Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    
    Hi, just a couple of things,
    
    re: 169.29 ,  I think you might have made a typo since your note
    is 168.      I tried to find the note you were replying to but
    did not find it.
    
    Also, covivant is not in my American Heritage (office) Dictionary,
    although, I can figure out the meaning from the context.
    
    It's somewhat difficult to get at what you are trying to point out,
    however I will take a stab at it.  
    
    I used to work with two women who became very close, and now are
    living together,  they seemed to be the most opposite people I 
    could think of, yet they are now happy together, and to my surprise
    neither of them have changed a bit.  This leads me to believe that
    maybe women are more flexible about how their covivants are than
    are men.  This is only one example, but, I feel that since neither
    has put pressure on the other to change, from what I can tell, then
    maybe its the men who have always tried to change them.  
    
    I think my girlfriend has been more flexible than I have when it
    comes to trying to change each other.
    
    Paul

I just don't think notes is my native form of communication...
I meant 162.29; thank you for taking the time to point out that mistake.
I guess my global issue was something like; I'm tired of defining how
a woman acts by how she acts with her male lover, or how she act
differently from men. It just seems like more "second sex" stuff; object
or reactive instead of subject and active.

And I was getting itchy about leaving out lesbians/bi women in all these
discussions about how women are in relationships (though I've noticed none
of them contributing on this, and this probably isn't the forum for them to
do so).

Thanx again for trying to figure out what I was getting at. Maybe I'll
try real hard to stay read-only, unless I take alot of time to put my
thoughts together and produce a coherent argument.

Except I don't like arguing... :-}
	Mez 

    Mez, I think you raised a very important point!
    
    A very large number of notes in this file have been devoted to women-in-
    relationship-to-men; a large number have been devoted to women-in-
    relationship-to-themselves; a large number have been devoted to
    women-in-relationship-to society; but relatively few have been devoted
    to women in relationship to other women as friends, lovers, sisters,
    and daughters.       
    

    Steven, how are you interpreting my reference to women in relationship
    to themselves?  
    
    Many notes in this conference have addressed the issue of women finding
    out who they are and who they want to become as individuals.  Not
    too many have addressed the issue of being "without relationships"
    specifically, but even that phrasing ("without") implies a "less-than-
    complete" state.  
    
    When I was single, I wouldn't have described myself as "without
    relationships", and I don't think that's what you meant to imply,
    either.
    
    Sometimes I felt great about being on my own and without an "SO".
    I felt free to come and go, to change my life, to be very spontaneous.
    Sometimes I felt lonely, and unloved, too.  
    
    For the first time in my life I am in a nearly-committed relationship
    (that's the way it seems to be heading...) that allows me as much
    freedom to do what I need to do as I had when single.  It also
    challenges me more than being on my own did.  I am happier
    in the relationship than I was on my own, but I also know that if
    the relationship ended I have the resources to be single and strong
    for as long as necessary.  
    
    What have other people experienced?  How do you view yourself when
    single?  Others who are single?  
    
    Why has being single so often been equated with being a loser? 
    Is this a holdover from a predominantly patriarchal society?
    
    Is it a chosen state, or a default we tolerate between relationships?
    I don't know....I've been thinking about this a lot.
                                                          
    Holly

    From my own experiences, I did enjoy being unpartnered very much
    once I started to get over the last relationship.  My "defaults"
    centered around hobbies and other friends.  Although I am once again
    in a relationship, I am much better at "savoring", and especially
    at making time for, the times I am not with my SO than I ever had been
    before.
    
    Sample of my past two months:
    
    Had two rock climbing friends over for dinner (male and female).
    Had two former (female) roommates over to dinner.
    Spent winter solstice evening with those same former roommates to
    	have potluck dinner and decorate their Christmas tree.
    Hiked a mountain two weeks ago with a 62-year old male friend and
    	attended his birthday party that same evening.
    Joined a female friend and her boyfriend and a bunch of his friends
    	(both male and female) at his ski chalet in New Hampshire last
    	weekend.  (although my SO was also there, I would have gone without
    	him had he not wanted to which is always a distinct possibility
    	with him.  Also, we did not ski together during the days).
    Joined my family and cousins for four days of x-c skiing on
        New Years' weekend.
    Saw a movie with an old female college friend.
    Went over to cheer up an overworked female friend who is also an
    	overworked graduate student.
    Took a graduate CS class last semester and am taking one this semester.
    Am taking an art class this semester.
    Saw a play and had dinner with some women from work.

    In October, I bought my own little house, weather-proofed it, and
    painted the interior.  I'm not sitting around waiting for my SO to do
    this with me anymore - not this gal.  Full speed ahead with life
    - with or without him.
    
    	-Ellen

    Re .6
    
    Single people have "failed" to be part of real life??????
    
    Do you really mean this?  When I was not involved in a close
    relationship (i.e. when I was single and did not have an SO), I
    never felt that I had FAILED.  I may have felt lonely (still do
    sometimes), but I accept that loneliness is a factor of human
    existence, not a factor of singleness.
    
