Girlfags/Guydykes, and how it ties in with a Genderqueer identity

[JAKQ7111]

girlfag requires that the guy be gay. Those people you were describing who like queer dudes because they feel safer and they connect to them... those are girlfags. Those are girls who idealized gay relationships as a way of avoiding what makes them uncomfortable.

This...just...this...I've been holding in a rant for a long time, and I'm going to try and make this as succinct as possible, but there is something in this concept that REALLY grinds my gears!

Ah, forget it...expect a topic on this issue in the "musings and rantings" section.

I keep checking musings and haven't seen it yet... inquiring minds want to know!

I just added the topic...it was hard to write eloquently, so it took a while.

[Nalle Neversure]

GTY, have you heard of Yada Forum? It's where the crazy people from Transwhatevers thread have gone. ;) My point is that Yada Forum has a lot of gender non-conforming people that can offer you opinions and insights. :)

[Great Thief Yatagarasu]

All I've said is that I have a major problem with the term, and I stand by what I said about this in particular... girlfag requires that the guy be gay. If you just like guys, and you feel like sometimes you relate to them as a man (I don't know what that means but I'm not questioning that), then you are not a girlfag. Those people you were describing who like queer dudes because they feel safer and they connect to them... those are girlfags. Those are girls who idealized gay relationships as a way of avoiding what makes them uncomfortable. That doesn't sound like what you are describing. Anyone who says something about a gay male relationship being better in any way is a girlfag, and I'm sorry but they ARE full of shit and they ARE idealizing something they aren't a part of. you just feel like you relate to guys as a guy sometimes. That's a different thing, imo. Also, imo, I think its fairly common... but I also acknowledge spending the last 15 years in the lgbt community, where I'm sure its more common than in your typical UK high school. I do sometimes think things are more common than they are because in my life that's how it is. All that means is that as much as you may be stressing now, you will find people and places that, over time, make you feel totally comfortable.

Fair enough. I've tried looking into it more, so I can't say it's one thing for certain. It seems to be one of those terms where different people interpret it differently - some people are more like how you've described, while others seem to be more transgendered than anything else, while others were in a kind of murky area between the two. I doubt everyone who uses the term has exactly the same experience with it, is all I'm saying - let's be honest, the basic definition is pretty open to interpretation.

What you are describing IS a "full of shit" idea, I do agree. And it's not what I think, or what I'd want anyone else to think I think. Maybe it is more common in different social circles, you're right - I'll be honest, I see it a lot in the anime community, especially amongst slash writers, and I have at least one friend who's expressed a similar idea as this independent of any labels. So maybe it's a thing more common in different places - who knows?

Just as a totally non-personal, academic topic, it's still really interesting to look into and discuss, methinks, just because of the aforementioned "mixed bag" of reactions to it.

[Great Thief Yatagarasu]

there's something quite comfortable and attractive in being able to talk to a man who has the courage to not only be honest with his sexuality, but to also express an interest in things that are considered to be outside his gender. That's not to say that all gay or bi men are effeminate camp guys - but it's just nice to see guys who are so brutally honest about themselves, their lives and their interests, whilst not giving two shits about what society thinks of them. Personally, I am also attracted to androgynous things in both men and women - again, while gay/bi men aren't necessarily more effeminate than straight ones, my personal experience has found that they at least tend to be more honest about the androgynous qualities they have.

Thief! You yourself say that what interests you isn't necessarily specific to gay men, which seems to contradict the definition of "girlfag."

You ought to hang out with more theatre people! As a theatre major, I can say it's a strange field in which considerable flexibility of identity is virtually a requirement. You can't tell the gay guys from the straight ones, I kid you not. Everyone is eccentric, and 0 fucks are given about what society thinks. I've seen straight people play gay characters, and gay people play straight characters. I've also seen two guys, both straight as an arrow by their own report, totally make out on stage. I. Love. Theatre. It's all awesome (except for the tragic dearth of lesbians, but what can you do). One of my straight guy friends paints his fingernails. Another is a total androgyne--I assumed he was gay for the longest time, but it turns out he's jokingly referred to as "an icon of straight society" in our community. The most masculine, straight actor I know fanboys over his all-time favorite musical--Mary Poppins--all the damn time. If only the rest of society were like an uber-progressive college's theatre department, straight guys would be a lot more open with their quirks. We're not there yet, but we're certainly making progress. There are straight guys who are extremely open about themselves, and all their non-traditionally-masculine interests, I promise.

I have totally, madly fallen for "drama kids" before when I was in high school, not because they were fabulously camp or anything like that, but because they were into something "girly" and they did not give two shits about it. They were good singers, actors and musicians, and they didn't give a shit if people thought they were gay because it was what they were good at and it was what they enjoyed, and that's just so admirable to me. That is the kind of guy I like, and your theatre troop sounds AWESOME - I always wanted to get into drama, but I didn't think I was any good at it so I didn't bother trying (I had really poor self-esteem when I was younger).

I don't really go around saying "I like gay dudes", because I know how awful and ridiculous that sounds. I don't like the implications behind it, either. However, I know the kind of guys I like, and by pure luck or coincidence a lot of them have been bi or gay and that hasn't bothered me. If I really really like a guy and I find out he's gay, I'd give up trying to pursue him but I wouldn't like him any less. I know there are straight guys who are like that, because I've met them and fancied the crap out of them and gotten my heart broken by them. If I could go back and maybe reword some of the stuff I've said, then I would, because I don't like that idea of liking gay guys just because they're gay. That creeps my ass out, it really does. There's a difference between having a type and objectifying people.

I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure that MUST be part of the definition. Mentioning it to someone who knew a lot more about the whole thing than I did (due to actually having used the label and been part of the community before he decided it didn't fit him anymore), he split it into two meanings: 1) person who identifies as a gay and/or bisexual man who is also comfortable (in part, large or small) identifying as a woman (gender + sexual orientation identification, could also alternatively be described as bigender or fluid gender due to the additional identification of woman), and 2) person who is attracted to gay and/or bisexual men (either in addition to attraction to straight men, or exclusively) who does not identify as a gay or bisexual man (sexual orientation identification only, not gender identification) and identifies as a woman. The latter definition obviously has more negative feelings and implications attached to it, and if I am referring to myself as a girlfag it's not how I mean it (although part of the reason why calling myself that would be a bad idea is because that's what people would assume). The former, however, isn't nearly so creepy. I've read things from people who use the latter definition and I've gone "Nope, sorry, don't agree with that," and I've read stuff from people using the former and I'm like "Well, actually, I understand that". Again, I'm still trying to look at this thing from an objective point of view, and it's really fascinating. It's kinda like how people have always been debating just what exactly being asexual is and whether the definition we have right now is enough - all the people on this site are very different, but the label still applies.

[Guest]

All I've said is that I have a major problem with the term, and I stand by what I said about this in particular... girlfag requires that the guy be gay. If you just like guys, and you feel like sometimes you relate to them as a man (I don't know what that means but I'm not questioning that), then you are not a girlfag. Those people you were describing who like queer dudes because they feel safer and they connect to them... those are girlfags. Those are girls who idealized gay relationships as a way of avoiding what makes them uncomfortable. That doesn't sound like what you are describing. Anyone who says something about a gay male relationship being better in any way is a girlfag, and I'm sorry but they ARE full of shit and they ARE idealizing something they aren't a part of. you just feel like you relate to guys as a guy sometimes. That's a different thing, imo. Also, imo, I think its fairly common... but I also acknowledge spending the last 15 years in the lgbt community, where I'm sure its more common than in your typical UK high school. I do sometimes think things are more common than they are because in my life that's how it is. All that means is that as much as you may be stressing now, you will find people and places that, over time, make you feel totally comfortable.

