Monday, August 13, 2007

Bisexual Invisibility

At left: from FUN HOME by Alison Bechdel.

I loved Alison Bechdel's fabulous graphic novel FUN HOME, but am I the only one who wondered why she labeled her father *gay* rather than bisexual? If someone has been married for decades, but still enjoys periodic sexual relationships with their own gender, to me, that makes them bisexual.

Perhaps because the parallel between her own (gay) sexuality and her father's became much more poignant and obvious; it makes for a great dramatic narrative. Nonetheless, as much as I adore the book, I feel as if the reality of bisexuality is ignored and downplayed, here as elsewhere.

Why does this happen? Does bisexuality cause people to feel disoriented? Too many possibilities? Or are we simply accustomed to either/or thinking?

Other questions I have pondered lately: If someone is legally married for a long time, yet has a few gay afffairs, why are they then considered gay, instead of "heterosexual who likes a few gay afffairs"? If it were the reverse, they WOULD be considered "homosexual who likes a few straight affairs." This brings to mind the infamous racial "one-drop rule" of days past. The one drop rule held that "one drop of black blood" whether it be 1/2 or 1/16, makes a person black, period. The underlying concept of the one drop rule was that whiteness is purity.

I think we have a *one drop rule* as applied to heterosexuality. ONE POSITIVE OR ENJOYABLE GAY RELATIONSHIP (or encounter) makes one gay; again, the underlying concept is that heterosexuality is purity and can therefore be sullied and ruined.

Bisexuality messes up the binary and the *one drop rule.* Therefore, people just sort of tune it out.

~*~*~*~*~

Other questions: If you are bisexual and monogamous, do you ever stop saying you are? If one has been monogamous for a decade, one is assumed to be gay or straight, depending on the gender of your partner. Do you ever "correct" people who make these assumptions? After so long, does it even make any sense to correct people? Why should we? Do you ever feel foolish doing that?

And several transpeople are now reading my blog, so I'd love for you to weigh in here. I have noticed many transfolks are bisexual, so please jump in: Do your partners ever get neurotic over their own sexuality and whether they are gay or straight?

Do you think bisexuality automatically means polyamory or the possiblity of threesomes to many people? Bisexuals are presented as fickle, immature cheaters in a lot of TV shows and movies (thinking now of SIX FEET UNDER); how can we "rehabilitate" the bisexual image in media, for instance?

Discuss!

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

i think bisexuality is still considered fashionable & cool. people act that way about it, anyway.

most bisexuals end up in straight marriages, imo.

bryce

drakyn said...

Well, I'm actually used to thinking of everyone as some degree of queer. I think sexuality is a continuum (not a binary or categories) and for some reason I tend to forget that some people aren't interested in all genders. In high school, most of my close friends were queer and the ones that were completely gay/straight still liked flirting with people who weren't their preferred gender.
I think you are right though on how society sees heterosexuality. I think people aren't used to thinking outside of binaries; inexorable opposites according to Jung. Inexorable opposites are pairs that are complete opposites; I don't really think many exist, but other people do. For one of my philosophy classes we had to list half a dozen or so and I couldn't really come up with any. Day/night has twilight and dawn and eclipses, don't get me started on good/evil, strong/weak is a continuum and in the eye of the beholder, etc.
But I think most people don't really think about that. It is either day or night, that act is good or bad--not both, and you are either a strong person or a weak person.People, in general, don't seem to remember/know that things are subjective and are often continuums.

And Bryce, I think that the reason why it seems as though most bi folk end up in mixed-gender/sex relationships is because there is more selection and therefore it is easier to find someone who is compatible.
My friend J complains all the time. She prefers women, but has only ever had relationships with men. Why? because she hasn't known too many queer women who weren't too old and/or taken. The few she did meet weren't at all compatible with her.
She also confuses and/or angers some people when she identifies as "75% lesbian" while in a relationship with a guy. But it is true, she knows she is mostly attracted to women and her orientation doesn't change because she is fucking a guy. People seem to think sh is confused or joking; it really annoys her sometimes.

I still correct people when they think I'm gay, but I've only been dating Jon for almost a year. For me, being queer is a big part of me and I don't think I could ever part with that piece of my identity. It wouldn't matter what the gender of my life-partner is, I'd still feel the need to correct people. Plus I'm a very flirty type of person and I still flirt and comment on other people all the time (Jon is fine with it) so I don't think I'd disappear.
I think for some people being queer is a big part of their identity and for others it isn't. So some people feel the need to correct others more.

I'm queer, I don't think there are only two sexes/genders and I'm not orientated towards only man/woman, and my boyfriend is bi (he doesn't really care much about labels and I think he chose bi because it is the most common/well known of the 'not gay/straight/asexual' labels). There are also a bunch of gay/straight trans*folk and even a few asexual trans*people. ^.^
I think though, that people tend to think we are all bi because, in society's eyes, we go from gay to straight (or vice versa). But in reality our orientation doesn't change, just what gender the world sees us as.

Jon met me and got to know me as a guy, so we never had that relationship transition that others do, but I know that it can get pretty complicated...
Hopefully I won't have to deal with that since I won't date people that aren't attracted to guys and I'm already out.

I think more people coming out as bi/queer while in monogamous relationships would help change people's views. I also don't see anything wrong with polyamory or open relationships and hope they also get a better reputation. I just don't think they should be automatically linked. There are monogamous bisexuals and there are straight poly folk. ^.^

drakyn said...

Oh yeah, I really don't think most people who come out as bi/queer are doing it for fashion's sake. >.<
I think that experimentation and questioning is fine. I also think some people's orientation is fluid.
And, bi/queer folk tend to disappear if we get in a monogamous long-term relationship.

Dw3t-Hthr said...

While I'm straight (so far as I'm aware), I've made a number of observations on this subject --

I get the distinct impression (admittedly, from the outside) that a lot of people have a really hard time with things that don't slot neatly into categories. The thing I've seen most often is actually, "Bisexual women are straight. Bisexual men are gay." Which I think boils down to sexism ('a bisexual women is available to men, thus straight') and the differential treatment of male and female same-sex interaction in surrounding culture, with gay men often getting much more viscerally negative treatment.

All of the bi folks I know in monogamous marriages still consider themselves bi, and occasionally correct people on that. (I also know one bi woman who refused to get married before same-sex marriage rights were settled in Massachusetts, because she considered it happenstance that her chosen life-partner was male, and she wouldn't partake of marriage until it was no longer mere luck that she could.) They also all have expressed frustration at the presumption that they were unable to be monogamous.

I know a poly bisexual woman who has had people get angry with her for having, at that time, only male partners -- the poly thing was acceptable if she was a one-of-each bisexual, someone who was interested in men and women as distinct categories. Somehow, her being 'bisexual' in the sense of not considering genitalia relevant to her attraction patterns was perceived as breaking the rules.

I have a bisexual friend who's partnered with an early-transition transsexual, and I gather she's found that her own bisexuality makes dealing with the transition both easier and more difficult. Because she is content with whatever set of bits her partner has, she's got no problems with the ambiguity of early transition, but she's worried about causing some level of stress or upset when they hit below the waist interactions -- she doesn't mind the bits difference, but she's concerned that her partner may.

There, a little scattered babble for discussion.

belledame222 said...

eh, to me, sexuality is more about desire than "ability to go through the motions of the act." I didn't get the sense anywhere in the book that he actually -enjoyed- the company of her mother or any other woman, sexually at least.

amazing book, though.

Daisy said...

I know a poly bisexual woman who has had people get angry with her for having, at that time, only male partners -- the poly thing was acceptable if she was a one-of-each bisexual, someone who was interested in men and women as distinct categories.

This is just so interesting to me!

People seem to *disappear* the aspects of personae they don't approve of, or relate to. Does not compute! Does not compute! It's very strange.

Drakyn, it may shock you, but I still have a difficult time saying the word QUEER the way the rest of you do. I still have a difficult time letting it past my lips unless I am reading it. If you tell me (general you) that you are "genderqueer" --I can obediently repeat that. But I would *never* call anyone queer, on my own, and I'll never enjoy it as a popular label, either. Too much baggage. Am I the last person alive who hates "queer" the way one hates the sound of a gun trigger being cocked?

Probably, but there it is.

drakyn said...

Sorry, I just don't have much baggage with 'queer' and sometimes I forget others do. It's just that the 'LGBTetc' thing gets far to long and still isn't inclusive enough in my opinion.
I'll try to use GLBT on your blog if you'd prefer (please forgive any future mistakes).
I identify as queer though, my sexuality never really fit any of the other words I've found. And the old meaning, odd, never really bothers me because I am odd. ^.^

And yeah, some people do seem to like 'disappearing' inconvenient aspects of other people.

Daisy said...

Nah, I am far from oversensitive, so I don't mind what words you use! I just meant, your identification as "queer" even if not in a "queer" relationship, is kind of... I dunno, I am not used to thinking that way. Yall make me think in new ways!

I know there are lots of other people like Michael Stipe, whom I respect, who actually prefer the word. They feel it gives them extra room.

I just meant personally, the word is banished, like a few others you probably could guess.

drakyn said...

"Extra room"? I like that phrase.
I like it a lot better than "my sexuality is too complicated to fit in gay/bi/pan/etc" which is the incredibly problematic phrase I used to use.
And now I'm not sure what you mean by having a difficult time with 'queer'. Most of the time I see someone who has a difficult time with 'queer' they either think everyone is gay/straight/bi or they don't like it because they haven't reclaimed it and/or don't think it should be reclaimed. What did you mean?
(and I'm sorry for misinterpreting what you said; I shouldn't assume everyone has the same reasons for disliking it)

I agree with what Bella said, I also think that desire frames your orientation and not your actions (for the most part).

Daisy said...

Most of the time I see someone who has a difficult time with 'queer' they either think everyone is gay/straight/bi or they don't like it because they haven't reclaimed it and/or don't think it should be reclaimed.

I meant the latter; personally, I have too many issues with the word itself as hate speech to be able to "reclaim" it.

I can respect other people's labels and choices, however. I will use the words people request I use--but it won't come from me.

drakyn said...

Ahh, okay that's why I thought you didn't like it, but when you said "I just meant, your identification as "queer" even if not in a "queer" relationship, is kind of... I dunno, I am not used to thinking that way" I got confused as to what you meant.

And would you prefer me saying, for instance, "the LGBT community" instead of "the queer/trans* community"?

Daisy said...

I personally do, but you can say whatever you want! :)

(it's more descriptive)

Erin said...

Personally I can comfortably call someone who is in a straight relationship gay rather than bi. It is something you are, rather than something you do. Continuum blah blab blah (yes I agree it's been hashed out)

Now, the thing is, how does the person view their self. That is far more important to me, and the label (or lack of such) that they choose is what I will respect. I've always thought that naming things is a limiting experience, and the more finite you make things the more you limit yourself.

Ravenmn said...

Bechdel has a blog and you could probably ask her directly about this issue. I tend to think she believed her father wasn't bi, but forced himself into the role for all kinds of reasons.

Unlike Bryce, the bi-sexual women I know have ended up in lesbian monogamous relationships. Some of the best weddings I've ever attended, btw1

A.W. said...

Do you think bisexuality automatically means polyamory or the possiblity of threesomes to many people?

If you're talking about mistakingly equating bisexuality with polyamory, yes, because the majority of people expect you to be with one person for a long period of time and insist that person will be able to fulfill all your needs. If that isn't happening and important needs aren't being met and you consider yourself bi (kind of odd, that. If needs aren't being met when people are straight, the advice it to either work out the problems or dump 'em) I think it's assumed that another gender by virtue of it being 'other' is able to fulfill whatever needs are missing instead of, hey, looking at the actions and qualities of a person. Which is probably where that nasty 'bisexuals will leave you for men/women' comes into play. It's almost like it's expected, first, people realize bisexuals do indeed exist instead of everyone fitting into a straight/gay dichotomy, then people pretend that
such a dichotomy still exists for all people everywhere, so therefore all bisexuals need two partners in order to be complete. It's a little ridiculous.


As per the continuum of attraction, I figure it makes more sense (for me) to see it as a rotating expanding/contracting circle. That and I'm just to damn picky. But no, I haven't had anyone (to my knowledge) get neurotic about their own sexuality like that.

Erin said...

And several transpeople are now reading my blog, so I'd love for you to weigh in here. I have noticed many transfolks are bisexual, so please jump in: Do your partners ever get neurotic over their own sexuality and whether they are gay or straight?

Err. yeah sorry missed that first read through... I think I was distracted by the pretty picture (I'm a webcomic nut and it automatically reminded me of a couple of them)

To be honest I won't presume to answer for my wife, but yes, she has had long periods of doubt and self questioning. Lissa knew about and was involved in my transition for almost 3 years before I took my first pill, so it gave her awhile to try to become adjusted. I'm not sure if it helped or not, but she's still here. It probably didn't hurt that I was the first "guy" she had ever dated but neither of us had ever been in a serious relationship before.

I'll see if I can get her to give a better answer at some point.

Trinity said...

On "queer":

I tend to think thst it takes ammunition away to use a word people smear you with.