    Hobbies/activities/friends were never (and are not now) things to
    fill time between other roles/parts of my life.  They are in themselves
    part of the definition of "me".  The "default" IS me.  What I am
    when I am alone, outside the scope of my relationships, is the core
    of myself.  Should my relationships with others fall away, *I'M*
    still there.
    
    Gloria

        RE:  .9
    
                "Old Maid" is a card game.  I have never (in
          recent years) heard ANYONE refer to an unmarried woman
          of any age as an Old Maid.  That's about as archaic
          as you can get.

                All this stuff about needing to "default" to some
          alternate persona when NOT in a relationship (because
          the relationship DEFINES us) -- you must not have read
          the topic devoted to this very subject (asking the
          question about whether women feel they are DEFINED by
          a man/SO.)
    
                It is NOT mandatory to be defined in terms of a
          relationship (NO MATTER HOW PLEASANT RELATIONSHIPS CAN
          BE!)  I'm not being disloyal to love AT ALL when I say
          that I am actually an honest-to-God PERSON on my own.
          (No need to create one to default to, thanks.)
    
                Besides -- however SOCIETY views single people is
          irrelevant (I don't need societal approval to be a PERSON
          on my own.)  A few people may have some archaic ideas, but
          that doesn't change who I am.
    
                                                      Suzanne

    Re .2
    
    This conference seems to be very good at evading discussions of
    lesbian/bi issues and very good at participating in *safe* discussions.
    It makes me uncomfortable to see effort used to avoid these
    unconventional discussions, or turn them back into discussions of
    how wimmin could/should/shouldn't/etc relate to men.
    
    Perhaps this is because traditionally in the wimmins community,
    these issues are not discussed in a mixed forum.  Or maybe it's
    because of homophobic fear.  Or maybe there aren't any of THEM
    out there.
    
    At the risk of causing spontaneous combustion, I can't  help 
    but get the feeling that most of the members of this conference 
    do not view lesbians/bis as *real wimmin*.
    
    

    <--(.11)
    
    hmmmmmm....  Do you really think the members are "evading" discussion
    of lesbian issues?  I know we have some lesbian (and gay) members but,
    as they aren't "out" in here, it would be difficult for them to
    participate in any such discussion in an uncomplicated way.  And if
    they can't feel safe enough to participate, it would seem pointless (at
    best!!) to carry on without them. 
    
    Am I missing something?
    
    					in Sisterhood,
    					=maggie

>    Am I missing something?

I don't think so.... I haven't seen any conscious efforts to evade or
by-pass the lesbian or bi issues... and I think you hit the nail on
the head when you said that it's rather pointless to carry a discussion
that the real contributors can't contribute to!!

I mean, if you're interested in how *I* feel about lesbians or bi-sexuals,
I'm certainly not the type to hold back... except when Mez tells me I'm
narrowminded....

But how much can you learn from me?

We would need to hear from those of us who can give us insights on what
it FEELS like to live that life...

And it's unfair of us to guess...
    
Karen

Ps - although I can contribute as to what it feels like to be on the
receiving end of an attempt to coerce someone into a lesbian relationship,
but THAT's unfair too, because it paints yet another inaccurate picture
of what lesbianism is.  My experiences relate only to me and she, not
to "women in general".

    I didn't mean to imply it was conscious evasion. Perhaps just 
    uncomfortable.
    
    It just seems that if 10% of the population (at the least) then
    there should be a proportionate amount of discussion.  Especially
    with all the griping about what's wrong with this *man's* world
    we live in, you'd think somebody would have suggested an alternative.
   
    I have the feeling I just opened a can of worms (or two or three).
    
    

    re .11
    here's another person who "views lesbians/bis as *real wimmin*".
    on the other hand, i suspect that this is not a safe enough environment
    for lesbians/bis to talk about that part of their lives that relates
    to their sexuality. i don't have homophobic fear. i do like to respect
    privacy.
    
    liz

    
    We have to face the fact that even in today's society there is 
    discrimination.
    
    Alot of people would probably rather not address their views in
    such a medium.  However this seems to be a very open minded conference
    and discrimination in any major way based upon sexual preference
    is still against the law.  So,  I see this as maybe a good place
    to reverse some of the discrimination and myths of the subject.
    If people who are lesbian/bi/gay stick to santioned conferences
    and so on, then this will just slow the acceptance that they are
    people like anybody else.  There shouldn't be a need for a seperate
    conference or the fear to participate in other conferences (however
    there still is in this day and age), nor the need to become a 
    segregated group nor even a need for solidarity.
    
    If this conference is going to discuss sexuality at all then it
    should be safe to discuss either point of view.  
    
    But, this point of view is probably years ahead of its time.
    Just my  $.02 worth.
    
    Paul
    
    

>    It just seems that if 10% of the population (at the least) then
>    there should be a proportionate amount of discussion.  Especially
>    with all the griping about what's wrong with this *man's* world
>    we live in, you'd think somebody would have suggested an alternative.
   
I may be misunderstanding something fundamental, but what does sexual
orientation (or sexual practices) have to do with political/economic
power?  Are you suggesting that homo- or bi-sexuals are better suited
to function in American society *because* of their specific sexuality?

Martin

    re:.11 Thanx for putting your two cents in, Ms. Dragon Lady :-)
    The tone in the last few replies seems to be saying that it's up
    to lesbian/bi women/wimmin to speak up. I don't agree (100% that
    is). I think if we (the people in this conference) foster equality,
    and (occasionally) try to frame questions so that they are open
    to ALL members of our community, that's what we'll get.
    
    re:.13 To defend my reputation (such as it is), in another conference
    I JOKINGLY called Karen/Bugsy narrowminded (smile face was included).
    I apologize if you took it seriously/personally. It's the same sort
    of narrowmindedness I have to always watch myself about, which is
    probably why I felt the need to say something.
    
    	Mez

    I think it's a very important issue.  For some women, the ultimate
    feminist political position has been to be "women-identified". 
    (One of my undergraduate degrees was in women's studies, and this
    was often fervently discussed in that setting.)  During the 70's
    many women lived as "lesbian separatists" in an attempt to be 
    politically, emotionally and economically independent.  It was also
    a time when "back to the land self reliance" was popular among
    heterosexual people and less radical feminists as well, so it may
    have been a product of the social climate.  However, the women who
    did it took it *very seriously* and I remember some of them
    questioning the feminist commitment of those of us who still 
    chose to "work within the system".
                                                       
    In 1974 I lived in a co-op house with six other women (some
    heterosexual, some lesbian).  I worked at DEC for a month as
    a temporary, and got an offer to come work for DEC permanently 
    at that time, which I turned down.  I remember telling my housemates 
    at dinner about the offer.  Every one of them was appalled at the
    thought of my going to work for a capitalist company, and saw that
    as "selling out" in a major way.  We were all young and idealistic,
    and all of us were very committed to working in "alternative" settings.
    The fact that it was Digital and not IBM made no difference to us
    at that time.  We saw all large companies as exploiting women. 
    I think we also felt that our work efforts should be directed towards
    changing society (especially the oppression of women)  and not
    producing products.  That was considered "politically correct".
    
    If the connection between this answer and the preceding notes isn't
    crystal clear, I am attempting to describe a connection between
    feminism and power and economics that is still very important to
    a number of people who do not choose to work for large companies
    (even today) and who aren't represented here.  Understanding that
    position is an important aspect of understanding one of the reasons
    why some women have chosen to be lesbians, I think.  It has not
    always been a matter of personal sexual preference, but in many
    cases has been a political (I'm using that word to mean "pertaining
    to power") choice/issue.
                               
    And for those reasons, I think the topic belongs in this conference!
    
    

    I, too, noticed that this conversation switched around, and I
    attributed it possible discomfort among straight women and caution
    among the lesbians.  It is not clear, as someone has said, that
    discrimination against someone due to sexual orientation is a 
    no-no.  In many states, it is the accepted way of business. 
    Hence, it is not uncommon for a gay person to feel uncomfortable
    speaking out in a public forum.
    
    I believe this has a place here, also, but who is going to speak?
    We can all talk of generalities, and what we have heard, but I would
    guess that few lesbians are going to say, "and I, as a lesbian
    feminist..." etc, etc.  It is risky, although I imagine from what
    I have read that most people who are vocal in this file would not
    be likely to put any one down for their orientation.
    
    As for the political/sexual link, there still is a push in some
    "wimmin's" communities to stay away from large organizations, and
    even to stay away from any work that involves working with men.
    So many of the world's ills have been attributed to male involvement
    that there are some women who would prefer that men did not even
    exist, and feel that they can be quite fulfilled in all their needs
    by their relationships with other women.  Other women are not so
    "radical".  Perhaps this is something that all of us need to more
    aware of, so that we can support each other no matter what our
    political belief.  I imagine this will be especially hard for some
    of the male members of this notesfile, and understandably so.
    
                     Carol

    On further thought, it occurred to me that in order to explore a
    topic that's hard to discuss in a public forum, it might be useful to
    "give another permission" to talk in parables.
    
    We can make it a little safer than it currently is by encouraging
    people to feel free to state "I have a friend who..." when what
    they might really be saying is "I".   
    
    Lesbians and gay men might feel a little more open by using the
    third person, and in the same way "straight" people might feel more
    able to be honest about some of their feelings by phrasing it in
    the third person, especially if it's something hard to say.
                                                               
    Carol stated it well when she described it as a combination of
    discomfort and caution.  I think it would be an interesting subject
    to discuss, as long as it can be done in a way that is safe for
    those who might be potentially hurt by it.

re: .20 (Carol)
>    As for the political/sexual link, there still is a push in some
>    "wimmin's" communities to stay away from large organizations, and
>    even to stay away from any work that involves working with men.
>    So many of the world's ills have been attributed to male involvement
>    that there are some women who would prefer that men did not even
>    exist, and feel that they can be quite fulfilled in all their needs
>    by their relationships with other women.  

   I guess I can see why some people feel that way, but it's kind of sad.
   I definitely understand not being comfortable working in large
   corporations, but it seems counterproductive to want to segregate
   groups of people, whether it's by sex, race or anything else. It seems
   like a rather extreme response to a problem -- certainly some men (and
   women) won't accept them for their various beliefs, but that doesn't
   mean that none will.

   By definition (by being a man) I don't know any women whose beliefs
   are so radical. Do they think that they can solve "so many of the
   world's ills" by being separate, or are they just avoiding the issues?

   We knew a gay male couple who recently split. One of them was not very
   comfortable in the straight world, and so avoided it as much as
   possible. I guess that's the same thing, but it was unfortunate
   because it meant that we didn't get to see him much. It made his life
   easier, but he (and we) lost a little. Another of life's tradeoffs.

>					      Other women are not so
>    "radical".  Perhaps this is something that all of us need to more
>    aware of, so that we can support each other no matter what our
>    political belief.

   I agree with others that this notesfile is probably a safe place, but
   if I were gay, I'm not sure that I'd make announcements about it here
   unless it were already public knowledge. Even then I might worry --
   notesfiles aren't really like conversations, because they're so open,
   not to mention being permanent records. Real conversations are closed;
   you get to decide who to tell different things to. Perhaps anonymity
   is the answer. The moderators could handle messages from people who
   have things to say, and don't want to sign their names. This has been
   done in the past here.
					-- hal

    
    I don't think segregation is the answer, actually that usually 
    adds to the discrimination.  Also being anonymous is possible 
    but seems like it wouldn't work very well (I don't know why though).
    Maybe there's no great answer, at least for this conference.
    However I do feel this is a very open minded conference and theres
    alot of good topics, its a shame to limit the topics to "safe" 
    conversations.  I think everyone who contributes to this conference
    is very open minded and respects the rights of others, (I don't
    favor making this a closed conference, that would just defeat my
    point)...
    
    So all in all, I really have no answer other than that I would be
    happy to help anyone in any way possible that has been harassed
    or bothered in any because of expressing their views in this file.
    
    Paul

    I think that all women have valued opinions and some of those opinions
    are influenced by their sexual orientation.  If in expressing
    themselves they might in turn reveal that they are lesbian and that
    causes concern...perhaps the moderators would insert those notes
    anonymously.

    There is (or was, last I noticed) a conference for gay and
    lesbian issues - GDE by name, I forget the node.  It was, by
    necessity, restricted to members only.
    
    I can fully understand and sympathize with the gays and lesbians
    who don't wish to mention their orientation in these open conferences.
    However, I have seen notes by a few noters who openly admit that
    they are gay or lesbian.  I don't think the lack of such notes here
    implies any bias on the part of the conference or its participants
    - merely the state of the society in which we live.
    
    By the way, I am always bothered by that "10%" figure that is bandied
    about in reference to the portion of the population that is supposedly
    gay or lesbian.  I just don't believe it, and don't feel it should
    be used as a method of judging the supposed bias of this conference.
    
    As a moderator myself, I agree with the notion of anonymous notes.
    HUMAN_RELATIONS has an explicit mechanism for creating such notes,
    but it has only been used twice in the history of the conference.
    The catch is that at least one moderator must be able to determine
    the authorship of any note in the conference - one cannot avoid
    responsibility for one's contributions by making them anonymous.
    					Steve

Some feminists say "a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
But I say a woman without a man is like a fish without a little pastel pink
ceramic castle in her aquarium. Because a bicycle is basically a useful
thing, even if a fish can't use it, and a man is more like a pastel pink
ceramic castle: kind of decorative in a tacky way but a useless piece of
junk all the same.

Ahr ahr, that's humor folks. :-)

But seriously, I beleive that homosexual thoughts and feelings are very
common for both men and women, and I also think that probably more than 10%
of the population of both men and women is capable of having relationships
with members of their own sex that include erotic feelings, and expression
of those feelings is natural in an intimate relationship with someone you
trust. In other words, I beleive it's OK to be gay, and gay men and lesbians
are everywhere.  

Personally I know a lot of gays and lesbians, and not all from the GDE
conference either. Although I do know some who are into high tech careers,
including some DEC employees, and some who even contribute to this
conference, I also know some who don't know which end of a computer is up. I
know some in the arts, one in law, one in medicine, several enterpreneurs,
some in menial jobs, some are even homemakers and parents.

I don't beleive discussion of Lesbian relationships, issues, culture,
politics or whatever should be confined to GDE. I think this is an
application of the principle, "I am not free so long as there is anyone
living in slavery." As long as Lesbians are oppressed for their love of
women then no woman is truly free to express her sexuality. And since all
women are sexual creatures (however they choose to express that) this is a
topic that is of general interest.

Don

    	All people who have access to this and all other notes files
    should be free to state their opinions without fear of reprecusion,
    providing the bounds of good taste are respected.  However, there
    is prejudice in our world (including DEC) and by exposing aspects
    of ourselves which leave us unprotected from the prejudices we take
    chances with our futures.  Not all people are strong enough
    (foolish enough?) to risk the future in a note file.  I am very
    outspoken, believing we can all learn both from our own mistakes
    and from the mistakes of others.  But, there are some mistakes I
    have made which I will not discuss in a forum as open as notes.
    Not out of fear for my job but concern for being properly understood.
    
    Douglas

    
    
    I dont think there is any need to change this notes file.
    (Not that anyone has really suggested that).  I think the way
    the file is now is very good.  There's no need to avoid any topics
    and if people wish to be anonymous than thats fine too.  Just the
    fact that there has been a good discussion on the topic is a good
    sign anyways.  If people wish to converse on such a topic thats
    fine, If they wish not to, thats also fine.
    
