Why Are So Many Girls Lesbian or Bisexual?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Aren't you the one that argues guys can't keep it in their pants?


only if they are gay guys let loose in the men's room. lord almighty!

also, just to point this out:

Survey finds more straight women barebacking than gay men

By Staff Writer, PinkNews.co.uk • April 23, 2010 - 16:47

A survey has found that heterosexual women are less likely to use condoms for anal sex than gay men.

The research, carried out by the New York City Department of Health, found that only 23 per cent of women required their male partners to use condoms during anal sex, compared with 61 per cent of gay or bisexual men.

According to the department, an estimated 100,000 New York City women have anal sex every year.

Women who did not use condoms were also far less likely to get tested for sexually transmitted diseases.

While 63 per cent of those who use always condoms get tested regularly, on 35 per cent of those who bareback do.

Younger women were found to be the most likely to unprotected anal sex, with 11 per cent of those aged 18 to 24 stating that they did, compared to two per cent of women aged between 45 and 62.

Anal membranes are easily damaged during sex, facilitating the spread of infection. Past studies suggest that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk than vaginal exposure.

“Tens of thousands of New Yorkers are engaging in sexual behaviour that is especially risky,” said Dr. Thomas Farley, New York City Health Commissioner.

“Many people are aware of the risk of HIV when men have sex with other men, but this report shows that a large number of women also are putting themselves at high risk through unprotected anal sex.

"For both men and women, the overall message is clear: Never engage in unprotected anal sex. Use a condom every time.”


use those condoms, ladies. with great freedom comes great responsibility.
 
I am not am expert on the barebacking term.

But shouldn't that read:


Survey finds more straight women couples barebacking than gay men.
 
Survey finds more straight women couples barebacking than gay men.


well, you know, boys will be boys ... it's the girls who've got to keep them in line and make responsible, virtuous choices. the poor straight lads can't help themselves.



barebacking = sex with no condom.
 
well, you know, boys will be boys ... it's the girls who've got to keep them in line and make responsible, virtuous choices. the poor straight lads can't help themselves.



barebacking = sex with no condom.


barebacking = anal sex with no condom (corrected?)



I just meant that women are not alone in not using condoms, and I know it is the person using his penis that really needs to do the right thing.
they are also the one least likely to want to, for selfish (more pleasure) reasons.
 
linking anonymous sex to the liberation from traditional gender roles is rather faulty

Your beef is with the article, dude. Not me.

As to the rest of your post, I will re-quote AliEnvy, who said it better.

"Hedonism isn't empowering and it isn't sexy. Female chauvinist pigs are still chauvinist pigs. Careless disregard/disrespect for oneself and others is nasty no matter which gender displays it. "

:up:
 
Your beef is with the article, dude. Not me.

As to the rest of your post, I will re-quote AliEnvy, who said it better.

"Hedonism isn't empowering and it isn't sexy. Female chauvinist pigs are still chauvinist pigs. Careless disregard/disrespect for oneself and others is nasty no matter which gender displays it. "

:up:



you said:

Of course, since men have traditionally been the ones to play, the question is whether feminism has merely become "let's do things the way men do."

Which, in the case of sex with anonymous strangers, feels like a race to the bottom.


and i pointed out that hedonism feels much more unsettling when it's done by women rather than men, which does speak precisely to double standards.

i don't particularly have a beef with you or the article, i have a beef with notions that any woman who is acting in a certain way that goes contrary to traditional gender roles is merely doing so because she's trying to prove something. is this true for some women? of course. in general, are women less comfortable with anonymous sex than men? yes, that's been my experience. but am i going to say that i'd rather live in a world where a women -- if she so chooses -- can go out and get laid if she wants and not be called a slut and a whore, yes absolutely.

what we want is healthy sexuality, and that comes in many forms, not formulas.
 
barebacking = anal sex with no condom (corrected?)

when it's used in gay parlance, yes, but when you're talking about straight people, it just means no condom at all, anal or vaginal.

"barebacking" is quite a point of discussion in the gay community. many don't like the term because it pathologizes (and thusly eroticizes) a specific form of intercourse. but that's a long digression.