That's why I like "sadomasochist" too -- I've heard people tell me to my face that I'd be easier to understand if I made up a new, nice word.

Fuck that. I'm not here to be easy to deal with. I'm not here to pander.

Daisy said...

Trin, I am not pandering. I am talking about Pavlov.

Some words make me hyperventilate, especially if they were used as an intro to beating the hell out of me or people I know. (I think they call that "triggering"?) Whatever, I have a difficult time with the word for reasons having to do with how I personally witnessed its use in the past. It usually meant violence was coming; in fact, it practically ASSURED violence was coming, particularly from bikers, and particularly if they were drunk.

That isn't pandering, that is something I LEARNED. Good thing too, it protected me. When you heard certain people use the word QUEER, it meant STAY AWAY from them; you can't trust them and they might hurt you. And yes, they would and they did.

I am not a violent person, and have never enjoyed brawls. I don't think an awareness of that and attempting to avoid violence, constitutes 'pandering'.

My point to Drakyn was, it is hard to undo the lessons of a lifetime.

belledame222 said...

I do think that it's a generational thing, "queer." For me it's no more loaded than "gay." In fact if anything I'm more accustomed to hearing people use "gay" as an insult. It's all about context and tone, really. I'm sure it was the same for people who'd become accustomed to "Negro" as the polite term and wincing at "(B)black," when the reverse started to become more au courant.

I see it as only very minimally having to do with actual etymology--the rest of a word-for-population's meaning at any given time has a lot more to do with what I call the Star-Bellied Sneetch Factor, at least for the past half century or so, I wouldn't doubt before that also.

1) Oppressive majority coins offensive term for minority group

2) Minority group has their own terminology for themselves.

3) At some point, some of the minority group start also using the slur as a term of ironic pride and defiance and reclaiming/redefining.

4) Offensive term, through repeated and calculated use according to 3, begins to lose some of its impact, and becomes more akin to what happens to metaphors after they stop being metaphors and just become taken for granted (running water); or they occupy that weird half space between cliche and multiple ironic uses.

5) Simultaneously, the term that was preferred by the group in question has become so widely known and so commonly used that it begins to get picked up and used by bigots as well as the "I'm on your side" people, when they're in a situation where they don't feel comfortable reverting to the worst slurs but still are basically communicating their contempt with everything else they say.

6) term in #5 begins to take on unpleasant resonances for members of the group in question who've heard it said with a sneer one too many times.

and so forth.

Daisy said...

Star-Bellied Sneetch Factor

Okay, you'll have to explain this one to me! I've seen you say it before, and always wondered!

Holly said...

I'm trans, and I've mostly tended to date in queer circles (sorry about using the word, but it seems like we have to). Or in communities that are referred to as "queer/trans*" communities like drakyn is saying. The same is true of a lot of trans people I know, of various orientations, especially gay or queer or bisexual trans people. I think part of what "queer" does, actually, in the process of "giving extra room" to folks like Michael Stipe is that it also makes more room for dating people who have complicated genders in one way or another.

After all, bisexual literally implies two kinds of people, which I know is why some people don't use it anymore; at some point they felt like they were dating more than just two kinds of people. (I don't mean that all trans people are "outside" the standard two genders, since many do just identify as men or women, period, but an awful lot of trans people don't.)

For reasons that have nothing to do with the history of hate speech and reclamation around the word, "queer" has come to mean one thing amongst people I know, and worlds like "gay, lesbian, bisexual" something very different, to the extent that people now use these words to refer to distinct kinds of people and cultures, that are sometimes in opposition to each other. It's kind of disturbing, even as I find myself positioned firmly on the queer side of the line, in no small part due to the fact that I'm trans and therefore inherently "queerer."

"Gay" carries with it connotations of the mainstream politics of large organizations like the HRC, Lambda Legal and NGLTF, of efforts for marriage equality and gays in the military and hate crimes laws. Imagery of rainbow flags, pride parades, pink triangles and pride bracelets; gay bars are predominantly single-sex, male or female and mostly male with the occasional lesbian night. Gay music is either bad house, Gloria Gaynor, or woman singer-songwriter folk music.

"Queer" on the other hand tends to signal disinterest or even opposition to gay marriage (or marriage in general) and distrust of hate crimes legislation; more progressive or radical politics in general, such as ties with immigration rights work, labor movements, or prison abolition. Queer events tend to be mixed gender, with more trans people as well as non-trans men and women, and you can't be sure walking into a queer event who is going to be attracted to which people. There's more of an ironic hipster vibe and musical influences seem to stem more from punk, riot grrl, hip-hop, etc. In queer scenes I've tended to encounter a lot more butch-femme couples, a little more sexuality involving BDSM, and definitely more trans people.

