(although they could also be asexual) a lot of those things are classic symptoms of compulsory heterosexuality.īut a lot of bisexual or pansexual women can get confused by this document. (sorry for femdoms.) she thinks wanting to include another woman is gay, which could be true, but also could be a bisexual thing.Ī lot of what the writer says is also true, when they talk about only liking the idea of a guy, or not necessarily wanting to be physical or romantic at all with their partners. In a part about physical intimacy the writer also thinks that doing non-heteronormative things during intimacy with a man is very gay of you. There are other polarizing aspects to the document where the writer states that having standards like “i like feminine men, or older men,” signifies that you must be compensating for the fact that you have comphet and in fact just don’t like men. I think that this line of thinking encourages the idea that you can change your sexuality at will, and i don’t like that. i’m just a bi/pan woman who only dates women. if a man made me feel uncomfortable to the point where i only dated women, i wouldn’t necessarily be a lesbian because i’m still attracted to men no matter what i do. Take myself, i’m attracted to men as well as women. To paraphrase the following line, it basically says that if you had problems with men that made you uncomfortable around them and you no longer want relationships with them, you can… become a lesbian? so confusing. why is such a tired conservative talking point written in a lesbian masterdoc? it is destructive to everything queer people stand for. While i think the first part is true, obviously we don’t know we’re queer straight out of the womb and some of us do have to discover it later on, it is dangerous to say that queerness is the product of “nuture.” meaning you can be raised with a certain upbringing or environment that can influence your queerness. it can be because of both nature and nurture.” Here’s where it gets divisive: in a part that talks about being with men in the past, it says, “now a common misconception is also that everyone is born knowing they are gay and that’s not necessarily true. i also agree with the stuff it has to say about liking fictional men or celebrities or being with men in the past. i agree that if you have to force yourself to be attracted to men, you’re most likely a lesbian. ![]() ![]() as a result, queer women write off their attraction to women and try to force attraction to men. It talks about society pressuring women to be with men as a result of heteronormative values and expectations. ![]() The doc starts off explaining compulsory heterosexuality and i don’t have anything negative to say about the explanation. The only issue i have with it is that the bisexual or pansexual women who read this masterdoc (me) might end up being a bit misled, or confused by what it suggests about nonlesbian queer women. it helped them realize that their supposed “heterosexuality” was compulsory and not at all natural and more something that lesbians have to go through as a result of heteronormativity in society. I don’t want to completely trash the master doc, even though a lot of queer people share my opinion, because it helped some lesbians come to terms with their sexuality. Presuming that you’re a queer person, or a heavily invested queer ally- you know about the comphet masterdoc infamously titled, “am i a lesbian?”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |