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.
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.


this isn't a flame, but to you, yes, i can see how that seems sleazy. to me as well.

however, if we aren't doing this, who are we to judge someone else if someone else is taking responsibility for their sexual activities (contraception, condoms, STD check-ups) and engaging with said activities with someone else who is looking for the same thing? who is harmed?

my broader, more global note on this whole subject is that we're better off telling people what they should not do than what they should do. for example, we can certainly tell people not to have sex with children, with animals, without condoms, because we know what harm can come of it. we don't do as well when we tell people "the only place you should have sex is in a loving monogamous relationship." well, yes, that's a lovely place to have sex, but is it the only way to have sex? what's the next step? missionary-style only? must you then have the lights on, eyes open, and speaking affirmative words to one another?

we do better when people are equipped with knowledge and the ability to make their own decisions rather than making their decisions for them and then berating them -- or, worse, patronizing them -- when they inevitably fall short.
 
however, if we aren't doing this, who are we to judge someone else if someone else is taking responsibility for their sexual activities (contraception, condoms, STD check-ups) and engaging with said activities with someone else who is looking for the same thing? who is harmed?

Very true, no one is harmed. I guess what concerns me is whether or not people are using condoms. If you are going to have fun like that, make sure you do protect yourself. There's always news stories of STD rates going up and not coming down, so I just hope others do take responsibility.
 
Very true, no one is harmed. I guess what concerns me is whether or not people are using condoms. If you are going to have fun like that, make sure you do protect yourself. There's always news stories of STD rates going up and not coming down, so I just hope others do take responsibility.



totally in agreement.

i suppose the question that lingers is whether or not it is a "bad" thing to want multiple partners, no matter how responsibly one takes those partners. do we, or should we, view all non-monogamous sex as less-than? as problematic? as a public health problem?
 
Slut still doesn't apply to men because it's still more expected and more accepted that men will sleep around. The different expectation is still there that women should not sleep around as much. So Tiger slept with all those women but they were called whores, but I didn't see anyone call him a slut or a whore. It's not just him, that's only one very public example. I'd be willing to bet that if his wife had all those affairs she would have been called a slut.

People want to deny that a double standard still exists but reality says otherwise.
 
People want to deny that a double standard still exists but reality says otherwise.

Do they? I haven't come across any of those people myself.

However, giving women a free pass for behaviour we would otherwise criticize in men simply because there's a double standard is ridiculous.
 

In my experience, yes. Men and women and women can be especially judgmental of other women. Since there's more equality in other areas people extend it to that, but it my opinion that's one of the areas where there's not as much change from the "old days".

I never said that gives women any sort of free pass
 
As you said there is still much criticism so I haven't come across anyone who denies there's a double standard as you've suggested.

I just don't find it productive to cry foul on double standards for behaviour (or values even) that should be universally questioned.

And I'm not talking about how many people someone sleeps with or if they're into BDSM or anything else that may or may not reflect my personal disposition to the morality or asthetic of sexual preferences.

I'm quite supportive of freedom from shame in exploring sexuality. But for me that doesn't mean a public free-for-all, for either gender. Responsibility to yourself and to a sexual partner extends well beyond safety from STDs, even if it's an anonymous, casual encounter.
 
Slut still doesn't apply to men because it's still more expected and more accepted that men will sleep around. The different expectation is still there that women should not sleep around as much. So Tiger slept with all those women but they were called whores, but I didn't see anyone call him a slut or a whore. It's not just him, that's only one very public example. I'd be willing to bet that if his wife had all those affairs she would have been called a slut.

People want to deny that a double standard still exists but reality says otherwise.


true, they were all referred to as "ho's," but i don't think people have been slapping Tiger on the back and saying, "woo-hoo! what a stud you are!" generally, people called him an asshole. granted, "asshole" isn't as sexually specific a term as "slut," and maybe that's a critical distinction, but there hasn't at all been a boys-will-be-boys excusing of Tiger's behavior.
 
Slut still doesn't apply to men because it's still more expected and more accepted that men will sleep around. The different expectation is still there that women should not sleep around as much. So Tiger slept with all those women but they were called whores, but I didn't see anyone call him a slut or a whore. It's not just him, that's only one very public example. I'd be willing to bet that if his wife had all those affairs she would have been called a slut.

People want to deny that a double standard still exists but reality says otherwise.
On top of what Irvine said, there's a whole bunch of different standards for celebrities than for your average person.
 
granted, "asshole" isn't as sexually specific a term as "slut," and maybe that's a critical distinction

It is a critical distinction.

Granted I've avoided most of the Tiger circus, but my overall impression was that he was called an asshole not as much for being a hound-dog (a stereotype for many athletes) but for betraying his deliberately crafted wholesome image - even more so than for betraying his (hawt hawt) wife and family.
 
true, they were all referred to as "ho's," but i don't think people have been slapping Tiger on the back and saying, "woo-hoo! what a stud you are!" generally, people called him an asshole. granted, "asshole" isn't as sexually specific a term as "slut," and maybe that's a critical distinction, but there hasn't at all been a boys-will-be-boys excusing of Tiger's behavior.

Very good point Irvine. And I saw you're watching Mad Men (I haven't missed an episode). While I am sure some people think it was the Golden Age for the "Man's World" - I think it is clearly demonstrating how damaging it was to the women, children, AND the men.

On a side note - I do like how the show has kicked off a new sense of classic style for men (and perhaps a return of manners).
 
Very good point Irvine. And I saw you're watching Mad Men (I haven't missed an episode). While I am sure some people think it was the Golen Age for the "Man's World" - I think it is clearly demonstrating how damaging it was to the women, children, AND the men.