Interestingly from what I've seen these divisions cut across race and class lines, there's no easy way to generalize where the people of color are or where the rich educated people are, etc.

The real upshot for me is this: if I flirt or date in a very gay locale, I am likely to end up in trouble at some point, and I have, because people don't realize that there might be trans people hanging out too. I've had to tell some people I'm trans, had some weird reactions, it's clear that trans people are not really an expected choice on the dating menu. In less queer lesbian scenes, trans guys are often regarded as another kind of lesbian, and trans women are curious chimeras who are not legitimately desirable. In less queer gay men's scenes, trans women are either performers or just belong to totally different communities, and trans men are unheard of curiosities or something to freak out about because they can't be visually distinguished from other gay men.

If I am in a queer space, on the other hand, the social expectations are totally different. There are trans people around and people who date trans people, it's not generally as unisex, and although I don't think this means everyone is just automatically OK with dating trans folks, the expectation is much more strongly that if you're not interested, that's your problem, not the trans person's.

I could tell you dozens of stories about what kinds of things happen to queer & trans people in gay spaces. A lot of them involve not being able to deal with trans people, femme invisibility, and other kinds of gay-normative stuff. The sense is that people who identify as "queer" are exiles, misfits and outcasts from a larger "gay" cultural, political, intellectual, and sexual world. Of course, this could just be how self-identified queer people see it, but I guess I am also one of them. There are definitely generational elements involved as well as subcultural/rebellion stuff, differences in political leanings, and no small degree of "trying to be cooler than the kids down the street."

CBrachyrhynchos said...

Well, I continue to identify as bi, or queer after over a decade in a long monogamous relationship because it wasn't a phase. I feel deeply in love with a man who didn't return my affection. One day, I looked into his eyes and felt that I was willing to spend the rest of my life with him. When he slipped into a pattern of addiction and self-destruction, it hurt me deeply to say, "I can't watch you do this to yourself, or help you become a dealer." Even though we were never lovers, I count it as one of the most significant relationships of my life.

To say, "I'm straight" is to say that relationship wasn't important, or that relationship didn't shape who I am.

And still, I find that "straight" doesn't express who I am. For example, I don't feel that a "straight" identity captures the fact that I respond sexually to the character of Cyrano de Bergerac. Or why I'm bothered that yaoi appropriates m/m sexuality and situates it into dysfunctional and abusive relationships.

Dw3t-Hthr said...

After all, bisexual literally implies two kinds of people, which I know is why some people don't use it anymore

There's a speech I'm quite fond of (a friend of mine wrote it) that begins, for precisely that reason:

"If bisexuals are people who are attracted to both genders, then I am not a bisexual."

The speech is about her experience with bisexual invisibility and her own gender expression, actually. Among other things. Let me make a link to my copy ...

http://tinyurl.com/22k3fc

Daisy said...

And still, I find that "straight" doesn't express who I am. For example, I don't feel that a "straight" identity captures the fact that I respond sexually to the character of Cyrano de Bergerac. Or why I'm bothered that yaoi appropriates m/m sexuality and situates it into dysfunctional and abusive relationships.

Really well-said. I respond the way Camille Paglia did as a young girl to Elizabeth Taylor, and although I didn't have over 600 pictures cut out of magazines (as she describes), I had, well, in the hundreds. I was gaining on Camille!

When Liz dies, I will go to pieces like some old queen! :D

But really, many women (including my mother) adored Liz and other movie stars, but never called them 'crushes' which would have been scandalous for a woman to say about another woman back then. But they WERE crushes.

My own adoration of Liz is far beyond crush!

Daisy said...

Holly, thank you for you explanatory post! You actually cleared a lot of things up for me.

Thing is...

The sense is that people who identify as "queer" are exiles, misfits and outcasts from a larger "gay" cultural, political, intellectual, and sexual world.

...if this is true, maybe I belong more with the queer people. :P

Also, at risk of derailing, why would hate crimes legislation be considered more "gay" (mainstream) than "queer"? Certainly, not in SC, if you look at just who is agitating for it. I think it depends on how sexually conservative an area is in the first place. (?)