Fair enough. I've tried looking into it more, so I can't say it's one thing for certain. It seems to be one of those terms where different people interpret it differently - some people are more like how you've described, while others seem to be more transgendered than anything else, while others were in a kind of murky area between the two. I doubt everyone who uses the term has exactly the same experience with it, is all I'm saying - let's be honest, the basic definition is pretty open to interpretation.

What you are describing IS a "full of shit" idea, I do agree. And it's not what I think, or what I'd want anyone else to think I think. Maybe it is more common in different social circles, you're right - I'll be honest, I see it a lot in the anime community, especially amongst slash writers, and I have at least one friend who's expressed a similar idea as this independent of any labels. So maybe it's a thing more common in different places - who knows?

Just as a totally non-personal, academic topic, it's still really interesting to look into and discuss, methinks, just because of the aforementioned "mixed bag" of reactions to it.

I just want to say that I wasn't at all upset or offended by your response to me... it's a personal topic and it's OK if you take it personally. There are strong opinions about these ideas and that's OK too. So no worries, I felt like we had a reasonable and civil discussion. :)

[BaronTheCat]

...This has become quite a long thread. I don't know if I'll read it through, but there are some of your original questions/points I'd like to comment :)

[*]The idea of "being attracted to gay men" is thrown in the spotlight (and is often a cause for further criticism, as mentioned above) - what does it mean, to have such a preference? Is it so different to liking chubby people, or muscled men?

I'm attracted primarily to (certain types of) gay men. This is because I'm a gay man! Maybe knowing that this person can be attracted to a person of my own gender, makes them more attractive in my eyes. Maybe, if there's a part of your self that is a gay man, or a lesbian, it's only natural that you're attracted to gay men/lesbians? You said that girlfags/guydykes also were attracted to other kinds of persons, so it would make sense. I knew a lesbian who also identified as a gay guy. (She didn't want to transition.) She was attracted to women as a woman and to men as a man. I think gender identity is some sort of sexual/romantic self... who you are in a sexual and/or romantic context. That would be the other half of sexual/romantic orientation, which is about who you are attracted to.

On a personal level, in explaining what "being attracted to gay and bi men" means - there's something quite comfortable and attractive in being able to talk to a man who has the courage to not only be honest with his sexuality, but to also express an interest in things that are considered to be outside his gender. That's not to say that all gay or bi men are effeminate camp guys - but it's just nice to see guys who are so brutally honest about themselves, their lives and their interests, whilst not giving two shits about what society thinks of them. Personally, I am also attracted to androgynous things in both men and women - again, while gay/bi men aren't necessarily more effeminate than straight ones, my personal experience has found that they at least tend to be more honest about the androgynous qualities they have. But then, that's just me - I'm sure someone else would tell you something different.

Oh yes. I'm not at all comfortable expressing cultural femininity, for several reasons. But I suppose more gay men than straight men are comfortable breaking the stereotypes... they're already seen as not really men, so what have they to lose? The only problem is, that such behavior "confirms" their non-maleness in the eyes of the prejudiced masses. I think we all should first and foremost be ourselves, but it's hard when almost all traits are associated with something else, that might not apply to us, so even if we are ourselves, we're frequently interpreted as something else.

[*]Is it objectifying to be attracted to any one type of person or relationship model? What is it that makes it move from being mere admiration to objectification?

The difference between attraction and objectification, is that when you objectify, you don't respect the "object" of attraction as a person. They become a tool for your sexual and/or emotional pleasure. It's not objectification to be attracted to gay men, or to like reading stories about gay men. But it's objectification when those gay men are portrayed as weak and vulnerable and get used by stronger men, and this is described as something romantic ... You know, like in some yaoi and shonen ai. This is exactly what male authors have done to their female characters for ages, and it's no better when female authors portray men that way.

[*]Doing research, while one of the main drawbacks of this identity is the cold hard fact that gay individuals will most likely not be interested in you, I did find "Meet up" pages for gay men and women who wanted to meet and try dating girlfags or guydykes - so it does appear that there are some gay men and lesbian women out there who not only accept the concept, but actively want to seek it. What does this actually mean in terms of sexuality? Would such relationships be considered straight, or would they still be queer? Knowing that your opposite sex partner at least partially identifies as the same sex you, does this make the relationship a homosexual one from the perspective of the gay partner, or do they end up being relationships where they see it as a straight relationship but they don't care?

If I had a relationship with a non-binary person I would not consider it homoromantic, tough it would be queer. I would of course appreciate and recognize this person's entire self; it's not like I'd only love the male part of them. But I suppose it'd take a recognizable male persona for me to become attracted.

(Btw, I think your posts are interesting.)

[Guest]

[*]Is it objectifying to be attracted to any one type of person or relationship model? What is it that makes it move from being mere admiration to objectification?

The difference between attraction and objectification, is that when you objectify, you don't respect the "object" of attraction as a person. They become a tool for your sexual and/or emotional pleasure. It's not objectification to be attracted to gay men, or to like reading stories about gay men. But it's objectification when those gay men are portrayed as weak and vulnerable and get used by stronger men, and this is described as something romantic ... You know, like in some yaoi and shonen ai. This is exactly what male authors have done to their female characters for ages, and it's no better when female authors portray men that way.

Thank you for this. I was trying to work out the difference but kind of forgot about it. I think "respect" goes a bit further than this... I'd say you don't respect your target if that one quality is both necessary AND sufficient for your (god I don't know what word to use here) enjoyment of them. Does that make sense?

[Great Thief Yatagarasu]

...This has become quite a long thread. I don't know if I'll read it through, but there are some of your original questions/points I'd like to comment :)

[*]The idea of "being attracted to gay men" is thrown in the spotlight (and is often a cause for further criticism, as mentioned above) - what does it mean, to have such a preference? Is it so different to liking chubby people, or muscled men?

I'm attracted primarily to (certain types of) gay men. This is because I'm a gay man! Maybe knowing that this person can be attracted to a person of my own gender, makes them more attractive in my eyes. Maybe, if there's a part of your self that is a gay man, or a lesbian, it's only natural that you're attracted to gay men/lesbians? You said that girlfags/guydykes also were attracted to other kinds of persons, so it would make sense. I knew a lesbian who also identified as a gay guy. (She didn't want to transition.) She was attracted to women as a woman and to men as a man. I think gender identity is some sort of sexual/romantic self... who you are in a sexual and/or romantic context. That would be the other half of sexual/romantic orientation, which is about who you are attracted to.

On a personal level, in explaining what "being attracted to gay and bi men" means - there's something quite comfortable and attractive in being able to talk to a man who has the courage to not only be honest with his sexuality, but to also express an interest in things that are considered to be outside his gender. That's not to say that all gay or bi men are effeminate camp guys - but it's just nice to see guys who are so brutally honest about themselves, their lives and their interests, whilst not giving two shits about what society thinks of them. Personally, I am also attracted to androgynous things in both men and women - again, while gay/bi men aren't necessarily more effeminate than straight ones, my personal experience has found that they at least tend to be more honest about the androgynous qualities they have. But then, that's just me - I'm sure someone else would tell you something different.

Oh yes. I'm not at all comfortable expressing cultural femininity, for several reasons. But I suppose more gay men than straight men are comfortable breaking the stereotypes... they're already seen as not really men, so what have they to lose? The only problem is, that such behavior "confirms" their non-maleness in the eyes of the prejudiced masses. I think we all should first and foremost be ourselves, but it's hard when almost all traits are associated with something else, that might not apply to us, so even if we are ourselves, we're frequently interpreted as something else.

