Yes, I am straight!

[joreth]

I have a hard time getting a certain concept across to certain people.  There are people who define sexuality by one's actions.  And then there are those of us who define sexuality and orientation based on what goes on in the mind.

For example, some people consider me bisexual simply because I have had sexual encounters with other women.  They don't take into account an "experimentation" phase, or situation specifics.  No, if I've had sex with women at any time, and especially if I'm willing to consider it again in the future, by their definition, I'm bisexual.

But I consider myself straight.  Why?  Because, frankly, women don't do it for me.  Women don't turn me on.  Women don't get me off.  So why did I have sex with them?  Partially because I was curious.  Partially because I don't have the disgust-gene for same-sex activity even if I also lack the turn-on gene for it.  Partly because I also don't have any artificial taboos against it, such as an belief that it's "wrong", so I can appreciate a tactile sensation simply for what it is, regardless of the gender of the person providing the sensation ... and once you're in a sexually-charged situation and all the sex synapses are firing, some things just feel good within context (ask anyone who likes to be flogged).  Partly because I was confusing an appreciation for aesthetics with a sexual interest in females (which I now know better).  Partly because I have always expressed my emotional connection to people with sex, making me think that my feelings for a close female friend should also be expressed sexually (which I also now know better).

And partly because some very specific situations allow same-sex interaction to be appropriate with very specific individual women.
"Sexual fluidity, quite simply, means situation-dependent flexibility in women's sexual responsiveness. This flexibility makes it possible for some women to experience desires for either men or women under certain circumstances, regardless of their overall sexual orientation. In other words, though women--like men--appear to be born with distinct sexual orientations, these orientations do not provide the last word on their sexual attractions and experiences."

--from Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women's Love and Desire by Lisa M. Diamond

*Emphasis mine*

I am straight.  I have, on very rare occasion, had sexual activity with women.  It has always been in the context of threesomes.  The first time was with a friend when I was still confused and considered myself bi-curious, and her husband would not allow her to have a partner unless he was present.  I was not impressed.  From that encounter I learned about the latter two lessons above (confusing appreciation of beauty for sexual interest & believing that I needed to express emotional connection sexually) and began calling myself "straight".

The next two times were because another woman and I had a shared boyfriend and I had enough of an emotional connection and the dynamics of the relationship were just that right mix that made threesomes an appropriate and desired activity for all of us.  I don't rule out sex with certain women in the future, but those are happy exceptions to the rule.  Because I'm straight. 

Sexuality is just not cut and dried, black and white, yes or no.  Even a spectrum does not quite cover the complexity of the human sex drive.  And the word that best suits my sexual orientation is heterosexual because that is what does it for the real sex organ - my brain.  Just because I have a little sexual fluidity thrown in, it doesn't change my "overall sexual orientation".  I am straight.

Comments

[may-dryad.livejournal.com]

Here's another quote from the book regarding the difference between fluidity and orientation:

Fluidity can be thought of as an additional component of a woman's sexuality that operates in concert with sexual orientation to influence how her attractions, fantasies, behaviours, and affections are experienced and expressed over the life course. Fluidity implies not that women's desires are endlessly variable but that some women are capable of a wider variety of erotic feelings and experiences than would be predicted on the basis of their self-described sexual orientation alone.

More on the book in general

[may-dryad.livejournal.com]

I have a hard time getting a certain concept across to certain people. There are people who define sexuality by one's actions. And then there are those of us who define sexuality and orientation based on what goes on in the mind.

For example, some people consider me bisexual simply because I have had sexual encounters with other women. They don't take into account an "experimentation" phase, or situation specifics. No, if I've had sex with women at any time, and especially if I'm willing to consider it again in the future, by their definition, I'm bisexual.

This is annoying as hell, but also not surprising. The problem, according to Diamond, is that women have a lot more fluidity than men, but the vast majority of sexuality studies have been conducted on men, so fluidity isn't even a concept that most people are aware of. Men work mostly according to orientation, so naturally they assume the same is true of women. And even women with a high degree of fluidity don't have a name for it, so it ends up getting called bisexuality. Diamond followed 100 women for 10 years, from adolescence through adulthood, in order to write Sexual Fluidity. I've read ten whole pages of it, and I can't stop talking about it.

Re: More on the book in general

[joreth]

Thanks, I was hoping you'd chime in with more stuff from the book. Clearly, I ought to read it.

About the men vs. women thing, though, I have to say that my exposure to predominantly male environments tells me that fluidity is not exclusive to women (although I have absolutely no scientific basis to say if it's rare or equally as common). I suspect that strong social indoctrination has programmed men to believe they have no fluidity even when they do, or to reject experimentation with and acceptance of fluidity. Remember, we live in a society where it's now cool for women to be party lesbians, but guys can't even be legitimately bisexual without rejection from both the het and the gay communities.

But, in the privacy of intimate conversation with a sex-positive female who also "gets" the guy-thing, I hear and see a lot that I suspect many guys don't admit to many other people of either gender.

From my conversations, I have discovered that men don't talk about certain topics with other men because "men don't talk about that stuff" without seeming "wierd" or "gay" (in the insult sense as well as the homosexual sense), but they also can't talk about it with most other women because they're trying to hit on those women and don't want to scare them off with their "wierd" or "gay" thoughts.

But a hot chick who encourages sexual discussion and open acceptance of sexuality who first gains their trust by being "one of the guys" somehow manages to confuse their circuitry and gets them to open up where few others can.

