Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyFebruary 17th, 2015
I don’t know why I find it so compelling, this anti-gay strategy of asking scary gotcha questions instead of offering substantive arguments, but I always feel a near-irresistible urge to answer them. Apparently it’s always been this way. This is from one of my first-grade teacher evaluations:
Well, finally Bobby remembers to raise his hand to talk. I was so pleased and then he acquired a new twist. Now when he raises his hand he keeps saying my name until I answer. So we are currently working on that.
Yes, I was that kid (“Mrs. Boyer! Mrs. Boyer! Mrs. Boyer!”) who always had to know the answer.
Well, I found another list of questions, this time from Jason Salamone, who “is a former liberal agnostic, but surrendered to Christ on April 7th, 2011.”
I have a few questions for the pro-homosexual practice crowd and same-sex “marriage” advocates. I have no issues with them attempting to actually answer the following questions, feel free, but I’m also respectfully challenging them to ponder these questions themselves…
I actually like this list, because it’s as if he compiled what our opponents considered their best unanswerable gotchas. Might be handy for us to a set of ready-made responses. He’s got 21 questions, so I’ll do 11 today and the rest in my next post.
To begin:
1.) Why do many homosexual activist groups like GLSEN teach that sexuality is fluid when children and teens claim they like the opposite sex or are not even interested in sex, but when a child or teen says he or she is attracted to the same sex, then sexuality is all of the sudden fixed?
So that’s how it’s going to be: You’re going to invent caricatures and demand we defend them. This a recurring problem for anti-gays who employ the just askin’ strategy. You’re not merely confessing your ignorance — no harm in that; confessing ignorance is the first step to enlightenment — but you reveal your ignorance is less than innocuous by showing off the false things you are determined to “know.”
I’d rather you had asked an honest question, but these three points might help you anyway. First, keep in mind that just because one’s sexuality may change, that doesn’t mean one can choose to change it. As a (very) rough analogy, consider height: it changes throughout one’s life, increasing when one is young and decreasing later in life. That doesn’t mean one can will it to change.
Second, even if some people can change their sexual orientation, that doesn’t mean that most or even many people can.
Finally, please note that apparent changes in one’s sexuality are often changes in one’s sexual awareness. Kids and teens are so often told their sexual feelings are evil, wicked, and abominable, it’s no wonder they submerge these feelings until they can be held down no longer.
(2.) What are the scientifically observable elements of sexuality besides the sexual organs and the associated chemical and hormonal processes?
Odd question. It’s hard to scientifically observe what any part of us is besides our physical bodies and their associated processes. Since science deals chiefly with measurable physical phenomena, it’s a pretty lame gotcha to ask which nonphysical aspects of, well, anything are “scientifically observable.”
I suspect from your later questions you’re trying to set up the notion that there is no objective evidence for “sexual orientation,” but if you do allow science to be science, then we can use a great many techniques to measure physiological reactions to sexual stimuli.
(3.) When you ask the rhetorical question “when did you choose to be straight?,” can you please tell us how does pointing to something that has never been under dispute and what is responsible for our existence (man-woman relationships/marriage) make a positive case for homosexual practice being normal, natural, and healthy?
I don’t even understand the question (“something that has never been under dispute”?). And what gap in your understanding led you to think that When did you choose to be straight? has anything to do with whether being gay is normal, natural, and healthy? Being gay is all those things, of course, but the point of our question is simply to push back on the notion that it’s a choice.
Actually, I prefer a different question: could you choose to feel a passionate sexual attraction to a member of your own sex? That’s a really good one. If you answer no, you’re admitting it’s not a choice. If you answer yes, that opens up a new and intriguing conversation (see my last note to your first question).
(4.) Why is self-evident biology of man (XY) and woman (XX) just a “state of mind,” but homosexual feelings and desires are incapable of being subjected to the self-determination and free will exercise of changing one’s mind?
If you can find someone who says our chromosomal structure is just a state of mind, you can ask them. In the meantime, you might want to explore this.
I’m intrigued, though, by your notion that changing one’s orientation is just a matter of “changing one’s mind.” Now, I don’t hold that every anti-gay person is secretly gay (some people are probably just drawn to the moral laziness of fiercely opposing something that doesn’t tempt them at all; it lets them feel self-righteous without the bother of examining their own character). Still, your phrasing of these questions seems reveal quite a bit about your own relationship with sex and sexuality.
(5.) It is already true that every adult can marry another adult of the opposite sex….can they not? So if every adult person already can marry another adult of the opposite sex, how is not redefining marriage a form of discrimination?