If you have a link specifically about that (hate crimes), Holly, I'd appreciate it, but don't mean to pester you! (I did search first, but I don't think I know the proper "queer" places to search!)

belledame222 said...

so, does she -really- have violet eyes? i was always fascinated by that idea.

Daisy said...

dw3t, I love your friend's piece. Anyone who takes as much flak as I do for their hair, understands much. ;)

When I first entered the wee-moon’s community in the Twin Cities, my
hair was very long. When I would say I was bisexual, the wee-moon would
look at my hair and say, “Oh, bullshit, why are you calling yourself
bisexual? You’re really straight,” and turn their backs on me. Then one
day in the eighties I cut my hair off. I went from elbow-length ringlets
to a lemon-yellow flat-top half an inch long, and they suddenly
switched to saying, “Oh, bullshit, why are you clinging to this bisexual
crap? You’re really a lesbian, just get *on* with it and drop this
bisexuality nonsense.” Now the only thing I had changed was my haircut.
This was totally weird. It was goofy. I never knew hair had such power
to cloud wee-moon’s minds.

Some of the flak I took when I had long hair was femmophobia, and some
was anti-straight woman stuff, and some more was misdirected but
understandable anger against a system that defined “beauty” and
“womanhood” in painfully narrow terms, and then tried to coerce
participation. Some overlapped. The whole thing got pretty nasty at
times. I consoled myself with the bitter thought that it was a lot
easier for people angry at the heteropatriarchal system to make a target
of someone like me than to confront the entrenched, homophobic,
misogynist pillars of the system, who have considerably more power than
one scared bi babe with long hair, or with short hair but dressed
femme-y, who was hoping for a few hours of respite at the Womyn’s
Coffeehouse. I didn’t think the wee-moon’s community needed saving from
the likes of me, but, apparently, some disagreed.

Then, if some people were capable of hearing that I considered myself a
femme, and they were okay with that, we hit a different snag when they
found out that not only am I a femme, but I am a femme who likes femmes.
That was just toooooo weird for most of them. Perverse, even. I was
routinely shunned by lesbians for the heinous act of being a femme, and
worse, an unrepentant femme-loving femme. I guess I was just too damn
queer.


Everyone, check it out, it's fantastic!

belledame222 said...


The sense is that people who identify as "queer" are exiles, misfits and outcasts from a larger "gay" cultural, political, intellectual, and sexual world.

...if this is true, maybe I belong more with the queer people. :P


now you're getting the idea.

this is btw exactly why a number of purists of various sorts dislike the term, Heart I suspect included. too watered down y'see.

Star Bellied Sneetches:

also see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sneetches_and_Other_Stories

alphabitch said...

here's the wikipedia page on the star-bellied sneetches.

I am also one that prefers to call myself queer on account of it feels less limiting to me. I've dated mostly cisgendered females and males, but am from time to time attracted to transgendered folks (before, during, and after their transition). While I think gender is fascinating, I don't regard a particular manifestation of it as a necessary -- nor sufficient -- condition for my attraction to develop.

However, I do recognize that the word queer makes people uncomfortable, so I usually don't use it in polite company. If forced to make some kind of statement, I'll only cop to being 'not heterosexual.'

Regarding what on earth to say when in a monogamous relationship, maybe this is why I don't like them :)

But seriously -- if I were in a monogamous happily-ever-after type relationship, the gender of the people I am not sleeping with is kind of irrelevant.

Daisy said...

so, does she -really- have violet eyes? i was always fascinated by that idea.

Yes, she does. Since she is a goddess, none of the regular rules apply to her. :)

Daisy said...

Link to Piny's post at Feministe on this thread.

I dunno if "Hm" (post title) signals disapproval or not (?) so I didn't post over there! :P

Trinity said...

Not sure if you'll see this, but

"Trin, I am not pandering. I am talking about Pavlov."

I didn't say you were. I said "I AM not here to pander."

As in, people have told me to my face to use nicer words for myself so that THEY wouldn't have to have MY sexuality "thrown in their face like that."

To which I say "fuck you, I am not here to pander to you."

Whether you have a visceral reaction to the word has nothing to do with whether straight vanilla people who want everyone to assimilate and make nice think someone calling herself a queer sadomasochist is too shocking and run for their smelling salts.

Daisy said...

Oh, I know what you mean. I also think Belle and Holly are right in that "queer" is a generational thing!

I am far more comfortable with the word after Holly's explanation!

www.estadisticasweb.biz said...

Oh my god, there's a great deal of helpful information here!