For example, I was once approached by someone I considered a mere acquaintance who had just gone through a nasty divorce (made especially difficult because she and the guy she cheated on him with still worked for the same company as he) and was now contemplating returning to the dating scene. Having considered himself a "geek" before his marriage, then having only the one partner for so many years, he was having quite a bit of social anxiety about hooking up with someone for the first time.

Based on our casual encounters at work, he asked me on a date. I looked at him and said, "You do understand the poly thing, right?" He admitted he didn't really but that he wasn't looking for a comittment anyway, just wanted to hang out with someone cool. So I gave him my email and said we needed to have some conversations before I would go out with him.

After explaining that what I did was not "no committment", he admitted that what he was really after was someone to "pop his post-marriage cherry" and be his first sex partner in a decade who wasn't his wife. He said that my sex-positive attitude (not his phrase) and my easy acceptance of sexuality in general gave him the courage to 1) ask me out and 2) be honest with me about why. He felt my attitudes about sex made him relax and be unafraid to be who he was. He felt he didn't have to hide anything from me and that there wasn't anything he could admit to that I would be afraid of or turn away from him because of.

And I mention him not because he's exceptional, but because he's exemplary of the kinds of conversations I have routinely with men. I am, in fact, having a very similar conversation with another man right this minute, as I type this, through IM chat. He saw this post and, as I write this response, he contacted me and admitted he felt that it didn't seem right to him that it was presented as a "female" thing.

So, I hesitate to ascribe this to women exclusively or even predominantly, because my purely-anecdotal evidence suggests that it's not. But whether it's natural or socially-programmed, it's definately not a concept that most people are even aware of.

Re: More on the book in general

[datan0de.livejournal.com]

From my conversations, I have discovered that men don't talk about certain topics with other men because "men don't talk about that stuff" without seeming "wierd" or "gay" (in the insult sense as well as the homosexual sense)

Clearly you don't hang around me and Mike enough. :-D

And for the record, I generally don't think of you as either "straight" or "bisexual". I think of you as a gay man. A gay man who just happens to have a fantastically sexy, drool-worthy body. Wait. Maybe *I'm* the one who's confused here... ;-)

Re: More on the book in general

[joreth]

:-) clearly I don't hang out with you two enough - and not just because of this!

And thank you, I actually do think of myself as a gay man in a female's body, but that usually requires a whole other discussion about orientation and gender identity :-D But for simplicity and with audiences with whom I just don't want to get into all this deeper identity stuff, I use "heterosexual" for shorthand. But I'm thrilled that those who I consider my closer friends think of me in a similar manner to how I see myself. Did I tell you how much I loved the comment at FPR when you saw me in a skirt about me dressing in drag? tacit made the same comment, btw, without hearing yours first. This pleases me.

[technomensch.livejournal.com]

bravo

[phyrra.livejournal.com]

Until you had explained this to me a few years ago, I didn't get it, but it made sense once you did. The whole, mostly you like men, men are what get you hot and bothered, but on occasion, you might be interested in a person who just happens to be a woman, but in general you're into men, makes sense.

And it's stupid for ppl to say you're bi just because you experimented to see if you liked it. I don't think they say the same of men :(

[joreth]

It's not just because I once experimented, it's because I continue to allow sexual activity with same-sex partners, but only for very specific situations and people. It's very situation- and person-specific, but if one uses the functional-only definition, then one continues to believe that a woman is bisexual if she has sexual activity with other women in addition to men. What is not taken into account is her mental state which, IMO, is more important.

And no, they don't call men who experiment bi ... they call them "gay", in both the homosexual and insult sense. It's stupid.

[dancergeek.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty much in the same boat as you on this topic, although I HAVE fallen in love with women before (in real life as well as on tv). I get confused with women who are my idols because I find them so beautiful and amazing (i.e. Casey Novak) that I feel as if I am in love with them and I do enjoy reading femslash but for deep seated core sexual desire, I believe men (i.e. Elliot Stabler) do it for me on a much greater scale.

[joreth]

:-) I've loved women before too, but for me, love and sex are separate things. I like them both best when they go together, but they are two different reactions and emotions and activities. So, when I was younger, I would confuse my emotional connection with certain women and/or my appreciation of their appearance with the idea that I must express all my feelings sexually. But my body just doesn't get it up for women in general. Certain circumstances are arousing when other women are present, but overall, it's the men who do it for me. This is why this term "sexual fluidity" is so helpful to me.

For me, it's not fluidity, just relaxation

[(Anonymous)]

Among enlightened folks, I'd never claim the title, but I have friends who insist on thinking of me as bisexual because I've actually gone to bed with another guy like, twice, and don't think kissing guys is icky.

My primary has a Major Thing for seeing two guys getting it on. (Anyone who thinks this is remotely unusual can ask google about "slash fiction".) It gets her all kinds of hot and bothered. And I've learned to really enjoy things that I thought were unbearably icky in second grade, precisely because they get her delightfully hot and bothered.

So what the hell, relax and enjoy it.


Anyway, to these friends, I feel a sort of pitying amusement. If I am the biggest sexual outlaw that you know, you have led a very, very sheltered life.

Re: For me, it's not fluidity, just relaxation

[joreth]

I, also, have a thing for two guys getting it on ... one of many reasons the full "label" I use for myself is "gay man in woman's body who just happens to not want a sex change" (but het for short). Unfortunately, I have yet to have two male partners willing to just "relax" and allow me the opportunity of a full MFM threesome the way women seem to be - not expected to participate in FMF, exactly, but it certainly seems more likely that guys are unsurprised and unembarrassed to ask for threesomes but tend to get more surprised and embarassed when asked to participate in same-sex activity.