    Theres also no need to point people towards other conferences, I
    think we should just "play it by ear", if something becomes too
    contraversial it can always be removed, but I don't think that will
    happen.
    
    Paul    

    		What struck me most about some of the recent replies
    	to this note was the idea that someone could choose a sexual
    	orientation based on their politics.  I hadn't ever thought/
    	realized that it was possible to do that (to choose a sexual
    	orientation.)  I'm making a differentiation here between
    	sexual PRACTICES and sexual orientation.
    
    		It reminds me of a series of notes awhile back in
    	another conference (something about "If you don't date people
    	of another race, then you are a bigot.")  Made me ask myself,
    	"Does that mean I should go out looking for a person of another
    	race to date to PROVE that I'm *NOT* a bigot?"  (I had to
    	furthur ask myself, "Would I want someone to ask me out and
    	then say, 'There!  That'll prove to the world that I'm not
    	prejudiced against female hardware engineers' or whatever.)
    	No, I don't think I'd like that.
    
    		Back in 1968, I read a book written by a well-known
    	Black Extremist who preached the philosophy that blacks should
    	hate all whites.  (He wanted blacks to attain power, but be
    	totally separate from whites.)  During the same time, I met
    	a white male (quite racist) who told me, "It's natural in
    	our civilization for one race to be on top.  It happens to
    	be us, but it could have been them.  If they had the chance,
    	they'd do the SAME THING to us that WE are doing to THEM!!
    	What they want is to beat us down and be the ones on top.
    	So -- we have to stop them, because whatever gains they make
    	will be at OUR expense!!"  (Of course, I was enraged at this.)

    		At that moment, though, I felt lost between the two
    	extremes.  The famous black extremist would have to hate me
    	because I am white.  Yet, there was no way in the world that
    	I could agree with the white extremist.    (I realized
    	then that there had to some sort of vast middle ground between
    	both sides if anything resembling acceptance/equality/tolerance
    	was ever to exist between the races.)  Then I wondered how I
    	would feel if I were black (listening to someone preach hatred
    	of all whites.)  How tied would I feel to the bond of common
    	oppression?
    
    		That's how I feel when I hear talk about Extremist
    	Feminists (who would like to see a world where men do not
    	exist.)  I remember in my heart that the Extremist Feminists
    	did much to push the women's movement into reality (so that
    	millions of women could walk through doors that were not
    	open to them before.)  I feel a common bond of oppression
    	(which I think I have satisfactorily resolved for myself) --
    	but I do remember the feeling and can understand the concept
    	of wanting economic freedom from men.  (I happen to have that
    	freedom myself on a personal level.)
    
    		When the concepts of politics and sexual orientation
    	become combined, I'm caught in a dilemna.  I totally support
    	(100%) the idea that people should be able to live in a 
    	society that accepts an individual's sexual orientation (even
    	if it is contrary to the orientation of the majority.)  In
    	other words, I'm offended (in general) at the idea that 
    	gay males and lesbians should have to worry about how OTHER
    	PEOPLE feel about their sexual orientations.  I realize that
    	our society is still in that "mode" right now (and there is
    	nothing I can do about it) -- but it bothers me.
    
    		In a political sense, I have to say that I can't
    	agree with Extremism from either side when it comes to
    	sexism.  I still think that there has to be a common ground
    	(since we are all on this planet together.)  So when I see
    	the concept presented of "hating all men" (which sounds so
    	familiar to the idea of "hating all whites"), I have to
    	stand up for the idea that we will never have acceptance/
    	equality/tolerance until we meet together in the middle
    	ground.  (That's just my OWN personal opinion!!)
    
    		As a human, I have to say that I can see the value
    	AND the beauty of intimate relationships between persons who happen
    	to have the sexual orientation to love members of the same
    	sex.  However, as much as I support the freedom to pursue
    	one's natural sexual orientation, I can't accept the political
    	idea of being totally separate from members of the opposite
        sex in a societal sense.

    		How closely tied together are politics and sexual
    	orientation -- I don't know.  My own experiences with men
    	as love interests have had an effect on my personal life,
    	but not on my politics (that I can see.)  I would have a
    	real problem if, in order to accept lesbianism, I have to
    	accept some certain form of feminism (extreme or otherwise)
    	at the same time.
    
    		I'm not saying that this is the case -- I'm asking
    	a question.  Is this true (that the two ideas are that
    	closely tied together?)  I was never conscious of that at
    	any time until this note (so I'm wondering if that is what
    	is being said.)
    
    							Suzanne...

    <--(.29)
    
    Thank you, PK.  It is *very* gratifying to have the ice broken so
    neatly and straightforwardly.  Now, perhaps, other women can feel safe
    enough to write about their experience of life.
    
    						in Sisterhood,
    						=maggie 

    <--(.30)
    
    I agree with your confusion about choosing an "orientation", Suzanne;
    far's I know that's not possible unless, as you alluded to, one defines
    practice as orientation (not an unreasonable thing to do, but one that
    leaves us without a term for innate ...um, orientation).  On the other
    hand, someone who is naturally bisexual would equally naturally
    experience sexuality as being a matter of choice, and since the
    principle of natural distributions suggests that most of us started
    out bisexual regardless of our present, post-socialisation, states....
    