[*]Is it objectifying to be attracted to any one type of person or relationship model? What is it that makes it move from being mere admiration to objectification?

The difference between attraction and objectification, is that when you objectify, you don't respect the "object" of attraction as a person. They become a tool for your sexual and/or emotional pleasure. It's not objectification to be attracted to gay men, or to like reading stories about gay men. But it's objectification when those gay men are portrayed as weak and vulnerable and get used by stronger men, and this is described as something romantic ... You know, like in some yaoi and shonen ai. This is exactly what male authors have done to their female characters for ages, and it's no better when female authors portray men that way.

[*]Doing research, while one of the main drawbacks of this identity is the cold hard fact that gay individuals will most likely not be interested in you, I did find "Meet up" pages for gay men and women who wanted to meet and try dating girlfags or guydykes - so it does appear that there are some gay men and lesbian women out there who not only accept the concept, but actively want to seek it. What does this actually mean in terms of sexuality? Would such relationships be considered straight, or would they still be queer? Knowing that your opposite sex partner at least partially identifies as the same sex you, does this make the relationship a homosexual one from the perspective of the gay partner, or do they end up being relationships where they see it as a straight relationship but they don't care?

If I had a relationship with a non-binary person I would not consider it homoromantic, tough it would be queer. I would of course appreciate and recognize this person's entire self; it's not like I'd only love the male part of them. But I suppose it'd take a recognizable male persona for me to become attracted.

(Btw, I think your posts are interesting.)

Maybe - I think a lot of people are attracted to people who they have SOMETHING in common with, whether it be certain interests of other things. I like that theory of gender being part of sexual orientation, too, because while I don't think men and women are massively different, I think it would change maybe how you'd view or go about conducting a relationship, and who with.

I suppose my "type" would just be "gender non-conforming" or "nerdy", so yeah, that covers a whole range of people right there. I tend to like people "for themselves", though, and I don't like that idea of "I like gay dudes because they're all like this" - that doesn't work.

I think I tried explaining that earlier, but I'm not entirely sure I worded it anywhere near as well as you did. I think the difference is like the difference between "That girl over there has a nice ass" and "that's a nice ass" - the former at least acknowledges that there's a girl who that ass happens to be attached to, while the latter just sees an ass. Does that make any sense? And that's pretty much why I stopped reading yaoi manga and started getting more picky in the slash fiction I read, because some of the yaoi that I happen to own (that I couldn't read ahead of buying, by the way) is fucking appalling when it comes to that. I actually think that that's not just a trait that's in fiction when women are writing it for other women - I see some of those same creepy tropes in works with straight romances that happen to be written by women for women. I seriously read some of these things and wonder what woman actually finds these things to be romantic or desirable at any point, seriously. So maybe that's just a woman thing, like some women just happen to find that shit genuinely romantic? Either way, I find it creepy and I'm very picky about what I read and like.

Interesting. I mean, I know a big part of why some of the people who use this label feel bad about it is knowing that the chances of them actually having relationships with the people they're interested in are very very small, and I don't really know what it would actually take for those feelings to be reciprocated, if it's even possible at all.

[BaronTheCat]

[*]Is it objectifying to be attracted to any one type of person or relationship model? What is it that makes it move from being mere admiration to objectification?

The difference between attraction and objectification, is that when you objectify, you don't respect the "object" of attraction as a person. They become a tool for your sexual and/or emotional pleasure. It's not objectification to be attracted to gay men, or to like reading stories about gay men. But it's objectification when those gay men are portrayed as weak and vulnerable and get used by stronger men, and this is described as something romantic ... You know, like in some yaoi and shonen ai. This is exactly what male authors have done to their female characters for ages, and it's no better when female authors portray men that way.

Thank you for this. I was trying to work out the difference but kind of forgot about it. I think "respect" goes a bit further than this... I'd say you don't respect your target if that one quality is both necessary AND sufficient for your (god I don't know what word to use here) enjoyment of them. Does that make sense?

I think you're correct about that.

The "sufficient" part is where you don't care about the target's personality or how they feel about your attraction... and that's objectification and lack of respect.

The "necessary" part... I never thought about it, but it's interesting. If you diss somebody because they lack that one trait, it's also a kind of disrespect for the person. On the other hand, if you're exclusively hetero or homosexual/romantic, it is impossible to be attracted to a person who's not your preferred gender... is it disrespect? I don't think so, but I think it's sad and unfair in a way, that attraction can be so superficial.

[Guest]

That's why necessary and sufficient have to go together... because I'm not sure if sufficient on its own is that big a deal either, at least depending on what trait we're talking about.

Say I like person A because of their brains, person B because of their attractiveness, and person C because of their sense of humor. In each case, that one trait is sufficient, but since I'm picking out different traits in different people... essentially I'm just loving each individual for what makes them awesome. I don't see anything wrong with that. That's sufficient without necessary and that seems OK to me.

Necessary without sufficient also seems Ok to me. Like the sex of your partner... OK, so someone finds female genitalia a necessary component to dating someone. As long as that's not the ONLY thing they care about, I don't see why that's a problem. Sure, being female is necessary, but it's not sufficient... you also have to be smart and share interests, etc, etc.

[Sally]

is impossible to be attracted to a person who's not your preferred gender... is it disrespect? I don't think so, but I think it's sad and unfair in a way, that attraction can be so superficial.

I don't think feelings can be properly labeled "superficial". It may be superficial to decide that you will not have lunch with anyone who are older than you are. That's denying you and any number of people a possibly enjoyable conversation simply due to their age. But attraction to someone (no matter how you define that attraction: sexual, aesthetic, intellectual, whatever) is a feeling, and if you don't feel that they are in any way attractive to you and thus you're not interested in any kind of relationship, that's natural, not superficial.

[miqui]

a guydyke doesn't want to put his penis into a lesbian's vagina

because he feels as a lesbian he will act in sex the way a lesbian would (using fingers, toys, tongue, but NOT his penis)

same goes for girlfag, she wants to fuck a guy's anus with a strap-on, not having him put his penis in her. She wont even show her breasts to him or she would even dress as a boy so the gay man feels comfortable

Hello sexism. Boys normally have fingers and tongues and can use toys. I've had sex with girls using only these. I've had sex with boys using only these too. For a thread which is about bucking gender stereotypes people sure have rigid ideas about how we must have sex - er, sorry, "gay sex" and "straight sex". Seriously. If he wants to have sex using his fingers, toys and tongue then why doesn't he just do it? I do. I didn't realise that made me a "lesbian". I'm going with Skullery on this one, it just seems very objectifying.

I suppose more gay men than straight men are comfortable breaking the stereotypes... they're already seen as not really men, so what have they to lose? The only problem is, that such behavior "confirms" their non-maleness in the eyes of the prejudiced masses.

True. I wouldn't find this problematic personally, since I don't really care if I'm believed to be a "man" or not, except that it usually comes packaged with other niceties like being ostracised, excluded from the labour market, harassment and brutal physical assault. That tends to keep people in line. It is confusing though. It does seem that people have a behaviour-based definition of maleness. Whether or not I would be one pretty much depends on how people are defining it.

The difference between attraction and objectification, is that when you objectify, you don't respect the "object" of attraction as a person. They become a tool for your sexual and/or emotional pleasure. It's not objectification to be attracted to gay men, or to like reading stories about gay men. But it's objectification when those gay men are portrayed as weak and vulnerable and get used by stronger men, and this is described as something romantic ... You know, like in some yaoi and shonen ai. This is exactly what male authors have done to their female characters for ages, and it's no better when female authors portray men that way.