I just meant that women are not alone in not using condoms, and I know it is the person using his penis that really needs to do the right thing.
they are also the one least likely to want to, for selfish (more pleasure) reasons.

i was making ironical commentary -- the idea that birth control is the "woman's responsibility," etc. we're on the same wavelength. :)
 
hedonism feels much more unsettling when it's done by women rather than men, which does speak precisely to double standards.
Exactly; that newspaper knew an article about "hedonistic" girls would be the best way to get hands wringing and maxims spouting, and we're all dutifully playing right along. When people in general (and parents in particular) proclaim that such behavior is unhealthy, wrong, or questionable regardless of which gender engages in it--and of course, most people who proclaim such generally do--all too often it's just lip service, a hypothetical evenhandedness not reflected in their actions (whose transgressions evoke the most anxiety, the most emphatic judgment, and the most urgent corrective response?). These contradictions do not go unnoticed by girls, and among other consequences can provoke exactly the sort of reactive reckless behavior they most mean to control. Even for the young woman who's mature enough to attain full ownership of and responsibility for her own values, choices, and actions concerning sexuality despite the mixed messages, the resulting sense of alienation and distrust can be destructive in other ways. That's why the double standard is an important feminist issue, not because "liberation" consists of imitating whatever men stereotypically do--not really possible anyhow, in the absence of a masculine self-concept.
 
and i pointed out that hedonism feels much more unsettling when it's done by women rather than men, which does speak precisely to double standards.

So let's discuss an article about male hedonism. Yolland's point is well-taken; it is less likely for men to be criticized for irresponsible or objectifying sexual activity.

That doesn't mean that such activity shouldn't be criticized, however.
 
Exactly; that newspaper knew an article about "hedonistic" girls would be the best way to get hands wringing and maxims spouting, and we're all dutifully playing right along.

Hmmm. i'm not too sure about that. THe UK is just in a different sociocultural space to the US, it takes a lot to get hands wringing these days. Plus the Times readership is socially libertarian anyway (I would guess).
 
what we want is healthy sexuality, and that comes in many forms, not formulas.

:up:

It's hard to have a serious conversation about double standards when the behaviour described is to see how far you will sexually perform on command for an audience to win a glamour modelling contract.

When I read this bit, all I thought was OMG imagine if a guy said that...

The only impediment in their desire to “run” their sex lives was the unfortunate fact that many of the men they met wanted something more. “Men always go soppy on me,” Ruby said.

Bella agreed: “I met this guy in a pub the other night. We had sex once and ... it’s pathetic. We’re lying there ... and he says, ‘Are you going to sleep with other people?’ I thought: who are you; why are you asking me this? Obviously I’m having sex with other people. He decided he loved me; he was texting me and phoning me for days. After having sex once! What’s that about?”

Wasn’t it possible he might have felt a real connection? The girls looked at me, shaking their heads — that isn’t how sex works.

“You don’t get so heavy with someone after one night,” said Ruby.

“I’m much more attracted to the guys who don’t really give a shit,” said Anna.

“God, yeah, there’s nothing attractive about a guy who gets all emotional on you,” said Bella.

As I see it, there is a distinction between the morality of consensual, safe, respectful casual sex (or other sexual freedoms) and the sexual ethics of mistreating yourself and other people.

And as I said earlier, I believe the media in general and this article in particular grossly exaggerrates or presents a narrow view.
 
Are you being sarcastic?


No :huh: Because I think in general even college age women would not be into casual relationships with other women, that there would have to be much more of an emotional connection there. So if you can't find that with a man...

I thought that was the whole premise
 
So let's discuss an article about male hedonism. Yolland's point is well-taken; it is less likely for men to be criticized for irresponsible or objectifying sexual activity.

That doesn't mean that such activity shouldn't be criticized, however.



i fully agree with you here. it's the double-standards when it comes to such behavior that's the issue.

i've also watched most of Season 2 of Mad Men over the past 48 hours, so my mind is certainly awash in the (gorgeously art directed) dramatization of precisely these double standards.

however, i'd ask you this: do you think it's possible that some people enjoy and feel good about promiscuous sex? that this, for them, is healthy sexuality? that they're not interested in one monogamous partner for life? that the bonds of monogamy are impossible for them to live under?

and what if that person were a woman?

i start to push back when we go about trying to proscribe only one ideal, acceptable form of sexuality. in my recent travels for my job, i found myself in a very strange place where ... well, let's just say that an unequal power dynamic between sex partners was celebrated and explored. again, this was for my job. when i saw this unequal power dynamic in front of me, and it was the male in possession of the power, so to speak, to me, it looked very, very rape-y. in fact, and i'll confess, much heterosexual sex -- especially as dramatized in the past -- looks very rape-y to me, and makes me uncomfortable.

however, upon a long discussion with an expert in said unequal power dynamics, i began to realize that the submissive partner actually has the power, because she (in this situation) had the power to give, and it was hers to take away, and perhaps she enjoys being the submissive in that consented to situation. and that, ultimately, my powerful reaction to that situation (and to many depictions of heterosexual sex in general) are really noble, well-intended, but ultimately sexist expressions of patriarchal concern for weak females who need to be rescued. likely by me.

what i am ultimately saying is that many of our noblest impulses in regards to what is and what isn't healthy sexuality require defining choices for women before they've even had the chance to make them.

this might be difficult to understand because i've been purposefully vague, but the broader point is that female agency -- the choice to be a slut, the choice to be unsettlingly submissive -- can often take on a form that we are uncomfortable with, but it's our reaction to that agency wherein we find the double standards.
 
however, i'd ask you this: do you think it's possible that some people enjoy and feel good about promiscuous sex? that this, for them, is healthy sexuality? that they're not interested in one monogamous partner for life? that the bonds of monogamy are impossible for them to live under?

People can do what they like. At the same time, we can't forget that promiscuity has led directly to huge outbreaks of AIDS and other STDs, not just in this country, but throughout the world, particularly in Africa. Not to mention the emotional cost that comes from promiscuity (a friend of mine nearly got divorced last year because his wife had an affair with his best friend). And if you spend time talking to or counseling sex addicts (as I do in my copious amounts of free time -- men, incidentally), you'll find that many people who are driven by promiscuous desires aren't necessarily so by choice.

I may be mistaken in this, but I believe that rates for sexual addiction run much higher in men (it's something like an 80/20 split, I believe). If that's true, the promiscuity that's been touted as a staple of male sexuality -- sex without consequences, and the "freedom" that comes with it -- may in fact be nothing more than an expression of profound sexual dysfunction.
 
People can do what they like. At the same time, we can't forget that promiscuity has led directly to huge outbreaks of AIDS and other STDs, not just in this country, but throughout the world, particularly in Africa. Not to mention the emotional cost that comes from promiscuity (a friend of mine nearly got divorced last year because his wife had an affair with his best friend).

i can agree that irresponsible promiscuity without protection can lead to AIDS, STDs, etc. but the emotional cost is largely dependent upon the individual. and it sounds like your friends are guilty of cheating, not of being promiscuous. you've conflated two very different things there.



And if you spend time talking to or counseling sex addicts (as I do in my copious amounts of free time -- men, incidentally), you'll find that many people who are driven by promiscuous desires aren't necessarily so by choice.


believe it or not, i do spend time with sex addicts. these are people with a defined problem that controls their behavior to the point where it's interfering with their life. i also know many people who are promiscuous but are not addicts.

a big problem i have, and as i just saw after spending some time in the heart of the Christian sex therapy community, is that any behavior that deviates from the ideal is immediately pathologized. it's way, way too long to get into here, but i know quite a bit about this subject, and i think people are often told that things are a problem when they might not be, and the pain that drives people to do things likely comes from their perceived lack of failure to uphold a specific ideal that has been set out for them. were they given more freedom to find their own path, to find what works best for them, rather than berate themselves for failure.


I may be mistaken in this, but I believe that rates for sexual addiction run much higher in men (it's something like an 80/20 split, I believe). If that's true, the promiscuity that's been touted as a staple of male sexuality -- sex without consequences, and the "freedom" that comes with it -- may in fact be nothing more than an expression of profound sexual dysfunction.


roughly 97% of identified sex addicts are men. but even the term is controversial. many people would rather call it sexual compulsivity, and it's not defined by the number of partners one has, it's defined as a sexual behavior which really controls the person and isn't seen as a voluntary activity. this is quite different from someone who enjoys a now-and-then anonymous fuck. female sexuality is a controversial issue, and for a women, generally, it's more about her sense of worth and a sense of shame about sex that drives the compulsive behavior.

but what you're doing, nathan, is assuming that if you're promiscuous you're automatically a sex addict. you're placing a preconceived set of values onto something that's much more complex. you're assuming in a patronizing way that someone who is promiscuous assumes no responsibility for their sex lives, and you've used quotes around the word "freedom" when that precisely might be what people are seeking -- that the have the freedom to be sexual when they wish to be. this is not freedom from responsibility, but freedom from shame.

for most credible therapists, the emphasis is being pro-sex, pro-intimacy, and pro-eroticism in the context of what is a healthy relationship for that person. and many people who have problems with sexual compulsivity, it's not because they are too sexual, or had too much sex, but that they actualy don't know enough about sex and sexuality to be able to have a healthy handle on their desires. what they need is good information, and in our sexually immature culture, where we stimulate through advertising and then pathologize and shame, that's difficult to find.
 
At the same time, we can't forget that promiscuity has led directly to huge outbreaks of AIDS and other STDs, not just in this country, but throughout the world, particularly in Africa.

Do you really think promiscuity is the issue in Africa? Not rape, or poor sex education?
 
and it sounds like your friends are guilty of cheating, not of being promiscuous. you've conflated two very different things there.

This reminds me of the propensity (is that the right word? :reject: ) of people to throw around the word "slut" at a woman who's not necessarily promiscuous.

I mean, you have young girls who are just mean and nasty calling each other slut, even though maybe there's only one sexual partner involved.

Or Jordin Sparks at the Grammys some years ago, responding to the host's crack about "promise rings" saying that "not everyone wants to be a slut."

That's so maddening - having sex does not make one a slut. Nor does it make one promiscuous. It's that whole virgin/whore complex again - there IS indeed a middle ground between being a virgin and bing a slut.

Not implying that this is what nathan is saying, but that comment made me think of this.
 
Do you really think promiscuity is the issue in Africa? Not rape, or poor sex education?

I think the lack of contraception is the biggest issue, which has less to do with ignorance about it and more to do with religious ideas about it.

Yes, although "poor sex education" could be said to be tied to the ignorance that religion breeds, I am not sure poor sex education is literally the problem. More poor choice of dogma. I don't doubt that there are millions of Africans who know precisely what contraceptives are and choose not to use them because of religious reasons.

Not trying to try play semantics here, honestly, I think Nathan is basically right. Because of the chosen dogma, the issue falls to promiscuity. Blame the Pope, I guess.

Also, just how prevalent is rape among African men? Seems to be quite a generalization on the surface. I can't imagine that it occurs on a great enough scale to trump general 'fuckin' 'cuz it feels good'.
 
I think women, teenagers in particular have taken a lot of power away from the word slut, and have embraced it like the word 'bitch' I mean obviously it can still be thrown out there wit malice and intent but not with the fury and disgust of years gone by. This probably goes hand in hand with our more liberal attitudes towards sex and sexualisation of basically everything, but still and forever there will never be equality between the sexes when its comes to sex.
If a girl is 'sleeping around' its always because of some 'issue' people bandy around like se's been hurt from some guy or she has daddy issues or she is emotionally stunted or something.
I think people both and women believe that we see sex differently. To men its almost a primal urge with no emotion attached to it other then pure natural instinct while for a woman its a much more emotional event and therefore there seems something wrong with our wiring if we go off willy nilly and have sex all over the place.
 
would we want a world where slut is a meaningless term.

I may get flamed for this, but I think promiscuous behavior needs to be condemned somehow. To me, sleeping with a total stranger every weekend seems sleazy.



a world where slut applies to both genders.

I agree with this. It's the old problem of a guy sleeping with 100 women he's a proud man, when a woman sleeps with 100 guys she's a slut/skank/whore.

Now here's my question: what's the difference between those? The slut, the skank and the whore? If there is any?
 
Back
Top Bottom