had wanted to and avoided all the drama. Unfortunately, all the drama just gave them free press.

Unfortunately, the more I google, the more I'm finding cis people who are offended over an acronym that doesn't really affect them.... I'm sorry.

[TheBlackSheep]

Yeah, and unfortunately, no matter what the movement is (race, gender, LGBTQ issues, ability, etc.), the allies can get defensive because they feel like they are being singled out as bad actors in this one area of their lives, when the real issue is that members of the non-privileged group are being singled out in all of the other areas of their lives. That gets lost sometimes. And I can understand that. I have certainly been a substandard ally, and I've been called out on it, and I haven't always responded amazingly. It's just, it keeps happening.

[Portia]

Allies can get defensive... it keeps happening.

Out of curiosity, do you personally find this to be worse in those from conservative backgrounds? Or is it a mixed bag?

Sometimes I forget that you went to a liberal, arty high school, and I went to a prep school in Utah where one of the only things worse than being "poor" would have been being perceived to be a "slut" or somehow outside some pretty damned narrow bounds of social/romantic acceptability. (Maybe it wasn't as extreme as I remember. Public school may very well have been worse.)

On a personal note, I read your blog post on not validating everyone all the [censored] time. Consider this my air high five to your string of four-letter words, haha. You don't have to validate me or apologize, keep rockin'.

[TheBlackSheep]

Sometimes I forget that you went to a liberal, arty high school, and I went to a prep school in Utah where one of the only things worse than being "poor" would have been being perceived to be a "slut" or somehow outside some pretty damned narrow bounds of social/romantic acceptability. (Maybe it wasn't as extreme as I remember. Public school may very well have been worse.)

I did, and thank goodness for that. I'm very grateful that good fortune took me that route. I actually started arts schools in elementary school, though my high school was the first really liberal one. It is worth noting, however, that even at that high school, most of the queer kids I know stayed closeted. My girlfriend and I both came out after high school, as did my junior prom date, my two best friends, and many other people. So it had its limits. I can only imagine the challenges presented by that kind of environment. I don't know how I could have survived something like that, so I imagine it was quite challenging.

On a personal note, I read your blog post on not validating everyone all the [censored] time. Consider this my air high five to your string of four-letter words, haha. You don't have to validate me or apologize, keep rockin'.

I very much appreciate that. Thank you!

Out of curiosity, do you personally find this to be worse in those from conservative backgrounds? Or is it a mixed bag?

Interesting question. I'd say it is a mixed bag. People from conservative backgrounds probably struggle through the entire process more, understandably. Some people from liberal backgrounds, however, can struggle with a certain amount of holier-than-thou, I'm-so-enlightened attitude that can make being a true ally challenging. That obviously depends on the person and on the depth of their liberal background. I think other personality traits may account for the difference better. It is interesting, though, to reflect on how politics does not necessarily create great allies.

[Katya]

It is interesting, though, to reflect on how politics does not necessarily create great allies.

I'm coming to realize that this applies in a lot of areas. (Basically, congratulating yourself on what a great person you are—coming from any political background—doesn't make you a great person.)

[yayfulness]

I do not understand how it is somehow a controversial opinion to be opposed to what by all appearances was a summary execution by police.

[Imogen]

I'm pretty sure I'm going to end up murdered by the police one day. I wonder how they'll try to victim-blame me.