So much yes to this. I also find it objectifying, sexist and degrading when people say "I like guys" but what they really mean is, "I like big, aggressive macho men who give off serious predatory vibes and will dominate me, throw me onto the bed and fuck me hard". And you're supposed to assume this. Then if it turns out you want to have some fingery tonguey sex now apparently you're a "guydyke". Yeah... how about we just stop being sexist?

[Great Thief Yatagarasu]

a guydyke doesn't want to put his penis into a lesbian's vagina

because he feels as a lesbian he will act in sex the way a lesbian would (using fingers, toys, tongue, but NOT his penis)

same goes for girlfag, she wants to fuck a guy's anus with a strap-on, not having him put his penis in her. She wont even show her breasts to him or she would even dress as a boy so the gay man feels comfortable

Hello sexism. Boys normally have fingers and tongues and can use toys. I've had sex with girls using only these. I've had sex with boys using only these too. For a thread which is about bucking gender stereotypes people sure have rigid ideas about how we must have sex - er, sorry, "gay sex" and "straight sex". Seriously. If he wants to have sex using his fingers, toys and tongue then why doesn't he just do it? I do. I didn't realise that made me a "lesbian". I'm going with Skullery on this one, it just seems very objectifying.

I suppose more gay men than straight men are comfortable breaking the stereotypes... they're already seen as not really men, so what have they to lose? The only problem is, that such behavior "confirms" their non-maleness in the eyes of the prejudiced masses.

True. I wouldn't find this problematic personally, since I don't really care if I'm believed to be a "man" or not, except that it usually comes packaged with other niceties like being ostracised, excluded from the labour market, harassment and brutal physical assault. That tends to keep people in line. It is confusing though. It does seem that people have a behaviour-based definition of maleness. Whether or not I would be one pretty much depends on how people are defining it.

The difference between attraction and objectification, is that when you objectify, you don't respect the "object" of attraction as a person. They become a tool for your sexual and/or emotional pleasure. It's not objectification to be attracted to gay men, or to like reading stories about gay men. But it's objectification when those gay men are portrayed as weak and vulnerable and get used by stronger men, and this is described as something romantic ... You know, like in some yaoi and shonen ai. This is exactly what male authors have done to their female characters for ages, and it's no better when female authors portray men that way.

So much yes to this. I also find it objectifying, sexist and degrading when people say "I like guys" but what they really mean is, "I like big, aggressive macho men who give off serious predatory vibes and will dominate me, throw me onto the bed and fuck me hard". And you're supposed to assume this. Then if it turns out you want to have some fingery tonguey sex now apparently you're a "guydyke". Yeah... how about we just stop being sexist?

...Really? You're seriously going with this?

Firstly, doing specific sexual things doesn't make you a girlfag/guydyke - it's the significance you place behind those things. Using pegging as an example, some people do it just because they enjoy it, others would see it as a genderqueer expression on part of the lady, and some people genuinely view it as a D/s activity because the man is apparently "submitting". No one is claiming that pegging is something that only girlfags and gay men can do - to say that would be exactly the same as claiming that it can only be done in a D/s scenario. It would be forcing an implication and context to something that can have a variety of meanings to a variety of different people. No one is forcing this idea on you because you like to go down on women. If you were to go down on a woman because that's just what you happen to like, then fine, you go do that - but if it's how you happened to express your guydyke identity, then you should be allowed to do that, too. So no, that doesn't make you a lesbian - partly identifying as a woman and still being attracted to women, on the other hand, would. You are a man that just so happens to like fucking women with your tongue, which is a radically different thing. Good for you, though. Please read everything that everyone's said before waving the sexism card, if you'd be so kind.

And no one is SUPPOSED to assume that people mean that when they say "I like men". For example, when I say "I like men", what I really mean is "I like men who could take part in a New World of Darkness game with me, would respect my boundaries and have the guts to be himself and fuck what the world thinks of him". That's what I mean when I say "I like men", and I actually find it quite sexist on YOUR part that you assume that I mean something different when I say it. What, do you think I MUST want manly dominant men just because I'm a woman? Because that's what you're implying right there. You sexist. I like men, and there's nothing sexist about saying that I like men - the only sexism that can be found in that statement is the sexist implications that YOU are attaching to it. Again, please actually listen to people before immediately assuming something's sexist - God, you seem to be worse than I am when I comes to that, and I can see sexism everywhere! At least I don't invent sexism to get offended at.

[Guest]

Actually, I agree 100% that saying men only want to stick their penises in women is sexist. And untrue. I didn't fight the quote above because I had already said in another post that nearly every single guy who is into lesbians would happily be a woman and/or have penis-free sex to experience intimacy with a lesbian. I think it's inaccurate and sexist to say that, no, men just want to stick their dicks into everything. That has not been my experience talking to men who fancy lesbians.

As I'm sure other lesbians can attest to, this comes up a lot. Maybe it's just cuz I look straight and am open about sex, but I've had more conversations with more guys than i could count about this specific topic.

[Great Thief Yatagarasu]

Actually, I agree 100% that saying men only want to stick their penises in women is sexist. And untrue. I didn't fight the quote above because I had already said in another post that nearly every single guy who is into lesbians would happily be a woman and/or have penis-free sex to experience intimacy with a lesbian. I think it's inaccurate and sexist to say that, no, men just want to stick their dicks into everything. That has not been my experience talking to men who fancy lesbians.

As I'm sure other lesbians can attest to, this comes up a lot. Maybe it's just cuz I look straight and am open about sex, but I've had more conversations with more guys than i could count about this specific topic.

But that WASN'T what anyone was saying. Merely that people who have these genderqueer identities MAY want to express it in such a way, not that they must or that anyone who does these things is a girlfag/guydyke. You wouldn't say that any guy who likes pegging is innately submissive, would you? And yet, some people view it as something you can only do in a D/s context. Which isn't true...but claiming that it can never be viewed in such a context isn't true either. I think that was what they meant in saying that. If someone wants to view their penis-less sex as an expression of their genderqueer identity...who are we to say they're wrong? At the same time, no one is saying that a lack of a penis innately makes it a "lesbian" activity. Men can decide not to stick their penises in women if that's not what they're into - that doesn't make them guydykes, nor should they be viewed as such if that's not how they think of themselves. Do you get what I mean by that?

And I still think that even if a guy wants to shag a lesbian, he is NOT going to admit that he partly identifies as a woman to do that, even if it does allow him to shag a lesbian - the social stigma that comes along with saying things like that would be much worse than any positive things the declaration would have given him.

Plus, that above quote DID carry some unfortunate implications of its own - like suggesting that just giving a preference like "I like men" MUST be sexist against men because apparently when people say they "like men" they MUST be attaching loads of misandrist meanings to the term "man", right? Which...yeah, I don't even need to say how that offends me.

[Guest]

Actually, I agree 100% that saying men only want to stick their penises in women is sexist. And untrue. I didn't fight the quote above because I had already said in another post that nearly every single guy who is into lesbians would happily be a woman and/or have penis-free sex to experience intimacy with a lesbian. I think it's inaccurate and sexist to say that, no, men just want to stick their dicks into everything. That has not been my experience talking to men who fancy lesbians.

As I'm sure other lesbians can attest to, this comes up a lot. Maybe it's just cuz I look straight and am open about sex, but I've had more conversations with more guys than i could count about this specific topic.

