A READER writes:

A Toronto Star article on “late-blooming lesbians” contains all the latest mumbo jumbo on the theory of female sexual fluidity. It is a slickly written piece. Beyond the obvious message it intends to deliver, I noticed the events the author quoted as examples of what led the women to become lesbians. Interesting. This “sexual fluidity” thing is just over the top, as far as I am concerned. We have the pop song, “I Kissed a Girl and I liked it” and now this for the older ladies. I first heard the term “sexual fluidity” on a men’s rights site and at the time I dismissed it as absurd. I guess I was wrong. I refuse to believe women are innately fluid, but how many will?

Laura writes:

I think women are sexually fluid. Society can make them into lesbians. It can convince them that being a woman is ignoble.  Also, it’s no wonder a significant number of women are becoming lesbians, even in middle age, because, let’s face it, girlie men aren’t very attractive. If you’re going to be married to someone who essentially acts like your girlfriend, to a man who expects you to fend for yourself financially, who never asserts himself as a husband and who does not act like a father figure to his children, you might as well shack up with a woman who acts like man. They’re all unisex creatures. It’s also no wonder men have resorted to Viagra. You need drugs to have sex with a non-woman. 

Aside from the obvious damage to marriage and children, these sad cases threaten female friendship, the cement of society. Normal companionship between women will be placed under the suspicion of being something sexual. Men have to worry when their wives are out with their girfriends.

                                            — Comments —

Brendan writes:

I agree with you that women are fluid sexually to some degree — at least much more so than men are. I think this is why you see men and women acting out differently on their alienation from each other — in other words, we see some women acting out on this by being drawn to lesbianism (more on the why below), whereas we see almost no men opting to become gay because they are bored or displeased with their marriages, or because they “fall in love” with a male work colleague or something like that — just doesn’t happen. A man will develop an addiction to pornography due to that kind of alienation, but, outside of certain rare circumstances like prison, men generally don’t act out on that in a homosexual way, whereas women can, and sometimes do.

I think the reasons as to why we see this happening today are many. One is that the culture glorifies lesbians, or, rather, the tidied up, Hollywood/porn faux images of lesbians. This has happened in part because of the feminist movement bringing lesbians into prominence, and its agenda always leaning slightly lesbian. It has happened in part because of the growing acceptance of homosexuality in general. And it has also happened, in no small part, due to the higher acceptance of lesbians than gay men. Why is this? Because while many women have sympathy for gay men, most straight men do not see them as sympathetic characters. For lesbians, however, men find them titillating (especially the faux/hollywood/porn type “lesbian”), while many women find them at least sympathetic. That’s why, for example, TV and film are rife with lesbian encounters, lesbian kissing, lesbian relationships and so on, whereas you really only see this very rarely when it involves gay men. In a post-femnist, porn-soaked culture, lesbianism is not only accepted, it’s accepted as “hot”. This is also, by the way, an important factor underlying the growing acceptance of gay marriage — as lesbian relationships in particular become normalized, the case for lesbian marriage becomes stronger, and this is precisely what we are seeing (most same sex marriages are lesbian).

Against that background, it’s quite understandable that more women are acting out on their alienation from men by turning to women. Many women are more fluid in this way, and if you deconstruct womanhood to be solely about self-actualization — that is, detach it from having anything inherently to do with being a wife and mother and instead make it about “whatever makes you happy”, then of course for some women that’s going to lead them into the arms of other women. The cultural acceptance and perception of the “hotness” of lesbianism acts as a catalyst on this substrate and — a few Oprah spots here, a few newspaper columns there — and voila!, you have a good mass of middle aged women self-actualizing in the beds of other women. The lesbian lobby certainly plants these stories around the media world every few months in an effort to “turn women on to the possibilities” — i.e., recruit cute straight women into lesbianism — many lesbians often complain about unrequited crushes they have had on straight women who were involved with men, and this is no doubt, at least in part a way to exact some kind of revenge for that. I expect we’ll see more of this in the years ahead as lesbian marriage becomes even more accepted and common, meaning even fewer women in the market for men — which also probably means we’re going to see prostitution and pornography continue to explode.

One final note on the article in the Toronto Star. It’s interesting that when a gay man comes out as gay, the wife pretty much gets a lot of sympathy and so on and the man gets trashed. I think that’s appropriate by the way. But note the contrast to this article, where men who are upset at their long-term wives disclosure of homosexual tendencies are described as being “overwrought and angry”, while implicit praise is heaped on those couples who “work out arrangements” (presumably where she gets to sleep with other women and he gets to keep on financially supporting her through her lesbian escapades). Another double standard. Yes, this would be based on the idea that the guy deceived the wife and so on, but the betrayal is the same, either way. And if a woman has a choice as to whether or not she wants to practice lesbianism, which it seems to me is at least implied by the idea of “fluidity”, then it seems equally bad to adopt that choice midstream in a heterosexual marriage, precisely because the choice is not forced, and is in fact optional. And if it wasn’t, then she’s in the same boat as the gay guy who married, who may also have only been unsure of his sexuality and so on. Nevertheless, it’s not surprising to see men smacked harder about basically the same thing, while women are supported. It’s just another instance of how our culture basically has a very easy time criticizing virtually everything men do, while at the same time cheers virtually anything women do. The shift is extreme, really, when you step back and take a look at it from a broader perspective.

Josh F. writes:

Females are choosing dykism because in our environment it is liberating and can maximize one’s autonomy.

When Brendan says that “men” aren’t choosing homosexuality in response  to females, but rather, turning to porn or away from WOMAN, such male  is, in fact, choosing a de facto-homoism. It may not be physical, but  it is certainly “spiritual” and intellectual. He is seeking to  maximize his autonomy by redefining man.

Those who hold radical autonomy as highest principle seek to make  meaningless ideals/entities such as man/woman. They do this quite  simply through the “equality” mechanism. They simply communicate as if  man equalled anti-man or woman equalled anti-woman. It is how they speak.

Remember, it seemed just last week that we were paralyzed by the homosexual’s “orientiation.” It meant that the biological mandate was  alive and well (I was born this way, so I MUST BE this way) and God-ordained free will, dead. And now, the devout dyke’s “orientation” is  “fluid.” Radical autonomy is the fluid orientation. So, so liberating.

Reader N. writes:

Women are surely more “fluid” in ways beyond sexuality. Perhaps a better word would be “flexible”, in the sense of being more prone to change some parts of their personality in response to externalities. How could it be otherwise? In ancient times, women were given as wives to other tribes / villages, and would have to conform to new, different mores, cuisine choices, and possibly even religious rituals. Women have to be more pliable in some ways, because bending to their husband’s will to varying degrees is essential to succeed in having children, and we are all descended from women who had children,are we not?

Yes, there is variance, wide variance. We can point to women like Joan of Arc who will not bend from what they see as the truth, and we can point to other women whose heads can be turned by almost anyone or anything. But the great middle range of women have a few fundamental precepts they hold dear, and everything else can be negotiated to some degree or other.

We can see that women’s greater flexibility in behavior leads them to be more prone to join cults; new cults always have more women followers than men, which often is used to convince more men to join up. The innate conservatism of women really doesn’t come out until she has children, and even then women are willing to bend rather than resist to the breaking point if it means keeping her children alive and safe.

Given the modern world, where women and men are taught that there are no absolutes, and a greater degree of flexibility in behavior they will accept, it really is no surprise to find some number of
women acting out their alienation from men by shifting to a homosexual mode of living. And as Brendan points out, there is a tremendous amount of glorification of the lesbian in modern fiction, this
only exacerbates the phenomenon.

All of this points us back to Scripture, where women are to submit to their husbands, who are charged with protecting and cherishing them just as Christ does with the church. Anyone
who wishes to find happiness would be well advised to start looking at Psalm 1.

William writes:

Steve Sailer wrote an very insightful piece comparing/contrasting male homosexuals and lesbians.  The last section on politics is quite interesting.  Note it was written in 1994, but still dead-on.  He doesn’t quite come out and say it, but it’s clear male homosexuals like straight women, but lesbians hate straight men.  It follows that lesbians have a mission to convert all other women to lesbianism, while male homosexuals have no such agenda.

Laura writes:

It seems that some male homosexuals do an excellent job of recruiting young men.

Bartholomew writes:

I thought Brendan’s statement that, “We see almost no men opting to become gay because they are bored or displeased with their marriages, or because they “fall in love” with a male work colleague or something like that — just doesn’t happen” is true but incomplete. Although men who “come out of the closet” don’t usually say it’s because they are “bored” with their wives, that doesn’t mean that no men ever come out of the closet after they’re married. That does happen, and therefore I’m not sure why it’s justified to say that men’s sexuality is less fluid/subject to change than women’s. Men’s sexuality can change, it just changes for other reasons.

I think we can think our way to those reasons. If a man’s sexuality is a function of dominance–one of your readers said “The desire to protect is close to the desire to dominate” or something like that–then it stands to reason that a loss of dominance will mean a loss of his sexuality. Or, to put it more accurately, it will lead to the loss of his masculine sexuality. If he no longer feels dominant or feels like he ought to be dominant, then how can he be attracted to the idea of a dominating a woman?

Isn’t it obvious that most homosexual men have a serious dominance deficiency? If you could manage to take away a man’s dominance, it’s not very difficult to see how you might also take away his masculine sexuality. And as there are only two forms of sexuality, it’s also not very difficult to see why he might distort the other type to fill the void left by the original.

It’s possible this happens with less frequency than it does with women. For a man to have lost his dominance, something really defeating must have happened to him, and thank God, those events are rare. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that his sexuality is less changeable itself. It just means that the conditions under which it is likely to change are themselves less frequent.

Brendan writes:

Bartholomew’s post was interesting.

My understanding has been that men who “come out as gay” during their marriages actually either (1) knew they were homosexual [Laura writes: I prefer to rephrase this as ‘knew they had homosexual desires,’  as all are born heterosexual.] (i.e., had same-sex sexual experiences prior to marrying their wives or fantasized about same sex experiences prior to marrying their wives, neither of which is common in straight men) or (2) are actually bisexual men who have decided to shift towards their homosexual side for some reason. I’m not aware of many stories, accounts or other literature describing men who actually shift from being physically/visually attracted to women towards being physically/visually attracted to men — and the plethysmograph tests suggest strongly that, for men, it’s very much “either/or”, meaning that it would be a stronger shift for a man than it would be for a woman, generally speaking, because a woman’s “default attraction state” is more fluid to begin with, per these tests. I’d be interested to see materials about guys who have experienced their physical/visual attraction vectors shift from women to men over the course of their adult lives.

On the dominance issue, I don’t think it’s as easy to parse in a cut-and-dried way. Obviously, homosexual male sex generally features a more active or dominant person and a more passive or submissive person. The guy who plays the former role, sexually, can be quite dominant indeed, even though his dominance is sexually misdirected — i.e., it’s directed at other men and not at women, in sexual terms. The guy who plays the latter role, of course, has a more or less completely compromised sexual masculinity, at least when viewed in traditional terms, because masculinity generally does not entail playing the passive role sexually. The Greeks and the Romans alike — often touted by homosexual rights advocates as being examples of homo-tolerant societies — distinguished pretty sharply between the person playing the dominant role and the person playing the submissive role, particularly restricting the social acceptability of playing the submissive role to certain times (in Greece, younger males) and types of people (in Rome, non-citizen males).

More generally, I do agree that some men are sexually fetishizing their own failure, or perhaps disinterest, in playing a truly masculine role in their relationships with women — that is, by fetishizing a lack of sexual agency, or the adoption of a non-masculine or submissive role sexually. I have long suspected that this is one of the main drivers behind some of the more lurid forms of pornography that seem to be flourishing today. However, that’s a separate issue from straight men “turning” homosexual in midlife.

Randy B. writes:

When I see the “sexually fluid” women, like the two I witnessed at the Labor Day Salt Lake Bees game, I am glad they have chosen to withdraw from the reproductive pool. It’s no wonder that men are not attracted to, nor do they want this type of “woman” within spitting distance (no man wants to be spit upon).

The 5’ – 5’5” tall, 5’ – 5.5” round Marine buzz cut in baggy pants or shorts, with equally baggy tops, and an odor that reminds you of that summer day trip to the city dump. If these “women” were never exposed to my children (an abuse of the term as my youngest is now 17.5 years old), that would be one thing, but these women are teachers, postal workers, and otherwise employed in government jobs. Increasingly these “women” are taking up jobs in the private sector through government-mandated hiring of the dysfunctional and repugnant. Now you have to witness them and their male friends acting out as cashiers, clerks and baggers at the grocery stores, banks, and retail outlets. 

Not unlike the animal kingdom, I discriminate against homosexuals as a form of survival of the species.

Brandon B.writes: 

In regard to your latest post on female sexual fluidity you mentioned how women would rather be with a masculine woman than a girly man. This quote from actress Sharon Stone confirms this quite openly: 

“Now men act like women and it’s difficult to have a relationship because I like men in that old-fashioned way. I like masculinity and, in truth, only women do that now”.

James M. writes:

This entry just reminded me of a song called “All the Lazy Dykes“, by Morrissey, who was the lead guy in an 80s English rock group called The Smiths. I thought I’d send along the lyrics. The song is written in such a way that you may project your own feelings about lesbianism upon it. Lesbian Morrissey fans seem to love it, but the way it is actually sung, the title, and the inclusion of that oh-so-much-loved order of lesbian, the biker-dyke, makes me think that it’s more of a sarcastic joke on them. Or perhaps I’d only like to think so; Morrissey is difficult to pin down sometimes. Anyhow, it is about late-blooming dykes:

All the lazy dykes, cross-armed at The Palms,
Their legs astride their bikes,
Indigo burns on their arms.

One sweet day, An emotional whirl,
You will be good to yourself,
And you’ll come and join the girls

All the lazy dykes, They pity how you live,
Just “somebody’s wife”,
You give, and you give, and you give, and you give, and you give

And one sweet day , An emotional whirl,
You will be good to yourself,
And you’ll come and join the girls

Touch me, Squeeze me, Hold me too tightly,
And when you look at me you actually see me.
And I’ve, never felt so alive, In the whole of my life, In the whole of my life.

Free yourself, be yourself,
Come to The Palms and see yourself.
And at last your life begins, At last your life begins…

Please follow and like us: