#41

Cuntessa_Markievicz posted:

but yeah i cant understand my sudden obsession with trying to "meet a man" and why i continue to subject myself to them. also a guy who i know through mutual friends randomly messaged me today after we chatted at a party on friday that he was looking for a hook up cause hes still a virgin..... i do not understand why he felt to tell me his after i suggested a gallery he should see via fucking whatsapp

but i know the root of this current desire fundamentally comes from the source of a lot of pain in my life from growing up in a single mother family and having so many financial precarities due to not being a stereotypical nuclear family. not because i genuinely feel that my happiness in relationships are with straight men


I cant go out on a date with you due to the inviolable bond of BBS camaraderie, sorry, but i suggest any time you feel a date slipping off the rails just launch into this post before bailing. Will save a lot of lost souls

#42

Cuntessa_Markievicz posted:

but yeah i cant understand my sudden obsession with trying to "meet a man" and why i continue to subject myself to them. also a guy who i know through mutual friends randomly messaged me today after we chatted at a party on friday that he was looking for a hook up cause hes still a virgin..... i do not understand why he felt to tell me his after i suggested a gallery he should see via fucking whatsapp



A guy was who was hitting on me recently told me he does amateur standup comedy and showed me the only video he has of his material, it was awful, a big "chunk" of it was talking about how hes still a virgin and hopes a nice lady will help him lose his virginity someday. When i said "uhmm you talk about being a virgin in your set??" he was like oh shit I forgot that was in there. With all due respect to Adrienne Rich, it's no wonder that man is the only gender im attracted to, because its extremely epic.

#43

Cuntessa_Markievicz posted:

SO ANYWAY i have decided to make the most of what i have got and im going on a lot of dates mainly through okcupid and christ on a bike the men i am communicating with and meeting are just basically so fucking emotionally stunted. like jeez fucking lousie you aresholes, i am not a mother replacement figure there for you to unleash all your emotional repression onto? or theyre mega horny and yeahhh lol i dont respond well to that unless i know for definite we have mutual chemistry, they respect me, and are pro choice


i dont know how people deal with having to find dates online which seems to be the norm these days, what a terrifying thought. anyway, ganbatte ne

#44
im praying for you skylark

im reaching the stage where im either going to join a nunnery or join a paramilitary group to reign in my disdain for men/compulsive heterosexuality amen
#45

me with the gals
#46
whoever writes the sequel to caliban and the witch in the 23rd century will look back on our time and talk about it like the dustbowl, like this is when millions of emotionally retarded manlets wandered the earth being narcissistic psychos and ruining everything
#47
that's emotionally retarded imo
#48

Gibbonstrength posted:

like this is when millions of emotionally retarded manlets wandered the earth being narcissistic psychos and ruining everything



yeah not so long ago i met a guy i really liked (lil green pills and his wife can attest to that) and seemed to hit it off really well and he got me one of the most thoughtful gifts ever but now hes being cagey as fuck and im back on my bullshit of trying to meet non-creeps and of course wishing men werent so fucking emotionally weird
c'est la fucking vie mes amis

#49

Gibbonstrength posted:

manlets



whats a manlet

#50

roseweird posted:

Gibbonstrength posted:

manlets

whats a manlet


its like manbaby but said with more disdain and less syllables

#51
manlet means short man. its just a funny diminutive word imo.
#52
yes i agree little man = big funny
#53
big manlet here
#54
tbh choosing not to be straight is a position that has sown quite a lot of division in feminism, and i’ve seen feminists fall out about this, albeit in stupid online spaces. straight feminists get pissy about their individual relationships being criticised when a structural critique of heterosexuality is offered up and blame the mean lesbians, and the lesbians respond by saying all women can be lesbians, which, they can’t, and everyone falls out and nothing gets done.

Political lesbian was tried years ago, and it completely failed. despite what adrienne rich says about lesbianism not being rooted in a hatred of men-which lesbianism isn’t-a lot of the women who came to PL who were actually straight were women who were sick of men’s shit, who through feminism had finally found the words to articulate this and who loved the idea of leaving men and forging their primary bonds with women. The only issue was that they were straight and it didn’t work at all.

i’m all for examining heterosexuality critically and certainly bi women can concentrate on their connections with women, and straight women can embrace political spinsterhood, but you can’t change your sexual orientation.
#55

roseweird posted:

Gibbonstrength posted:

manlets

whats a manlet



getfiscal self describes this way, possibly ironically.

#56

overfire posted:

Political lesbian was tried years ago, and it completely failed.



are there any good historical/narrative accounts of this phenomenon

overfire posted:

i’m all for examining heterosexuality critically and certainly bi women can concentrate on their connections with women, and straight women can embrace political spinsterhood, but you can’t change your sexual orientation.



Its def useful to make the distinction between "dating and having sex with men" and "heterosexuality". I've talked to the Cuntessa pretty often about this, but the definition of the family or the household has been made and remade by material circumstances several times in recorded history. There's no intrinsic reason that sexuality and the household have to have anything to do with each other, Rich's 8 points gel pretty well with this

Edited by littlegreenpills ()

#57

littlegreenpills posted:

overfire posted:

i’m all for examining heterosexuality critically and certainly bi women can concentrate on their connections with women, and straight women can embrace political spinsterhood, but you can’t change your sexual orientation.



Its def useful to make the distinction between "dating and having sex with men" and "heterosexuality". I've talked to the Cuntessa pretty often about this, but the definition of the family or the household has been made and remade by material circumstances several times in recorded history. There's no intrinsic reason that sexuality and the household have to have anything to do with each other, Rich's 8 points gel pretty well with this




Hmm im interested in hearing more about that but tbh I'm reminded of "queer heterosexuality", a concept I hate

#58
There's no intrinsic reason that sexuality and the household have to have anything to do with each other, Just ask my wife!
#59
If all women could choose to be lesbians the human race would have died out already. No one would willingly date men if they could choose other options. Except me I mean (one of the good ones)
#60

littlegreenpills posted:

There's no intrinsic reason that sexuality and the household have to have anything to do with each other



i think usually people have children with people that they have sex with, right

#61
Im totally here for new kinds of family and social arrangements, but at the same time the rise of stuff like this makes me nervous

It's important that words have meanings so that we can talk about oppression that some people actually do experience
#62
Can the institution of compulsory heterosexuality withstand a new generation of people who identify as "queer" because they have different haircuts and clothes while being heterosexual? Hm I guess we'll have to wait and find out lol.
#63

roseweird posted:

littlegreenpills posted:

There's no intrinsic reason that sexuality and the household have to have anything to do with each other

i think usually people have children with people that they have sex with, right



i think also many birds and mammals etc do this

#64

roseweird posted:

littlegreenpills posted:

There's no intrinsic reason that sexuality and the household have to have anything to do with each other

i think usually people have children with people that they have sex with, right



like 50% of kids in the us have divorced parents if you wanna be glib about it

#65
birth control's impact on potential arrangements hasnt been brought up yet but used to be a thing discussed heavily in the movement for the very reason that it detached the home from sex
#66

littlegreenpills posted:

roseweird posted:

littlegreenpills posted:

There's no intrinsic reason that sexuality and the household have to have anything to do with each other

i think usually people have children with people that they have sex with, right

like 50% of kids in the us have divorced parents if you wanna be glib about it



i'm not being glib, i'm pointing out that there's an extremely obvious intrinsic, or at least natural and historical, relationship between sexuality and household, seems disingenuous and pointless to deny

#67
lil green pills and skylark heres some clarification on the history of political lesbianism 9yeah its shelia jefferys but she was right there when it was all happening and embraced political lesbianism)
#68
I like sheila jeffreys. Ill check it out
#69
i think the focus on sexuality is misleading because sex is really unnecessary, but experiments in political lesbianism involved a lot of geographical and social isolation at a time when many great technological and social changes were occurring guided almost entirely by men. i mean i think it is easier to live without men than without computers, right? i find it a lot harder to imagine successful lasting communities without various kinds of jobs that women still populate only in small numbers than to imagine communities without sex. as women continue to gain technical skills and the confidence to use them to administer and shape their societies, the possibilities for complex and fruitful relationships become greater. imo