But that WASN'T what anyone was saying. Merely that people who have these genderqueer identities MAY want to express it in such a way, not that they must or that anyone who does these things is a girlfag/guydyke.

Actually, someone did say that. Let me dig thru this thread and find it.

EDIT: Ok, here it is.

I'm sure if you asked most pervy straight dudes if they'd be OK identifying as a lesbian in order to fuck one, they'd all say "HELLS YES".

errr not really

a guydyke doesn't want to put his penis into a lesbian's vagina

because he feels as a lesbian he will act in sex the way a lesbian would (using fingers, toys, tongue, but NOT his penis)

same goes for girlfag, she wants to fuck a guy's anus with a strap-on, not having him put his penis in her. She wont even show her breasts to him or she would even dress as a boy so the gay man feels comfortable

and that's basically the difference between guydykes/girlfags and straight people who simply fancy gay people, when it comes to sex

And ^^^ is untrue and kinda sexist, at least its definitely adhering far too strictly to gender roles.

[Great Thief Yatagarasu]

Just something extra that I noticed...Eddie Izzard, as well as being very open about being a transvestite, has been calling himself a "male lesbian" for years now, and no one's kicked up any fuss about that. I wonder why that is? As an aside, the brief times he's mentioned that part of it (which he sees as relevant and a part of his transvestitism) does actually sum up a lot of the feelings I've read about from people who use these identities. He's described himself as "a complete boy plus half a woman", which I suppose does sum up how I feel quite a bit (a complete woman plus half a man? that is, when I'm feeling female at all). In fact, he has claimed to be "a lesbian trapped in a man's body". Does the fact that he cross-dresses on stage allow him to more openly express this without people raining down the criticism? Or could it be because he's never actually used the term "guydyke"? So yeah, I find that interesting too.

As for that quote, I do think it was just worded wrongly. She mentions "that's the difference between guydykes/girlfags and straight people who simply fancy gay people, when it comes to sex", which I admit does sound kind of unfortunate, but I doubt she deliberately intended to imply what she ended up implying. Maybe she did, but I can't speak for her, and I don't think anyone else has been bellowing such a thing from teh rooftops right from the word go, you know?

[Guest]

Just something extra that I noticed...Eddie Izzard, as well as being very open about being a transvestite, has been calling himself a "male lesbian" for years now, and no one's kicked up any fuss about that.

lol.. because he's kidding! He's a comedian!

As for that quote, I do think it was just worded wrongly. She mentions "that's the difference between guydykes/girlfags and straight people who simply fancy gay people, when it comes to sex", which I admit does sound kind of unfortunate, but I doubt she deliberately intended to imply what she ended up implying. Maybe she did, but I can't speak for her, and I don't think anyone else has been bellowing such a thing from teh rooftops right from the word go, you know?

I agree, which is why I didn't pick on the post when I first saw it. But since Miqui brought it up and you argued with them about it, I figured it was only fair to acknowledge that the same quote stuck in my craw when I read it too.

[Great Thief Yatagarasu]

Just something extra that I noticed...Eddie Izzard, as well as being very open about being a transvestite, has been calling himself a "male lesbian" for years now, and no one's kicked up any fuss about that.

lol.. because he's kidding! He's a comedian!

...Not really? He's come out as saying that his cross-dressing isn't a part of his performance in any way, nor is it a sexual fetish. He's not done it in a while since he's gone more seriously into acting and tv roles (because CLEARLY you can't be taken seriously as an actor if you cross-dress), but it still seems to be an important part of his personality. Besides, which cross-dressing is often used for comedy in the UK (and I still don't know why), his type of stand-up comdey doesn't actually require it. He could and has gone on stage without it and he's still just as funny. So yeah, I don't think it's "because he's kidding". Plus, he has apparently called himself transgender in the past as well, so yeah, he isn't kidding. That's not something you say for shits and giggles.

[Guest]

Just something extra that I noticed...Eddie Izzard, as well as being very open about being a transvestite, has been calling himself a "male lesbian" for years now, and no one's kicked up any fuss about that.

lol.. because he's kidding! He's a comedian!

...Not really? He's come out as saying that his cross-dressing isn't a part of his performance in any way, nor is it a sexual fetish. He's not done it in a while since he's gone more seriously into acting and tv roles (because CLEARLY you can't be taken seriously as an actor if you cross-dress), but it still seems to be an important part of his personality. Besides, which cross-dressing is often used for comedy in the UK (and I still don't know why), his type of stand-up comdey doesn't actually require it. He could and has gone on stage without it and he's still just as funny. So yeah, I don't think it's "because he's kidding".

You're talking about two different things here, Yata. His crossdressing is real. The claim that he's a lesbian has been said jokingly.

And I still think that even if a guy wants to shag a lesbian, he is NOT going to admit that he partly identifies as a woman to do that, even if it does allow him to shag a lesbian - the social stigma that comes along with saying things like that would be much worse than any positive things the declaration would have given him.

I understand that you think this, but I've actually met several guys IRL who have no problem saying whatever they need to say to bang a lesbian.

I remember back during the DADT discussion and you kept saying that no men would identify as gay to get out of the military, but I've met several guys IRL who tried to do that, too.

Therefore, my reality is different than your reality. It seems like a paradox but it's not... it's just one of those "life is weird" things.

[Great Thief Yatagarasu]

Just something extra that I noticed...Eddie Izzard, as well as being very open about being a transvestite, has been calling himself a "male lesbian" for years now, and no one's kicked up any fuss about that.

lol.. because he's kidding! He's a comedian!

...Not really? He's come out as saying that his cross-dressing isn't a part of his performance in any way, nor is it a sexual fetish. He's not done it in a while since he's gone more seriously into acting and tv roles (because CLEARLY you can't be taken seriously as an actor if you cross-dress), but it still seems to be an important part of his personality. Besides, which cross-dressing is often used for comedy in the UK (and I still don't know why), his type of stand-up comdey doesn't actually require it. He could and has gone on stage without it and he's still just as funny. So yeah, I don't think it's "because he's kidding".

You're talking about two different things here, Yata. His crossdressing is real. The claim that he's a lesbian has been said jokingly.

In his own words. Yes, it's said on stage, but while his comedy IS surreal, a lot of it is observational stuff too. Even if he isn't, the way he describes it certainly fits the sort of thing that this topic can refer to.

[Nalle Neversure]

I'm going to lock this thread for a period of 24 hours or so.

The thread is now open. Please be civil!

In the meantime, please consider the tone of your posts before pressing the reply button. Written words can be misunderstood more easily than spoken ones because there are no tone of voice or facial expressions present.

Also, if you do not agree with something, it does not give you the right to dismiss the people who do agree. Disagreeing can be done politely and without insulting others.

-Nalle, Gender mod

[Great Thief Yatagarasu]

I'm going to lock this thread for a period of 24 hours or so.

The thread is now open. Please be civil!

In the meantime, please consider the tone of your posts before pressing the reply button. Written words can be misunderstood more easily than spoken ones because there are no tone of voice or facial expressions present.

Also, if you do not agree with something, it does not give you the right to dismiss the people who do agree. Disagreeing can be done politely and without insulting others.

-Nalle, Gender mod

If I'm being completely honest - I don't get why the topic was blocked. Even if it WAS slightly heated a little ways back, I think changing the topic of conversation to Eddie Izzard kind of signals that things have gone back to being civil.

[UraNepu]

a guydyke doesn't want to put his penis into a lesbian's vagina

because he feels as a lesbian he will act in sex the way a lesbian would (using fingers, toys, tongue, but NOT his penis)

same goes for girlfag, she wants to fuck a guy's anus with a strap-on, not having him put his penis in her. She wont even show her breasts to him or she would even dress as a boy so the gay man feels comfortable

Hello sexism. Boys normally have fingers and tongues and can use toys. I've had sex with girls using only these. I've had sex with boys using only these too. For a thread which is about bucking gender stereotypes people sure have rigid ideas about how we must have sex - er, sorry, "gay sex" and "straight sex". Seriously. If he wants to have sex using his fingers, toys and tongue then why doesn't he just do it? I do. I didn't realise that made me a "lesbian". I'm going with Skullery on this one, it just seems very objectifying.

I didin't want to sound sexist and it never occurred to me that I would

this thing I wrote was an answer to this quote:

"I'm a lesbian, that means it's okay for me to put my penis in you!"

based on that logic I wrote what I have seen, read and observed, and that doesn't make it law, I never said that ppl who are not guydykes/girlfags do not do that in sex too. I was only responding to that quote, that's why it was one sided.

what I wanted to say is that guydykes/girlfags will involve in sex that would (mentally not physically) suit a gay person best (I know I'm wording this completely wrong again and I'll get once more misunderstood)

[Guest]

Hello sexism. Boys normally have fingers and tongues and can use toys. I've had sex with girls using only these. I've had sex with boys using only these too. For a thread which is about bucking gender stereotypes people sure have rigid ideas about how we must have sex - er, sorry, "gay sex" and "straight sex". Seriously. If he wants to have sex using his fingers, toys and tongue then why doesn't he just do it? I do. I didn't realise that made me a "lesbian". I'm going with Skullery on this one, it just seems very objectifying.

I think the key question is, would said boy ever feel the urge/need to use his genitals during any kind of sexual situation? Because that is a very important distinction. I think the term "guydyke" describes me well, because using a penis - even though I have the annoying misfortune to have one as part of my body, which I would prefer as female or neutrois (have no clear preference betwee those two, that's why I don't feel "trans" or "neutrois" are labels I can fully identify with and go by "genderqueer") - during an erotic/sexual situation would never even occur to me, it's something I can't even relate to; to me it's "why would anyone get the idea of doing that?!?". So I am obviously not into straight sex. Period. Putting the expression into airquotes simply doesn't make any kind of sense; and saying so isn't sexism. Sexism is hurtful, respectless, and dehumanizing, but so is political correctness gone overboard in a fight against "sexism". (Would that be antisexism then?)

I do not know whether I'd feel any kind of sexual attraction if I were biologically female, and I do not know whether physical, biological, Lesbian sex between two women, of of which were me, would in any way be "fulfilling" for me. I'm open to the possibility that I'd be just as asexual, but aesthetically and sensually attracted to women as I am now, if my body were biologically female. What I do feel very certain about is that the moment you put a man's parts into the equation, even if that man were me, I'd go "oh God, hell no, don't make me puke!", and I object to anyone who tries to pretend something like straight sex didn't describe a very real type of human behavior.

Thank you for this. I was trying to work out the difference but kind of forgot about it. I think "respect" goes a bit further than this... I'd say you don't respect your target if that one quality is both necessary AND sufficient for your (god I don't know what word to use here) enjoyment of them. Does that make sense?

The "sufficient" part is where you don't care about the target's personality or how they feel about your attraction... and that's objectification and lack of respect.

The "necessary" part... I never thought about it, but it's interesting. If you diss somebody because they lack that one trait, it's also a kind of disrespect for the person. On the other hand, if you're exclusively hetero or homosexual/romantic, it is impossible to be attracted to a person who's not your preferred gender... is it disrespect? I don't think so, but I think it's sad and unfair in a way, that attraction can be so superficial.

That's why necessary and sufficient have to go together... because I'm not sure if sufficient on its own is that big a deal either, at least depending on what trait we're talking about.

Say I like person A because of their brains, person B because of their attractiveness, and person C because of their sense of humor. In each case, that one trait is sufficient, but since I'm picking out different traits in different people... essentially I'm just loving each individual for what makes them awesome. I don't see anything wrong with that. That's sufficient without necessary and that seems OK to me.

Necessary without sufficient also seems Ok to me. Like the sex of your partner... OK, so someone finds female genitalia a necessary component to dating someone. As long as that's not the ONLY thing they care about, I don't see why that's a problem. Sure, being female is necessary, but it's not sufficient... you also have to be smart and share interests, etc, etc.

Now that's where it really gets interesting to me! I think that for me, it's necessary, but not sufficient, that a potential partner for anything but the most strictly platonic relationship will be a woman who's either asexual or somewhere on the "Lesbian third" of the Kinsey scale. I do not think that I could deal with being with a woman who I'd know is sexually attracted to any serious degree to me "as a man", I would always be suspicious of her having some kind of desire for contacxt to my genitals that I cannot and will not ever fulfill, so there would be built in mistrust and feelings of insufficiency with het women that make me go "you're het? thanks, I'll pass; but we can be friends". I don't see anything objectifying in that.

Would the woman's position on the Kinsey scale be sufficent for me to want any closer contact with her? Hell no. There are certainly dumb, dishonest, humorless etc. Lesbian women on this planet (because there are dumb, dishonest, humorless etc. people in every subset of people on this planet), and they'd definitely get the same "no, thanks" from me as the hetero gal. And also, even if it shouldn't even be necessary to say so - the woman might simply be completely not interested in me in any way, which would also "take her off the list" of potential partners. (Like... duh. Stating the obvious. )

And that is what makes me a "guydyke" - even if I, myself, am not completely fond of that word, I am certain that it describes me well. I am so not a "straight man with a kink for girl-on-girl", and people who suggest that I were either don't know me enough, or should feel free to keep their "opinion" about how to label me from an outside viewpoint to the privacy of their own heads, tyvm. (Not that I'm accusing anyone here of having done that. )

[miqui]

I think the key question is, would said boy ever feel the urge/need to use his genitals during any kind of sexual situation? Because that is a very important distinction.

What on earth does this mean, "to use his genitals"? To use them to do what?

I think the term "guydyke" describes me well, because using a penis

I don't understand what this means, "using a penis". How do you "use a penis" full stop? Use it to do what? To pee? To stroke the clitoris? To press it against a lover so they feel the warmth? To do anything with it? What are you talking about here? I find most often lovers use my penis on themselves, rather than me using it in some way.

- even though I have the annoying misfortune to have one as part of my body, which I would prefer as female or neutrois (have no clear preference betwee those two, that's why I don't feel "trans" or "neutrois" are labels I can fully identify with and go by "genderqueer")

That's so sad. :( I can relate, I've felt this way about my penis too. Maybe though you would hate it less if you assumed less about it. I hope some day you do.

- during an erotic/sexual situation would never even occur to me, it's something I can't even relate to; to me it's "why would anyone get the idea of doing that?!?".

Again you're going to have to clue me in to what "that" is, because so far all you've said is "use their penis" and you seem to have forgotten to say how. So I don't know what you're talking about here. Do you mean use it to have an orgasm or ejaculate with it? To feel sexual pleasure with? Maybe you're stone. That still doesn't make you a lesbian, but there are stone butches and stone femmes now in other orientations. That's a product of lesbian cultural influence it doesn't mean they turn into honorary lesbians. ;)

So I am obviously not into straight sex. Period. Putting the expression into airquotes simply doesn't make any kind of sense;

What is "straight sex"? I mean you're obviously not defining it as simply any sex between a woman and a man, because your 'guydyke sex' is sex between a woman and a man and you clearly don't consider it to be "straight sex". So what are you defining as "straight sex"? To me any 'sex' is just that - 'sex'. The rest are details.

and saying so isn't sexism.

Um, saying that boys must have and want to have sex a certain way because they are boys seems to qualify as sexism. Prescribing behaviour on the basis of sex - check.

Sexism is hurtful, respectless, and dehumanizing, but so is political correctness gone overboard in a fight against "sexism".

Really. I must be the only person on earth who somehow pisses everybody off with my political "correctness" rather than pacifying them. :lol:

I do not know whether I'd feel any kind of sexual attraction if I were biologically female, and I do not know whether physical, biological, Lesbian sex between two women, of of which were me, would in any way be "fulfilling" for me.

I'm assuming "lesbian sex" has a specific, prescriptive definition to you too? You seem very rigid about biology as destiny. There is no set way for women to have sex with each other either.

I'm open to the possibility that I'd be just as asexual, but aesthetically and sensually attracted to women as I am now, if my body were biologically female. What I do feel very certain about is that the moment you put a man's parts into the equation, even if that man were me, I'd go "oh God, hell no, don't make me puke!",

It's very common for heterosexual men to say that.

and I object to anyone who tries to pretend something like straight sex didn't describe a very real type of human behavior.

As far as I know "straight" is a sexual orientation and "sex" is an erotic activity, so "straight sex" would be sex between heterosexuals. Since you're using it in another way you'll need to be more descriptive about the way you define it.

Now that's where it really gets interesting to me! I think that for me, it's necessary, but not sufficient, that a potential partner for anything but the most strictly platonic relationship will be a woman who's either asexual or somewhere on the "Lesbian third" of the Kinsey scale.

.... That must be quite frustrating. I had a huge crush on a heterosexual guy once. Perhaps this makes me an honorary heterosexual? :P I demand a label!

I do not think that I could deal with being with a woman who I'd know is sexually attracted to any serious degree to me "as a man",

That's not unique either. Plenty of male bodied people have that feeling, just as plenty of female bodied people don't want to be related to "as a woman". I just don't get what that has to do with being a lesbian.

I would always be suspicious of her having some kind of desire for contacxt to my genitals that I cannot and will not ever fulfill,

So this is about not wanting her to want any contact with your genitals? Why not just adopt the stone identities lesbians developed without imagining that makes you lesbian? Just be a stone heterosexual guy. Heterosexuals could use some diversity, I say!

so there would be built in mistrust and feelings of insufficiency with het women that make me go "you're het? thanks, I'll pass; but we can be friends". I don't see anything objectifying in that.

That's not objectifying but it doesn't have any bearing on sexual orientation. I have those same misgivings with heterosexual women too - though I'd at least give someone a chance before completely dismissing them - and I would never have imagined it made me 'part lesbian'. In fact I don't even think most lesbians could relate to those misgivings. That is very much tied to the experience of being gendered male and subject to masculine expectations. So if anything, it would be a way in which I feel unlike lesbians.

also, even if it shouldn't even be necessary to say so - the woman might simply be completely not interested in me in any way, which would also "take her off the list" of potential partners. (Like... duh. Stating the obvious. )

I don't know if it's so obvious or unnecessary to say - for many people reciprocal interest does not seem to be a requirement. To me it is, I'm just that conceited. I'm only interested in people who find me interesting. :lol: Well except for that heterosexual guy. But even he seemed to find me kind of interesting... *sigh*

And that is what makes me a "guydyke" - even if I, myself, am not completely fond of that word, I am certain that it describes me well. I am so not a "straight man with a kink for girl-on-girl", and people who suggest that I were either don't know me enough, or should feel free to keep their "opinion" about how to label me from an outside viewpoint to the privacy of their own heads, tyvm. (Not that I'm accusing anyone here of having done that. )

I think you've possibly misunderstood what people were talking about when we mentioned objectification. I don't see you as having a girl-on-girl kink, but objectification is not simply "sexual objectification". Objectification comes in many varieties. One of them is exotification - a typical example is: "Asian women are so polite and demure. I only want to date Asian women." This is where you essentialise a group of people by applying a stereotype then identifying them exclusively with the stereotype you apply - exactly that thing that bothers you when heterosexual women do it to you by expecting you to "be a man". That same thing is what you are doing to lesbians when you say that, because they are lesbians, they have essential qualities that no one else can have and all want to have sex in the way you imagine they do. I'd say that's a kind of objectification, too.

[Guest]

What on earth does this mean, "to use his genitals"? To use them to do what?

I don't understand what this means, "using a penis". How do you "use a penis" full stop? Use it to do what? To pee? To stroke the clitoris? To press it against a lover so they feel the warmth? To do anything with it? What are you talking about here? I find most often lovers use my penis on themselves, rather than me using it in some way.

To have it in any way, shape, or form become part of the contact, touch the partner with it or have it touched by the partner. Every erotic situation in which a penis is involved is one that is repulsive enugh to me to make me want to puke.

What is "straight sex"? I mean you're obviously not defining it as simply any sex between a woman and a man, because your 'guydyke sex' is sex between a woman and a man and you clearly don't consider it to be "straight sex". So what are you defining as "straight sex"? To me any 'sex' is just that - 'sex'. The rest are details.

[...]As far as I know "straight" is a sexual orientation and "sex" is an erotic activity, so "straight sex" would be sex between heterosexuals. Since you're using it in another way you'll need to be more descriptive about the way you define it.

Straight sex = sex that in any way involves a penis and a vagina, in the same erotic encounter. Two female-bodied persons are biologically incapable of having straight sex together.

Um, saying that boys must have and want to have sex a certain way because they are boys seems to qualify as sexism. Prescribing behaviour on the basis of sex - check.

If "involving their penis in sex" is, to you, already a sexist assumption about male sex behavior, I proudly proclaim myself sexist and predict sexism will never die out, nor is it a sensible expectation that it should, because it adequately describes human behavior. Humanity is, and will always be, sexist by your definition. Get over it and stop the windmill crusading.

I'm assuming "lesbian sex" has a specific, prescriptive definition to you too? You seem very rigid about biology as destiny. There is no set way for women to have sex with each other either.

Lesbian sex = sex that involves two or more vaginas in the same erotic encounter. Really, if you have a problem with that, then why do you seem to have a problem imagining "Lesbian" situations that involve a penis, or ones that do not involve any female-bodied persons? What are you arguing for or against, anyway?

It's very common for heterosexual men to say that.

Sorry (not really), but that's... complete nonsense, to put it in the mildest terms. I have never heard of one single heterosexual man who would say "do not ever touch my penis, or allow it to touch your body, the thought makes me want to puke!"

.... That must be quite frustrating.

Actually, it isn't. I've been in a very happy relationship with a woman primarily attracted to women (she's not labelling herself, so I won't either; we're both labelling our relationship as Lesbian, and it's not her first Lesbian 'ship) for four years now.

That's not unique either. Plenty of male bodied people have that feeling, just as plenty of female bodied people don't want to be related to "as a woman". I just don't get what that has to do with being a lesbian.

In the sense of "don't ever, ever involve my genitals in our sex life in any way, shape or form"? You seem to know very different "plentitudes" of male-bodied persons than I do, the overwhelming majority I know seem to find some kind of pleasure in having their penis involved in their sex life.

Just be a stone heterosexual guy.

Dude! I am asexual, not heterosexual; and while I can deal with the word "guy", I am also genderqueer. [EDIT: Self-censored out a passage calling you out on labelling other people. My wording was too polemic. My anger at you doing this still stands, though!] You should definitely check your attitude, I doubt it is welcome here.

