Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Teaching While Black | Nothing to See Here... »

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Re: Women: We Have No Sexual Orientation

posted by on April 10 at 14:03 PM

I’m very busy Tuesdays, so I haven’t had a chance to read the aforementioned NYT article. But I do note that it appears not very many Slog readers noticed my intentionally inflammatory book review of March 14. It follows.

Look Both Ways: Bisexual Politics by Jennifer Baumgardner (FSG) $24

Coauthor of the third-wave handbook Manifesta, Jennifer Baumgardner (the one who was dating Amy Ray, not the one who had an abortion) has written one of the first general-interest books on female bisexuality. It’s ridiculous that it’s taken so long. Popular terms like “girl crush” (which Baumgardner, a former Ms. editor and second-waver in spirit, professes to find “cloying”) and LUG (lesbian until graduation) are politically incorrect acknowledgments of an easily observed truth: Female sexuality is fluid and adaptable. It doesn’t take a jail cell or a whaling vessel to turn a straight girl on to other women, whether it’s for a semester or 50 years. The converse, while even touchier, is also true: Self-professed lesbians stray every day. Drawing lightly from psychoanalysis (Freud via Marjorie Garber) and heavily from her own life, Baumgardner breezes from the political lesbianism of the ’70s to the sudden efflorescence of pop-culture bisexuality in the ’90s. She attempts to recuperate bizarro Anne Heche, lavishes perhaps too many pages on confessional CEO Ani DiFranco, and tells her own story in serially monogamous anecdotes. In the exhausted tradition of consciousness raising, Look Both Ways is ultimately more memoir than treatise. But it’s still a provocative heads-up. ANNIE WAGNER

RSS icon Comments

1

I don't understand what's inflammatory about it...

Posted by NaFun | April 10, 2007 2:11 PM
2

Rather, it's only inflammatory to certain segments of the population, and in certain political contexts. Like those for whom it matters deeply whether science concludes sexual orientation is genetic or environmental. Like when we're discussing whether DOMA allows gay people to get married. These issues are irreversibly tangled.

Posted by annie | April 10, 2007 2:25 PM
3

Sorry, Annie, this review is too smart and well written to be inflammatory.

To succeed at the inflammatory journalism game, you'll need to drop 30 IQ points and develop at least one personality disorder (I'd recommend borderline and/or narcissism).

Posted by Sean | April 10, 2007 2:29 PM
4

The part that puzzles me the most is how you say it's "intentionally", which drove me to expect something more ... intentional, and over-the-top. As it is, it reads quitely cautiously.

Posted by Gloria | April 10, 2007 2:35 PM
5

Spring break and the "Girls Gone Wild" videos have been promoting female bisexuality for years.

Posted by elswinger | April 10, 2007 3:41 PM
6

It's also inflammatory on the other side of the coin, @2. Bisexual women get a lot of crap for being indecisive, generally from lesbians - in a lot of communities a lesbian that sleeps with a guy is seen as a traitor.

I've always seen sexuality as being more fluid - I guess my only question is whether this is mainly a woman thing or whether the premises would apply to men as well?

Posted by wench | April 10, 2007 3:48 PM
7

YAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWN ... books.

Posted by magpies in a pottery bowl | April 10, 2007 3:48 PM
8

#6: "whether the premises would apply to men as well?"

Not in my experience. Back in college, my liberal arts guy friends and I used to ponder whether we would/could ever get it on with a guy. In retrospect, the only motivation here was to establish ourselves as enlightened and open-minded. The act itself was a total turn off. The one friend who actually went through with it came back more convinced than ever of his heterosexuality.

Posted by Sean | April 10, 2007 4:18 PM
9

maybe if us guys were bombarded with hawt guy on guy sex on tv (like guys gone wild) like girls are then it would be more acceptable. or maybe it is a cultural thing. either way i thing HUMAN sexuality is adaptable and should be explored by all.

(this is coming from a bi male btw)

Posted by war pigs | April 10, 2007 7:29 PM
10

"maybe if us guys were bombarded with hawt guy on guy sex on tv (like guys gone wild) like girls are then it would be more acceptable."

I doubt it. Guys are ugly. Hairy, smelly, nasty. Even the depilated, muscular boys of gay aspiration are repellant. The only real puzzle is why anyone sleeps with any men at all. Why aren't all women lesbians, all the time?
I know if I was woman I would be.

Posted by Joe | April 11, 2007 2:09 AM
11

@8 Most likely not applicable in your case, but using that kind of one-off scenario, isn't it possible that it wouldn't be that hot to fuck a particular guy? I like men, but I don't want to fuck any or every man.

Posted by Gloria | April 11, 2007 6:05 AM
12

I definitely think it is the same (or at least similar) for guys, but you would never get any guys to admit it.

Posted by bi guy | April 11, 2007 8:15 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).