Edited by roseweird ()

#70

littlegreenpills posted:

littlegreenpills posted:




are there any good historical/narrative accounts of this phenomenon



Honestly lgp there isn't, as a lot of lesbian writers including Rich have pointed out our history is of very little interest to most people and is buried and mostly ignored, which is why the sources I could cite of "some 60 something lezseps I'm mates with" aren't proper sources. Sheila Jeffreys is one of the few we have, but I don't agree with her on a lot of stuff

#71
i should say focus on sexuality is misleading not in that compulsive heterosexuality is not an extremely strong force perpetuating patriarchal family structure, becuase it is, but rather the part of this discussion that seems to assume that rejection of heterosexuality requires replacement with some other sexuality, which isn't necessary
#72

Skylark posted:

littlegreenpills posted:

overfire posted:

i’m all for examining heterosexuality critically and certainly bi women can concentrate on their connections with women, and straight women can embrace political spinsterhood, but you can’t change your sexual orientation.



Its def useful to make the distinction between "dating and having sex with men" and "heterosexuality". I've talked to the Cuntessa pretty often about this, but the definition of the family or the household has been made and remade by material circumstances several times in recorded history. There's no intrinsic reason that sexuality and the household have to have anything to do with each other, Rich's 8 points gel pretty well with this

Hmm im interested in hearing more about that but tbh I'm reminded of "queer heterosexuality", a concept I hate



i also without wanting to be a h8r find it difficult to prise apart "dating and having sex with men" and heterosexuality" ie they are one and the same, exactly the fucking same

#73
sex drive may seem like a good idea, but that feel when you didn't save a canister slot for power recirculator.....
#74

roseweird posted:

i should say focus on sexuality is misleading not in that compulsive heterosexuality is not an extremely strong force perpetuating patriarchal family structure, becuase it is, but rather the part of this discussion that seems to assume that rejection of heterosexuality requires replacement with some other sexuality, which isn't necessary



pl saw lesbianism as an attack on comp het replacing primary male-identified bonds with female ones, prioritising women over men as feminist praxis. i too don't think sexuality is required or even can work as a replacement.

#75
heres a bbc documentary about women in the UK that embraced political lesbianism in the 70s
#76

cars posted:

sex drive may seem like a good idea, but that feel when you didn't save a canister slot for power recirculator.....



if you don't want to be a sexless cyborg i don't want to know you

#77

roseweird posted:

i should say focus on sexuality is misleading not in that compulsive heterosexuality is not an extremely strong force perpetuating patriarchal family structure, becuase it is, but rather the part of this discussion that seems to assume that rejection of heterosexuality requires replacement with some other sexuality, which isn't necessary



That's exactly what I was driving at by saying there is no intrinsic reason that any of the people you share a home with or bring up children with or perform reproductive labor for or spend many joyous loving hours together with need to be the same people you physically have sex with, if there even are any. sex doesn't actually matter, you're right. i mean it's hard to find a working historical example where the two things are completely divorced, but the lack of a working historical example ought not to stop a bunch of communists

overfire posted:

i also without wanting to be a h8r find it difficult to prise apart "dating and having sex with men" and heterosexuality" ie they are one and the same, exactly the fucking same



it's impossible to practically do it as of 2017 AD, but you certainly know enough to realize that not everyone cruising the park on a warm Friday night is "gay". so why, in eons hence, can't it work the other way. or some completely different way where the importance of sexual whatever in people's lives is massively diminished and decentred. more importantly, would that be an improvement

#78


roseweird posted:

i should say focus on sexuality is misleading not in that compulsive heterosexuality is not an extremely strong force perpetuating patriarchal family structure, becuase it is, but rather the part of this discussion that seems to assume that rejection of heterosexuality requires replacement with some other sexuality, which isn't necessary


#79
volcel but for women
#80
Ah, if there was one argument that will finally turn the masses in favor of full futurist cybercommunism or whatever, it's "sexuality isn't necessary"