Oo, you got me! Let’s extend this reasoning. Since every person can attend a Christian church, how would outlawing synagogues be a form of discrimination?
Actually, I made a fun little cartoon on that topic a while back.
Basically, though, it comes down to this: giving everyone an equal right to do only what you want them to is not freedom or equality. It’s just discrimination with you in charge of who gets discriminated against.
(6.) If homosexuality is about love and not about sex, why can’t any two or more adults who claim to love each other get the same legal marriage benefits that same sex couples will get via legalizing homosexual/genderless “marriage?”
Who said homosexuality is not about sex? It’s about sex. It’s about love. It’s about a great many things. Rephrase the question to take out your opening caricature and get back to me.
(7.) Why do liberals and homosexual advocates commit what is called the “taxi-cab fallacy?” Why do they use faulty logic to get what they want, but will then avoid taking their ideology to its logical end? Isn’t granting marriage to any and all adult relationships the logical end of taking the “marriage is only about adults and their love” ideology to its logical end? If the homosexual activist approves of two brothers or two sisters having sex and/or getting married, aren’t they revealing to the world that they themselves have no moral standards? And if they do NOT approve, doesn’t that make them what they often accuse Christians of being….complete hypocrites?
I’m going to have to break this up into bits.
Why do liberals and homosexual advocates commit what is called the “taxi-cab fallacy?” Why do they use faulty logic to get what they want, but will then avoid taking their ideology to its logical end?
I doubt your ability to identify our “faulty logic” or its “logical end,” given that you don’t even seem to know that our logic is, clinging instead to caricatures and straw men.
Isn’t granting marriage to any and all adult relationships the logical end of taking the “marriage is only about adults and their love” ideology to its logical end?
Do you know anyone who says marriage is “only about adults”? In any case, this shows up how lazy your just askin’ strategy is. You haven’t made a case that even your caricature of our logic leads the end you’ve named. Basically, you’re asking us to refute an argument you haven’t made.
If the homosexual activist approves of two brothers or two sisters having sex and/or getting married, aren’t they revealing to the world that they themselves have no moral standards?
No, of course not. This is an odd and tiresome strategy commonly used by your side. You assume that because someone disagrees with you on one moral issue then they must have no moral standards at all. But there’s no necessary inconsistency between condoning consensual incest and also denouncing murder, theft, rape, molestation, and other coercive acts. You should be able to see that regardless of your own personal stance on incest.
And if they do NOT approve, doesn’t that make them what they often accuse Christians of being….complete hypocrites?
How so? Once again, you’re asking us to refute an argument you haven’t made. I’ll give you a head start. Since a key component of our argument is that bans on same-sex marriage effectively exclude gay people from meaningful marriages, the only way to extend the argument to cover incestuous couples is show there are people out there who can only feel romantic and sexual for family members. Good luck with that.
(8.) When two women claim, via homosexual “marriage,” that they are capable of having the same relationship as a man and woman do, does that not imply that every man’s contribution to relationships, marriage, and family is replaceable and unnecessary? Is that not a form of discrimination against men, and the fatherhood only men can provide, based on their biological sex?
No.
Oh all, right, I’ll address yet another argument you haven’t really made. When two elderly people marry, is that a form of discrimination against young people?
The real problem here is your assumption that there are things that only a man can provide. I’ll grant you sperm (that didn’t come out quite right) but not much else. When it comes to raising kids, men can mother (and women can father). And when it comes relationships, my choice of spouse ends up discriminating against all other people in the world. And so does yours. But that’s not the sort of freedom-destroying insidious force most people have in mind when they denounce discrimination.
No, actually, it is bans on same-sex marriage that force us to discriminate against one gender in favor of another, that take away our freedom not to discriminate based on gender.
Wow, put it like that, and your argument comes down to: Forcing people to discriminate is the only way to prevent discrimination. Orwell would be so proud.
(9.) When two men claim, via homosexual “marriage” that their relationship is just as much a relationship or marriage as a man-woman committed relationship, does that not implicitly dismiss any contribution of every woman, thus also claiming women are not essential to relationships, marriage, and family? Is that not a form of discrimination against women, and the motherhood only women can provide, based on their biological sex?
Yeah, okay, see question 8.
(10.) Can you also please tell us how redefining marriage to make biological parenting optional and unnecessary won’t encourage more instances of this form of discrimination?
We’ve already disposed of your discrimination argument.