    As to the question of having to sign up for fang-and-claw separatism
    in order to be a Real Lesbian or whatever, I suspect that that notion
    has about as much validity...and as little...in the lesbian community
    as the Black Separatist movement did/does in the black community.
    Or for that matter the notion, current until pretty soon ago, that
    in order to be a Real Psychologist one had to construe everything
    in behaviorist terms.  The will to demand Political Correctness
    of others seems inextirpatible.
    
    						=maggie
    
    

    The following reponse is from a member of our community who wishes to
    remain anonymous at this time. 
                     
    						=maggie
    
    =====================================================================
    
I am one of those who is "cautious" yet about speaking out openly.
My lover and I have been together over 2 years.  We, like an earlier noter,
live pretty "normal" lives.  We own a house and cars together.  We have
pets.  We both work, and are planning on children through artificial 
insemination.  Both sets of parents know about us and are pretty accepting.
Since there is no state which recognizes a marriage (Holy Matrimony) of two 
women, and since we really wanted to publicly commit our lives together before
God and family and friends, we had a Holy Union (which is similar to Holy
Matrimony, but has no legal significance). 

Neither of us "chose" to be gay.  We both feel that we were born that way.
Actually, I believe that people may be born with a predisposition to be gay,
and that environment then is the determining factor before the age of 2 or 3.
I am not the only gay in my family.

It is true that some women choose to live a lesbian lifestyle due to political 
reasons, but in truth I have never met one who did so.

Lavender Jane

P.S.  People use different names for their SO.  I use lover, spouse, partner,
and SO (Love of my Life gets too long).

    	
    re .30
    There are feminists and then there are feminists.  Not all feminists
    are lesbian, but being a lesbian without being at least a little
    bit of a feminist seems self-defeating.  Also not all lesbian feminists
    are radical separtists.
    
    The rest of this is just personal opinion-
    There often is a connection between Politics and sexual orientation.
    Entrenched in the radical feminist culture is a very clear message that
    in order to support wimmin, you shouldn't, support men. Of course,
    different wimmin interpret this message in different ways, but their
    is a great deal of pressure towards building a separtist society.
    The pressure extends from buying wimmin made products, to not
    supporting big business, to being totally woman-identified.  How
    you reconcile feminism and having a loving relationship with a man
    is something I was never able to figure out.
    
    Back when I was in a straight relationship, I remember catching
    a lot of flack for it from my feminist friends.  I don't recall
    any pressure to become a lesbian, but I do remember a lot of pressure
    to not give any energy to him.  I was a bizarre time, trying to
    build a marraige and not serve my *oppressors* at the same time.
    There seemed to be very little constructive energy in the feminist
    community and I felt like I was being manipulated quite threatened
    by the view of the world I was being told to adopt.  I ended up
    walking away from the movement entirely for about 5 years.
    
    Things changed considerably in the last few years.  After too many
    relationships with men that just didn't work, I finally figured
    out that I was gay.  So here I am, a lesbian who's still extremely
    irritated at the feminist community. I can't see trading the social
    baggage wimmin carry in the straight world for a whole new set of
    rules regarding how I'm supposed to act and  who I'm supposed to
    like/hate.
    
    My politics are my own, not those of any group. Certainly  my views
    are influenced by my lifestyle, but I don't let it dictate what
    I believe.  I guess my momma raised me to be too independent to
    be socially acceptable.
    
    
    

    I can't really understand how sexual orientation can be a choice.
     I would have thought that it would be as simple as either men turn
    you on, or women turn you on, or in some cases both, and that would
    be that.  For example, when I watch a Bruce Springsteen video I
    think, "Would I ever love to jump on his bones!", but when I watch
    a Stevie Nicks video I think, "She's really pretty", but I have
    no desire to touch her.  But, if I *did* want to touch her and she
    felt the same way, I don't feel that it would be anyone else's business
    to offer their moral views on the matter.  In matters regarding
    sex, I've always just tried to do what comes naturally, and so far,
    no matter how angry I may get at men generically, it's only been
    men who have turned me on sexually.  So, maybe I have a love/hate
    attitude to the opposite sex.
    
    Just for the record, I've always believed ever since I was very
    young, that people should be free to live their lives any way they
    choose.  I can't imagine why some people have the presumption to
    think it is their business who somebody else has sex with.
    
    Public opinion in this country should be more concerned with how
    many people still belong to the Ku Klux Klan than how many people
    are gay!
    
    I have to comment on Suzanne's mentioning the topic in Soapbox (?)
    about racial dating.  I know I put in a response to that topic saying
    that as far as I was concerned anybody who was at all bothered by
    racial dating WAS a racist, but I didn't say that everyone should
    go out and look for a member of another race to date.  (Although,
    I'm not totally convinced that wouldn't be a good idea either...)
    Anyway, the way I would compare racial dating to dating another
    woman is this.  I knew from the time I was very young (12,13) that
    I thought black men were just as attractive as white men, so it
    really didn't surprise *me* when I eventually dated a few.  But,
    I've never been attracted to other women so I'd be very surprised
    if I ever am.  But, if I am someday, I won't let fear of public
    opinion stand in my way.  If it's mutual, go for it.
    
    I've always thought the differences in the world make it more
    interesting.  I was very interested to read the responses from women
    who have chosen women.  
    
    Lorna
    

    Someone mentioned somewhere along the way that if someone is bisexual,
    she may be pushed toward women-relationships because of sexual
    politics.  I would like to make a stronger assertion based on this
    one.  There is a theory (which I believe) that states that the vast
    majority of people are neither strictly heterosexual nor are they
    strictly homosexual, but are located somewhere on a continuum.
    Depending on a person's (woman or men) experiences, I can see how
    politics would push someone toward homosexuality.
    
    I am heterosexual.  However, I can visualize a situation where I
    might be pushed toward a homosexual relationship.  If there was
    no man around whom I considered suitable for me, then I might be
    likely to come into a lesbian relationship if there was a suitable
    woman nearby.  But of course I don't know for sure.
    
    Another thought on homosexuality:  Homosexuality in the animal
    kingdom (10%, I think) has been well-documented. (An argument to
    use against the types who call it a "crime against nature".)
    
    	-Ellen

    I had a good friend about 20 years ago who was very promiscious
    (with men.) She married twice (I was her bridesmaid the first time).
    I ran into her again after many years and found that she was
    now in a committed lesbian relationship. I also found out for the
    first time that she had been sexually abused by her father. 
    
    I have often wondered if her increasing feminism, plus her reaction
    to the abuse situation had pushed the balance towards lesbian
    realtionships. I gather from what Ellen is saying that this is at
    least a possibility.
    
Bonnie

    Bonnie,
    
    I can speak from personal experience, I was sexually molested by
    my step=fther at age 4 (numerous times), and I am very much hetero.
    I really feel that people are born with the sexual preferance, not
    made to be one way or the other.  I have had both male and female
    friends who preferred their own gender, and after telling of my
    childhood and comparing theirs; they were all by choice not by force.
    
    Granted this is my opinion, but it is something I truely believe.
    
    Mary-Lynn

    Mary-Lynn,
    I had also believed that a person is born either heterosexual
    or homosexual, that it is a matter of biology not personal
    choice. The previous comment, however, that a bisexual person
    might be pushed towards a lesbian orientation by politics
    (and my friend is a very strong feminist also) made me ask
    the questions about the abuse situation. 
    
    Bonnie

    I tend toward the belief that a person's sexual orientation is on
    a "continum".  I know that I am vigorously heterosexual, but photos
    of nude men do nothing for me.  However, I find the naked female
    body very arousing (under the right circumstances -- not when changing
    clothes with my sister).  Yet I have no urge to be physically intimate
    with females.  
    
    I think that loving oneself/one's own body, and appreciating one's
    own sexuality, leads to a better appreciation of homosexuality and
    the kind of visual, non-tactile attraction I have towards women.
    
    Gloria
    

    re: 41 A good deal of western art (mostly post Renaissance) has
    praised the (naked) female body, while generally ignoring the male
    body (yes, there are exceptions). Women (as part of society) are
    taught that women's bodies are beautiful.
    	Mez

    re: .43
    
    I do not agree that it is possible for anyone to learn an orientation
    regardless of biology.  If someone is born close to the middle of
    Kinsey's continuum (which goes from 0 to 6, with 0 being exclusively
    heterosexual), then yes, they could be swayed by experiences and
    beliefs.  However, if someone is a 0,1,5, or 6 I do not think that
    they could change their orientation, although they may change their
    actions (meaning the way some Christian gay men have been pressured
    to become "straight" so they get married to a woman).
    
    As to why women might want men around in the first place, why don't
    you start a topic about that?
    
                    Carol

    Dear Steve...
    
    I really know very little about sexual orientation. Most of the
    text books I've read indicated that a person is born with
    a particular sexual orientation, just like they are born with
    a particular potential height, weight, or talent. Just as diet
    or educational opportunites may affect the full expression of
    genetic potentials such as height or musical talent there is
    apparently some environmental input into one's sexual preferences
    but how much is debatable.
    
    As has been said before there is apparently a continum of sexual
    behavior with completely heterosexual on one end and completely
    homosexual on the other end. Society tends to push us towards
    the heterosexual end of the spectrum.
    
    Most psychiatrists today feel that homosexuality is not a personality
    disorder (as it had been considered in the past) and not only
    is it impossible to change the true sexual orientation of adults,
    but attempts to "cure" homosexuals are an expression of bias, and
    a complete waste of time.

    Some months ago I got involved in a discussion on Homosexuality
    in Religion notes. At the time I did some research and entered
    a long note in that conference. I don't know if it would be
    worthwhile to try and extract that information and enter it here.
    (Assuming it is still possible to access the notes since the conference
    closed down.)

    There must surely be people more knowledgeable than myself on this
    topic reading this conference. I hope that if anyone feels I have made 
    any errors in my information they will feel free to correct me.
    
    As to women getting along without men.....I for one could never
    do it! :-) Men are half of the human race, make excellant friends,
    and one very special man has been my best friend and husband for
    nearly 21 years.
    
    Bonnie

    Re - the idea of sexual orientation being a choice
    
    I thought about a number of gay and lesbian friends I have known
    over the years.  Some of them have known about their sexual orientation
    since they were three, but a large number of others went the
    heterosexual route to which they had been socialized (dating, marriage
    and so forth).  It was only after experiencing unhappiness in those
    relationships that they sought relationships with members of the
    same sex.
    
    They had choices.  Some knew they would be happier in gay/lesbian
    relationships, but "remained" heterosexual and in a marriage because
    of their children.  Others left their marriages, and tried to make
    it in the straight world with another heterosexual partner before
    having the courage to "come out".  Other friends alternate back
    and forth between relationships with one sex and then the other.
    Others left their marriages with a great sense of relief, and
    immediately became very openly gay/lesbian.  There were even a few
    who "became" (=lived as) lesbians for political reasons during the
    70's, yet who have returned to men for personal reasons in recent
    years.
    
    For some people, the basic orientation is a choice.  Those are the
    ones I imagine to be near the middle of the Kinsey scale.  For others,
    the orientation is not a choice.
    
    How one expresses their orientation is always a choice.  Celibacy
    is always a choice, too.
    
    I read something last year (it may have been in the book Lesbian
    Nuns) about this.  Someone in the Catholic Church has determined
    that it is ok to *be* gay/lesbian.  It is not ok (according to them)
    to *act on* those beliefs.  So a nun could "come out" as long as she
    keeps her vows.  She can think and act like a lesbian as long as
    she doesn't express it sexually.  (I doubt this is widely accepted,
    but it seems to be prevalent in some circles.)
    
    This brings up some interesting questions about these roles as other-
    than-sexual roles/identities/lifestyles.
    
      

    re: .47
    I thought it was actually the Pope who said something about being
    gay was not a sin, but acting on it was (ah hahve luhsted in mah
    hahrt... :-)). Any body know exactly where this came from?
    	Mez

    Re: 48
    
    	Jimmy Carter, as quoted in Playboy.

    The following response was written by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous at this time.
                                                                     
    						=maggie
    =================================================================
    
    I was prompted to write this as a response in 185. -- some reference to
    "AC/DC" caught my eye :-) -- but felt it didn't belong there since I'm
    not asking any questions and am not in the position to answer the
    questions that will be answered by "pk".  Still, I wouldn't feel
    comfortable revealing my identity, and thanks to Maggie for posting
    this for me.  I've decided to put it here because it's about choices. 

    I must be near the middle of Kinsey's continuum.  I was aware of my
    attraction to my girlfriends at puberty, but this was (easily, I think)
    "ignored" or "turned off" as I grew into and beyond adolescence.  At
    any rate, I don't think I felt any pain which could have been
    associated with denial or repression, and the boys in my class and
    neighborhood where the objects of my silly mad crushes. 

    When I got to college I became socially acquainted with a teacher I
    admired.  The relationship was fraught with a tension I didn't
    understand. Slowly, I realised that its cause was my
    more-than-a-friend's attraction to her.  It's possible that the
    attraction was mutual, the "times" and the community were "liberal"
    (perhaps radical) and lesbianism (in my memory at least) seemed to be
    enjoying "fad" status -- but, she was married, I had a boyfriend, and
    for whatever other reasons which may have been but are now forgotten,
    the attraction was never discussed or brought beyond fantasy. We went
    about our lives and let each other slip away.  After awhile, my
    boyfriend "split" for Europe, never to return. 

    At that point in time, I was living in a house with 5 other women.
    Without a man for the first time in a long time and without desire for
    any but my (long gone) beau, I came to spend alot of time with my
    housemates.  I was very close to one of the women in the house; we
    spent the long summer days and nights together talking, listening to
    music, walking around town, and drinking cheap wine and playing endless
    chess games on the front porch.  We each had a key to the other's room.
    We both kept journals and we both snooped.  M_ left me a message in her
    journal, saying she'd been reading mine, she'd read my thoughts and
    feelings for my friend/teacher, she had "feelings" for women too, she
    had feelings for _me_, she'd never known anyone she could confide in
    about these feelings, and she was curious.... Eventually, we became
    "involved."  It was exhilirating, thrilling.  Even in such liberal
    times, it had the exciting edge of something forbidden.  It was easy.
    Our academic careers came to an end.  We moved to different places.  We
    suffered our hurt feelings. 

    I agonized for a time over "what I was".  Men had always been very
    attractive to me sexually, and I'd just realised that women were too.
    I doubted the authenticity of both my old attraction and my new-found
    one. For a time I thought that loving a woman had given me something
    "more"... I wondered if that something was a thing that I
    wouldn't/couldn't find with a man.  Being monogamous, and ideally
    wanting to be united with another person in a committed relationship, I
    definitely felt that there was a choice to be made:  between a
    homosexual and a heterosexual lifestyle.  If there was absolutely no
    stigma attached to the choice, who knows?  But because there was a
    choice to be made, and the "easier" path was the heterosexual one, I
    chose to love men.  But I'll never forget _her_. 

.....

RE: .51  I found your story beautiful and moving.  Thank you for sharing it.
...Karen