*takes three deep breaths to calm down again*

My point still stands. There's a lot of heteronormatism in what you say, despite your critique of so-called "sexism". I ask you to confront yourself with that hypocrisy, please.

I think you've possibly misunderstood what people were talking about when we mentioned objectification. I don't see you as having a girl-on-girl kink, but objectification is not simply "sexual objectification". Objectification comes in many varieties. One of them is exotification - a typical example is: "Asian women are so polite and demure. I only want to date Asian women." This is where you essentialise a group of people by applying a stereotype then identifying them exclusively with the stereotype you apply - exactly that thing that bothers you when heterosexual women do it to you by expecting you to "be a man". That same thing is what you are doing to lesbians when you say that, because they are lesbians, they have essential qualities that no one else can have and all want to have sex in the way you imagine they do. I'd say that's a kind of objectification, too.

Again, applying the "stereotype" of "a woman who prefers sex with women" to a Lesbian is one I most definitely have, and I don't see the least bit of a problem that has on any part of society. Pretending it does is political correctness gone ridiculously mad, IMO. If that amount of "stereotyping" is wrong, then we'd be better off not pretending any longer that some construct like "Lesbians" exists. They are just people who have sex; getting hung up on what gender their partners have is objectification, so let's call those "Lesbians" out on their made-up, so-called "identity", because, by your standards, a "Lesbian identity" automatically reinforces objectification and sexist stereotypes.

So, in your opinion: LGBT movement = a bunch of folks reinforcing sexism, so the world would be better off without it? Yes, no, maybe?

(Actually, come to think of it... I ask you that question without sarcasm. The answer may not be as rhetorically obvious as I thought at first glance.)

[Nogitsune]

Uh, I don't want to get involved in the rest of the conversation because I don't feel qualified to speak on the topic, but I'm very uncomfortable with this whole "straight sex" and "lesbian sex" thing. If I, as an asexual woman, had sex with someone, I really would not call it straight or lesbian sex, because I am neither straight nor a lesbian and so as far as I'm concerned, neither would be any sex I have. (Also, there are lots of straight people who have sex that does not involve a penis and a vagina, and women who have penis-in-vagina sex with each other... so, well. I just feel this straight/lesbian sex definition ignores too many people's experiences.)

[Great Thief Yatagarasu]

Uh, I don't want to get involved in the rest of the conversation because I don't feel qualified to speak on the topic, but I'm very uncomfortable with this whole "straight sex" and "lesbian sex" thing. If I, as an asexual woman, had sex with someone, I really would not call it straight or lesbian sex, because I am neither straight nor a lesbian and so as far as I'm concerned, neither would be any sex I have. (Also, there are lots of straight people who have sex that does not involve a penis and a vagina, and women who have penis-in-vagina sex with each other... so, well. I just feel this straight/lesbian sex definition ignores too many people's experiences.)

It's a fair enough point, actually. PIV isn't exclusive to straight people, nor are other kinds of sex limited to gay people - they're all varied and wonderful and awesome, if they're what you want and enjoy. Labelling them straight or gay sex, then, and saying that having this kind of sex is absolutely the one thing that makes you a girlfag/guydyke...yeah, I admit that that's problematic.

However, if a person views the sex they're having as straight sex or gay sex, then I won't stop them. It's how they perceive it, and the way they perceive it is going to be tied in to their sexual identity and gender - to say "You're looking at this wrong!" is like saying the reasons why they perceive it that way are wrong. As a girlfag (I almost typed "girlflag" - a new term for it, perhaps? :D ), I would personally try out pegging as a way of expressing that part of my gender, although I totally accept that not all people who do pegging would view it the way I would be viewing it. I wouldn't personally view that as "gay sex", but that's just me. So if a person has attached a particular meaning or significance to specific acts, then they're free to do that.

One thing that I think is that this Girlfag/Guydyke concept of loving a person "like a gay man/woman" actually has the ability to allow people to expand their horizons when it comes to the kind of sex they feel they can have - for example, a lot of straight men are scared of the concept of pegging because they think it'd "mean that they're gay", so being with someone who uses it to explore their gender would break down some of their previous ideas. On a more social level, it could encourage people to behave in ways which they used to feel were limited to the other sex. So that idea in and of itself isn't bad.

[Guest]

Uh, I don't want to get involved in the rest of the conversation because I don't feel qualified to speak on the topic, but I'm very uncomfortable with this whole "straight sex" and "lesbian sex" thing. If I, as an asexual woman, had sex with someone, I really would not call it straight or lesbian sex, because I am neither straight nor a lesbian and so as far as I'm concerned, neither would be any sex I have. (Also, there are lots of straight people who have sex that does not involve a penis and a vagina, and women who have penis-in-vagina sex with each other... so, well. I just feel this straight/lesbian sex definition ignores too many people's experiences.)

(also addressing some of Yatagarasu's points, but I'd have to chop up and rearrange her (assuming she/her is the pronoun you'd choose?) post too much as what I'm answering to is sprinkled all over between other stuff :))

See, that's where we differ. I think that gay sex, straight sex, Lesbian sex, and neutral sex (I'll get to that last one in a bit, bear with me) have to be defined by anatomy, not by orientation. If two penises are involved, it's gay sex. No female-bodied person can ever have gay sex, no matter how said person defines themselves in regards to orientation. Neither would having gay sex cause one to have to identify as male gay; male-bodied persons identifying as asexuals, hetero, gay, bi, pan, etc. can all have gay sex. No female-bodied person can ever have gay sex (even if they identify as pre-OP trans, genderqueer, etc.), no male-bodied person can ever have Lesbian sex - it's biologically impossible. Anyone can have "neutral" sex, in which only either a penis or a vagina is involved. Only a male-bodied and a female-bodied person can have straight sex together (and either of them can identify their orientation as pretty much whatever); btw, straight sex isn't limited to PIV, it just means that both a penis and a vagina are in some way involved... a male-bodied and a female-bodied person of whatever orientation, who were handjobbing each other, are having straight sex. If no genitals are involved by any participant, it isn't sex at all, but can certainly be an erotic encounter. :P

If I, being an asexual, would have sex (I, personally, wouldn't ever do that; I'm virginal for life, but for the sake of argument) that involves my penis and someone elses vagina, it would be straight sex (I'd still be asexual, the female-bodied partner would still be whatever they identified as); if I did it involving mine and another person's penis, it would be gay sex (copy/paste/and adapt the parentheses). As long as I don't involve my genitals at all, I could never have anything but "neutral" sex. In any of these cases, I would not and could not be having "asexual sex", because that expression simply makes no sense at all to me on the grounds of that there isn't any anatomical basis to asexuality.

As a "guydyke", I may well have a theoretical interest in Lesbian sex and wonder if that were something I'd enjoy, but I will obviously never know, because I have no vagina and can thus not have Lesbian sex, ever. I'm anatomically barred from that possibility, unless I'd go for gender-adjusting OP (which I won't do as I'm unclear where I fall on the spectrum trans-neutrois; I'm genderqueer, not trans, because all I know is that "male" does not work to describe me as a person, even though it adequately describes my anatomy).

Anatomy, to me, is everything in regards to sex, it's its sole defining attribute. Really, it never occurred to me to see it as you two do; that would seem to me as if I'd start defining my identity/orientation on what I do... and then we'd come dangerously close to validating the old "How can you call yourself asexual if you actually sleep with people!? You're obviously gay/straight/bi if you do that!". (I'm not saying you're doing the definition wrong, btw... you're just doing it differently in a way that I can't relate to, because it wouldn't work for me at all if I went along with it. )