On a side note - I do like how the show has kicked off a new sense of classic style for men (and perhaps a return of manners).



we just finished Season 2, and now need to get going on Season 3 so we're totally caught up for Season 4 this summer. it's great TV, the best since the heyday of Sopranos and 6 Feet Under.

agreed, it does a fantastic job highlighting the "Man's World," and i wind up thinking that the female characters -- Peggy, Joan, and the totally bonkers Betty -- are far more interesting and have vastly more complex worlds to navigate than the men.

though i do agree about the era's style and manners. and the furniture! :drool:
 
It is a critical distinction.



and that's totally fair.

for what it's worth, being a gay man, i worry about the slut label not so much in front of my fellow gays, but in front of a straight audience. there's actually a lot of pressure to subvert the promiscuous stereotype to, you know, "represent" and/or "elevate the race."

word.
 
On top of what Irvine said, there's a whole bunch of different standards for celebrities than for your average person.

Yes I know that-but make him a female celebrity if you want a direct comparison. I chose him only because he's the biggest ho I could come up with on short notice. There are no female athletes on his level but there are some female actresses that might be comparable, as comparable as athletes and actors can be. She would be called a slut and worse. Just my hunch about it, obviously I don't have a crystal ball.

A hole's not the same label as slut, I think there is a critical distinction. A hole can include a boys will be boys excusing of his behavior. He's arrogant, he's entitled, he was a very carefully crafted fake-but not a ho. Not to mention the victimization of him, which he and his people tried to work to their advantage.
 
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.

Indeed.
 
A hole's not the same label as slut, I think there is a critical distinction. A hole can include a boys will be boys excusing of his behavior. He's arrogant, he's entitled, he was a very carefully crafted fake-but not a ho. Not to mention the victimization of him, which he and his people tried to work to their advantage.

So, if you discovered a male friend or acquaintanance of yours was cheating on his wife, would your reaction differ to the scenario whereby if you discovered a female friend or acquaintance was cheating on her husband?
 
Back to public reaction to men cheating for a moment since I heard this morning on the radio about Gavin Rossdale and Courtney Love.

There is always a comparison of the relative beauty of the other woman to the wife that colours the level of judgement people have for the man's behaviour. And this is not just in the celebrity/public sphere.

If the wife is perceived to be hotter, he's an idiot "what was he thinking", if the other woman is perceived to be hotter than the wife, it's more likely to be treated more as, well you know, boys will be boys.
 
Back to public reaction to men cheating for a moment since I heard this morning on the radio about Gavin Rossdale and Courtney Love.

There is always a comparison of the relative beauty of the other woman to the wife that colours the level of judgement people have for the man's behaviour. And this is not just in the celebrity/public sphere.

If the wife is perceived to be hotter, he's an idiot "what was he thinking", if the other woman is perceived to be hotter than the wife, it's more likely to be treated more as, well you know, boys will be boys.

Great point-same with Elin. Funny the same doesn't seem to hold true for women. If a woman cheats with really hot guys (hotter than husband), well that's not just women will be women and gee who could blame her. Who even brings up the husband's looks vs the guy or guys she's cheating with? Maybe some female friends would, or some catty non friends. But it's not brought up in the context of questioning why the cheating is happening or calling the person an idiot vs saying that the behavior would be expected. The looks of who you're cheating with are irrelevant, but apparently not for all people.

I have the same reaction to males and females cheating-that's the point. It was a response to Irvine's post about calling the guy an a hole vs calling him a slut if you're going to call the woman a slut.
 
Okay, I just realized that you're saying "a hole" instead of "asshole." I thought you were mistyping "ho" for several posts.

I was all "is "hole" the new "ho"?" :lol:
 
Why it's never too late to be a lesbian | Life and style | The Guardian

More and more women are discovering after years of marriage to men, and having had children, that they are lesbians. Were they always – or is sexuality more fluid?

"Sexual fluidity occurs in both men and women, but it has been suggested that women are potentially more open and malleable in this regard. Richard Lippa, professor of psychology at California State University, Fullerton, has carried out a variety of studies that have led him to the conclusion that, "while most men tend to have what I call a preferred sex and a non-preferred sex . . . with women there are more shades of grey, and so I tend to talk about them having a more preferred sex, and a less preferred sex. I have definitely heard some women say, 'It was the person I fell in love with, it wasn't the person's gender,' and I think that that is much more of a female experience than a male experience."

"While some people find change threatening," Diamond says, "others find it exciting and liberating, and I definitely think that for women in middle adulthood and late life, they might be the most likely to find sexual shifts empowering. We're an anti-ageing society. We like people to be young, nubile and attractive. And I think the notion that your sexuality can undergo these really exciting, expansive possibilities at a stage when most people assume that women are no longer sexually interesting and are just shutting down, is potentially a really liberating notion for women."



That's not THE diamond of course-even though he knows everything about women, as he has stated
 
'Inception' star Tom Hardy talks about his fluid sexuality and experimenting with gay sex in an interview with NOW magazine (via the Daily Mail).

When asked if he had ever had sex with men, Tom replied:

"Of course I have. I'm an actor for fuck's sake. I've played with everything and everyone. I love the form and the physicality, but now that I'm in my thirties, it doesn't do it for me. I'm done experimenting but there's plenty of stuff in a relationship with another man, especially gay men, that I need in my life. A lot of gay men get my thing for shoes. I have definite feminine qualities and a lot of gay men are incredibly masculine. A lot of people say I seem masculine, but I don't feel it. I feel intrinsically feminine. I'd love to be one of the boys but I always felt a bit on the outside. Maybe my masculine qualities come from overcompensating because I'm not one of the boys."

Tom, who played the title role in the 2009 film 'Bronson,' is engaged to British actress Charlotte Riley and has a child with an ex-girlfriend.
 
Back
Top Bottom