Also, you act as if this is somehow new, but “biological parenting” has always been “optional and unnecessary” for married couples. Some couples choose not to procreate; we don’t automatically divorce them. Some couples cannot procreate; we do not forbid them to marry, even when it’s obvious due to age.
In fact, there’s only one circumstances I can think of where there’s a requirement about biological parenting, and that’s when first cousins marry. Some states allow that only when the cousins can prove they cannot procreate.
Though that really messes up your whole question, doesn’t it.
(11.)…and as a result, won’t DELIBERATELY deprive children their right to be raised by both a loving mother and father?
I could point out that banning same-sex marriage deprives children of their right to be raised by two loving moms or two loving dads. You’d likely throw up your hands and say, There is no such right!, but that just begs the question of where you found that right to a mom and dad. You might argue that the bio-mom-dad structure is better than two moms or two dads, but we know you can’t prove that, no matter how much money you pour into rigged, poorly-designed studies.
That’s it for today. We can pick up with #12 next time.
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Bose in St. Peter MN
February 17th, 2015
This is old, tired, irrationality: “…why can’t any two or more adults who claim to love each other get the same legal marriage benefits…?”
The implication is that straight college roommates will cause havoc if they choose to marry, despite never having a sexual relationship. But of course, any pair of opposite-sex singles have had the option to marry, free of needing to justify themselves (apart from rare cases like green-card marriages).
The reason that people almost never marry their platonic friends is that real costs and burdens ensue: If you marry your bff/roommate, there’s no marrying a person you love; no break-up without a complex, often slow, divorce; assets, debts and credit scores are shared equitably; you’ll pay more taxes if your incomes are comparable; and, it’s no small thing to identify your marital status or (ex-)spouse at times for the rest of your life.
MR Bill
February 17th, 2015
Well done sir!
Hyhybt
February 17th, 2015
Far better done than the questions deserve, as usual. Bravo!
CPT_Doom
February 18th, 2015
Some thoughts:
Re: sexual fluidity. Salamone also seems to be confusing individual with species concepts. There is no doubt that sexuality and gender are fluid concepts when one looks at the human species as a whole. However there is very little evidence that sexuality or gender (like IQ or hair color) is fluid for an individual. There are certainly bisexual people who may feel stronger attractions to one gender or another at different times in their lives, but there is no evidence I know of that their underlying sexuality actually undergoes any change.
Re: “self evident biology of man (XY) and woman (XX)” Salamone does realize that gender is not solely based on these two options right? There are women with XY chromosomes and men who have XXY chromosomes. Then there is the epigenetic evidence that all genes must be turned on and off during fetal development, so the XX or XY combination cannot predict, with 100% accuracy, what gender the person will be. After all, albinos have genes for hair and eye color that didn’t operate as expected, and kids born with disfigured limbs after their mothers took thalidomide had the genes to create limbs, the drug caused them to not work.
Re: adult siblings marrying. Salamone must acknowledge that the social mores covering incest are applicable to both biological and adopted siblings. At the same time, most people would agree that two half siblings with the same donor Daddy who were not raised as siblings should be able to marry, as would two adopted siblings who were never raised together (e.g., the father they have in common deserted one wife for another, adopted children with both wives, but never had contact with wife #1 after leaving her). Why is that? Could it be our squeamishness at incest is not purely biological, but based on the unique bonds siblings form, which would be violated by sexual intimacy?
Priya Lynn
February 18th, 2015
Well done, CPT_Doom. I strongly agree with your comments regarding sexual “fluidity”. Us bisexuals may shift from one gender to another which could be described as fluid in the sense that the gender of the partners we select can change, but our attractions are no more possible to change than they are for gays or heteroesexuals – we can’t go from being bisexual to straight or gay, or, say from being 70% woman attracted/30% men attracted to 30% woman attracted/70% men attracted. (using my own orientation). I’ve never been happier since I’ve been with my husband, but I remain sexually attracted primarily to women.
Regan DuCasse
February 18th, 2015
Every single time, BTB, JMG, GAY…sites, ALL have the most cognizant, reasoned and informed articles and comments to make.
The anti gay eventually resort to sermons, that has no original material. Forget anything that’s factual to a civil or criminal legal precedent.
The questions of course, are stupid and rhetorical most of the time, just to see what WE will do. And despite that, we can still answer truthfully and factually.
Even if to say, as Rob does, that they want us to refute and argument THEY didn’t make.
Which IS lazy, since they rarely contribute any information, just produce more and more rhetorical and stupid questions.
It might feel good for them on comment threads, but in a court of law, or legislative meeting, stupid rhetoric won’t make a case either.
Nor should it.
Regan DuCasse
February 18th, 2015
The easiest question to answer to the BROAD rhetorical claim that the gov’t MUST allow ‘any and all’ people who love each other to marry.
That is a considerable amount of generalizing without qualifying the categories we’re talking about.
Marriage is specifically to make two people who aren’t related, primary kin. Responsible for custody of one to the other.
The state already recognizes blood relatives as kin. Rendering marriage unnecessary to be family.
The basic requirements are also very broad.
To only be mutually consenting adults, who are unmarried and not closely related.
This is to protect individuals from coercion, non consent.
And the state and family from redundancy.
And contrary to what the anti gay think, gay couples meet AND agree to those standards already in place.
All the anti gay do, is try to claim that marriage laws require more than that, and are finding out in court (which they should have known in advance), that their usual defenses aren’t legal anywhere, anyway.
Action Kate
February 18th, 2015
There is a very simple response to the “If gay marriage then polygamy” argument, and I rarely see it anywhere.
The issue is that civil marriage is a legal contract between two adults who are not biologically related (to whatever degree the state mandates). All our current laws and regulations pertaining to marriage are set up to accommodate two parties. If Spouse A dies, Spouse B inherits. If Spouse B gets insurance, Spouse A can be added. If A and B divorce, both parties are considered for division of assets and custody of children. There is nothing in this contract which defines or limits the gender of either or both of the adults in it. This is why allowing same-sex couples to marry isn’t “redefining” marriage at all. It’s not even clarifying it. It’s just reading the law as it’s written.
The problem with polygamy is that you are now trying to add a third, fourth, fifth etc. party to a set of contracts which previously only handed two people. The laws are not set up to accommodate that.
If Spouse A dies, who inherits? If Spouse A is in the hospital, does Spouse B or C make the medical decisions? What if Spouse C wants to divorce Spouse B but not Spouse D? How is custody divided? These issues could be resolved if enough people wanted to tackle them, but that’s not what’s happening today.
Polygamy is not in any danger of being legalized right now purely for logistical reasons, not moral ones. And those logistical hurdles are not present when discussing same-sex marriages. The laws don’t have to be rewritten to accommodate same-sex marriages; it’s just a matter of doing a bit of paperwork to remove references to gender.
Soren456
February 18th, 2015
In re. polygamy:
We have made a strong, logical argument for gay marriage equality.
If a strong and logical argument can be made for polygamy, it should be allowed.
Steve
February 18th, 2015
The entire point of marriage is to create a legal relationship between people who are not already related. Two siblings have no reason to get legally married.
Spunky
February 19th, 2015
@Soren456: Exactly! The courts are finding that there is no rational reason for banning gay marriage. If Action Kate’s reasoning is correct (sure looks so to me), then there may be a rational reason for banning polygamy, as unfortunate as it is for some.
enough already
February 19th, 2015
Not bad, not bad at all.
Of course, these ‘argument’s aren’t really about the concept or concern raised, they’re just attempts to make the Christian haters seem reasonable in their hatred.
enough already
February 19th, 2015
Hit post too soon, sorry.
This ‘sexual fluidity’ thing is total nonsense.
The only ‘sexually fluid’ people are bisexuals.
The rest of us are fixed in our orientation.
I don’t see what’s so hard about that?
Oh, right…it gets around that little problem that bisexuals really are capable of loving one person at a time. This nonsense that bisexuals are incapable of monogamy, this nonsense that they must always have lovers of both sexes, sheesh.
Says more about the person advancing the argument than anythings else.
enough already
February 19th, 2015
Priya summed it up very well, actually. Bisexuals are, by their nature, capable of being sexually ‘fluid’.
The rest of us, gay or straight, are not.
CPT_Doom
February 19th, 2015
The other consideration with bisexuality is to distinguish between physical and emotional/romantic bisexuality. It seems pretty clear that most of the human race can have a satisfying sexual experience with either gender (we wouldn’t have “situational homosexuality” in same-sex prisons or schools otherwise), but I think it’s also clear the ability to fall in love with and create a relationship with someone of either gender is relatively limited.
Too often the anti-gay right uses the fact that LGBT people often have had experiences with the opposite gender to “prove” their choice argument. But the physical ability to have relations does not mean you have the ability to form a satisfying relationship.
Timothy Kincaid
February 19th, 2015
Let’s not rush to make absolutes about sexual fluidity.
It appears that there are differences in how women and men experience and report sexual fluidity. While it is very uncommon for a man to report a shift in the direction of their sexual attraction, there have been cases in which women report an unexpected and significant shift in attraction.
It may be tempting to write this off as undiscovered bisexuality, but some of these women were strongly aware of their attractions and active in gender discussions.
Also, though rare, some men have discovered that there are exceptions to their own general experiences. In other words, though their standard set of attractions did not shift, they found the one woman (or man) to which they were strongly attracted. And that too could be described using the term “fluidity”.
All of which is to say, absolutes based on our own anecdotal experiences is probably not the best approach to discussing the subject.
Priya Lynn
February 19th, 2015
It was popular a few years ago to think women were more sexually fluid in their orientation but more recent research contradicts that.
enough already
February 19th, 2015
Timothy,
It won’t surprise you that I disagree with you on this, absolutely.
A person who is capable of sexual attraction to more than one sex is bisexual.
There’s nothing ‘fluid’ about that, it’s their natural state.
It doesn’t mean gay men ever become bisexual or straight.
It simply means someone who is bisexual finally acts upon it.
Nothing more.
As for the ‘women are more fluid by their natures’ stuff, I used to believe that. From what I’ve read of current literature, that’s nonsense.
Priya Lynn
February 19th, 2015
I agree with you completely Enough. The idea that women’s sexuality is fluid is fluid and men’s is not is due to differing social pressures on men and women, the way we react to them and perceive those reactions:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/09/26/why_the_sexual_fluidity_trope_is_sexism_in_disguise.html
Women gradually come to understand what gets their engines running as they gain romantic and sexual experience so it makes sense that women tend to be less certain of our sexual orientation until we gain that experience.
That’s why the language of difference that’s often used by researchers and journalists when they speak of female sexuality as fluid is so insidious. If female sexuality is fluid, then lesbians, unlike gay men, aren’t ever really “born this way,†are we? No, we’re just temporarily experiencing an attraction to other women, which is likely to change if we wait long enough. Another implication: If female sexuality is uniquely fluid, then perhaps it makes sense for straight men to watch their female partners for this tendency toward changeability, maybe even police it for the sake of the family unit.
Luckily, there’s absolutely no scientific evidence that female sexuality is fluid—at least not in any novel way. There is some evidence that women experience arousal in response to a wider range of visual stimuli than men do. There’s also a great deal of evidence that females can go from having female partners to male ones, or vice versa. But nowhere in the literature is any firm line drawn between this vague concept of “fluidity†and the other word we use for people who experience attraction to people of both genders: bisexuality. Why don’t we just call it that?
Bisexuality has always been the red-headed stepchild of the LGBT movement. Nervousness continues at the possibility that some people might have the option to simply ignore their same sex attractions, and that this might undermine the project of LGBT equality. As a result, gay men and lesbians haven’t always been the best allies to our bisexual sisters and brothers.
Perhaps that’s partly why, today, bisexuals still tend to be viewed, falsely, as promiscuous, untrustworthy, and uninterested in monogamy. In such a climate, the desire for a new way of talking about bisexuals without using the word bisexual is understandable.
All that’s left, after we filter out the sexist idea that women’s sexuality is so completely different from men’s as to be unrecognizable, is the strong possibility that women are a bit more likely to be bisexual than men are. If this is so, then the negative stereotypes about bisexuals are negative stereotypes about women, and attacks on the legitimacy of bi identities are attacks on the legitimacy of female identities. It’s therefore in the interest of all women to combat biphobia and work for bi acceptance. It’s in the interest of lesbians, who are often bombarded with unwanted advances from men who may believe that the fluidity of female sexuality entitles them to sex with us. It’s in the interest of straight women, whose male partners may use the same logic to attempt to impose unwanted threesomes on them. And, of course, it’s in the interest of bi women, who have no more choice about who they love than anyone else does, even if those loves may come from any gender.
What isn’t in our interest is to make women’s sexuality seem confusing, mysterious, or overly complicated. What won’t help is to make ourselves seem stranger than we really are, whether it’s through misguided attempts to reject all labels (as if having words that clearly describe things is somehow limiting or impossible), or in an effort to avoid the stigma associated with bisexuality.
Priya Lynn
February 19th, 2015
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/sexuality-fluidity-and-al_n_1574562.html
A recent study conducted by the University of Missouri found that college students who are uncertain abou their sexuality drink more.
The research addressed the claim that women possess a more fluid sense of sexuality.
“….[Women] were able to admit a certain degree of attraction to the same gender without defining themselves as completely homosexual,” Talley said. “Women may be more open to admitting to same-sex attractions because women are more likely to be objectified as sexual objects in our culture; hence, women are accustomed to assessing the attractiveness of other women in comparison to themselves.”
The data also showed that men experienced greater anxiety over their inability to neatly define their sexual orientation. Talley speculated that this may be linked to the prevalence of masculine gender norms in society, and said she hopes the study could help young people who turn to alcohol by providing relevant information and a support network.
So, once again, its not that women’s sexuality is more fluid than men’s,. its that social pressures make women more open to relationships of both sexes and more open to admitting bisexuality then men.
Priya Lynn
February 19th, 2015
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/08/11/90/
How sexually fluid are women?
I’ve long had my doubts on the question. What I doubt, to be clear, isn’t that some women are bisexual. Just that all women are, which is essentially what one is saying if one declares female sexuality fluid.
What it comes down to is, it remains much more controversial for men than women to have same-sex relationships or encounters. But at the same time, it’s much more taboo for women than men to be without a partner of the opposite sex.
This sounds contradictory, I realize, but let me explain: There’s a stigma, for women, on being boyfriend-less, husband-less. But the stigma isn’t based on fears that the woman might be a lesbian, but rather, that she might be unable to get a man. Being found desirable by men continues to be important to women’s power in the world in a way that’s independent of how attractive that woman may or not find these – or indeed any – men. There are also financial advantages to pairing off with someone of the gender that tends to earn more.
How does any of this relate to women’s alleged sexual fluidity? Men are under greater pressure than women to seem not-gay, so there’s less same-sex fooling around among the merely curious, or it’s less openly discussed, making male sexuality seem less fluid than might be the case. But men are under less pressure than women to pair off (and what pressure there is starts so much later in life), so there may be fewer gay men than lesbians in opposite-sex relationships.
A 25-year-old woman called the show (starts at 8:13) to say that she’s a serial monogamist who’s only ever dated men. But! She can’t stop thinking about women. She’s openly bisexual, she mentioned that “90% of the time†when she’s having sex with her boyfriend, she’s fantasizing about women. 90%!
Imagine, if you will, ladies, if you learned that your boyfriend or husband fantasized about men 90% of the time he was with you. You’d probably come to the conclusion that your guy was gay. Not because male bisexuality doesn’t exist, but because of how close 90% is to 100%.
Why, then, is a lesbian dating dude after dude after dude? What comes through in her call isn’t the slightest glimmer of desire for her boyfriend (“I love him a lot†and “I really care about him†– sweet, but sort of tepid for “25†and “boyfriendâ€) or indeed any of the other men on the planet. She’s afraid of not being in a relationship with a man: “The thought of losing that someone I have thought about spending the rest of my life with is devastating.†She’s afraid of giving up the possibility of Husband. Which is… a totally legitimate fear in our society, but hardly evidence that she’s straight or bi.
It’s basically about wanting stability, a husband, a man who’ll find you attractive. No one expects women – even heterosexual women – to lust after men. (Many of us do. But we’re socialized to be discreet about it.) So it doesn’t immediately read as “lesbian†when a woman expresses intense interest in other women, but sounds sort of lukewarm about men.
Priya Lynn
February 19th, 2015
You’re either gay, straight, or bisexual. People confuse bisexuals shifting the gender of their partners with us shifting our attractions from one gender to the other. No one can change their sexual orientation. You can’t go from gay to straight, or from bisexual to exclusively straight or gay or vice versa.
Matt Kennedy
February 19th, 2015
Thanks for the critique. Some of those questions are so silly/absurd I might almost think you made this list up if I haven’t actually had friends ask me many of those same questions. Looking forward to Part 2!
Steve
February 20th, 2015
The whole concept of sexual fluidity is greatly misinterpreted. It’s so annoying to read all these BS comments about “sexuality is fluid”. Tons of people no think that everyone is like that.
These people usually refer to Lisa Diamond’s research, but they misquote it. Diamond never said that sexuality is fluid in all cases. She found that there were a significant amount of women for whom that’s the case, but also a very clear group of people with unchanging attractions.
enough already
February 20th, 2015
Steve,
Good point – and all those women for whom their sexuality was ‘fluid’ were, without exception, bisexual.
I’ve never heard of anyone changing their sexual orientation, gay, straight or bi-.
Leave A Comment