« A View from Three Feet Up | Main | Still Puffing Graham »
August 09, 2006
The Unlovely Lesbian
A recent conversation with friends on lesbianism brought up
what I believe to be a universally known but rarely acknowledged connection
between physical unattractiveness and lesbianism. Most (not all, of
course, but most) lesbians I have known are far from comely by current standards, but they
have usually responded warmly and gratefully to my habit of treating them as
though they were worthy of love--which, of course, they are. They first
think I do this because I am of a liberal disposition, and wish to show them
that I approve of their sexual preferences or life style. If we get to
know each other well enough for my opinions to be known, there is considerable surprise, for most have been convinced that disapproval of
their sin invariably means hatred of their persons.
The real reason for my disposition is that long ago my eyes came to rest meditatively on a
photograph of myself as a ninth grader--a homely, pimply boy, with the proud
and complacent face of a self-important, self-satisfied, sophomoric jackass--the
kind of kid I naturally loathe. I recalled that I was in body and spirit
exactly what I appeared to be in that photo, and wondered how anyone—God, my
parents, anybody--could love such a person. I didn't deserve it; in fact,
I deserved the opposite. But I was loved anyway.
From that epiphany in my twenties my heart has gone out to the unlovely because I know myself as one of them, and in thanks for the love I have received, the acknowledgement of my worth as a human being given by so many kind and generous people, I try to give something back, especially to those who are like me.
How much sadness there is in the world, and how much of it must be borne by women--and yes, I am thinking here of a peculiar burden of women--who perceive that the world regards them as ugly. There would be fewer lesbians, far fewer, I think, if we took care to search for and admire beauty in girls and women of unfashionable appearance. It is something that is almost always found when sought. People like this don't need pity. They need the kind of hard-edged, disciplined realism that is willing to discern and venerate the image of God in others.
Posted by S. M. Hutchens at 10:31 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d83453639869e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Unlovely Lesbian:
Comments
"They need the kind of hard-edged, disciplined realism that is willing to discern and venerate the image of God in others."
In literature I have found this in the novels of Charlotte Bronte. Jane Eyre, most decidedly a plain woman, had this hard-edged, disciplined realism. It also helped that all of the Bronte sisters were serious Christians: they sought to discern the image of God in their protagonists and, through them, in others.
Posted by: Bill R | Aug 9, 2006 10:58:37 PM
Well put. In my limited experience, I think that a different kind of rejection - a history of abusive behavior by boyfriends or ex-husbands - is a factor as well. A lesbian relationship can give some emotional intimacy in what feels like a safer setting (though lesbian athlete couples can have fights of legendary intensity).
Posted by: Reader John | Aug 10, 2006 5:24:45 AM
Let me make it plain that I am well aware that a great many "factors" may be involved. I am here writing about one factor, and with respect to any given instance, only a possible one. That is why I use deliberately vague language about "connections," and acknowledge that not all lesbians are unattractive.
With language like this I am hoping to foreclose the likelihood that commentators will write in representing that (1) the matter is much more complex than you understand, (2) there are other etiological factors you don't even touch upon, or (3) you left out the most important thing, which is . . ., or are ignorant of recent research [encountered in Psych 301], which indicates . . . , or, perhaps the most irritating (4) I know lots of attractive lesbians, therefore your ignorant, bigoted, notion that all lesbians are homely is ignorant and bigoted.
Careful wording, however, never works with people who have no real interest in what you're saying.
I'm not really criticizing Reader John here, for he is simply adding his own observation without attacking mine. I am steeling myself, however, as I do whenever I write a blog, especially on a sensitive topic, for the onslaught of what Goethe somewhere called the Ewig Cluelos, for whom the Touchstone blog isn't so much a thought to interact with as a carrier words that touch off a reaction.
Posted by: smh | Aug 10, 2006 7:51:28 AM
We men are extremely visual creatures. I often think of that regarding temptation to lust, incited by physical attractiveness - but it's also a temptation to other nasty things in the other direction, isn't it?
Thanks for this musing. And don't worry about the "Clueless Earwigs"...
Posted by: Joe Long | Aug 10, 2006 8:01:14 AM
AS usual, SMH makes sense to me. If a woman gets a signal she is pretty much "out of the game," there's a shallow but effective incentive to find another direction if the chemistry allows.
When working in former Yugoslavia in the 90's, I was shocked and encouraged to notice that, although of course beautiful young women had boyfriends more frequently, the gorgeous did not have that familiar air of entitlement and contempt, nor did the homely walk around looking ashamed and in default.
Joe Long's "we men" seems to be in particular "we American men."
Furthermore, I've noticed that European women above the very lowest classes seem in general to appear more self-confident and self-possessed, which I believe has to do with more roots in family, community, not so completely at the mercy of romances and fashion.
Posted by: dilys | Aug 10, 2006 8:29:58 AM
what simple-minded poppycock......they become lesbians because they fall short of some iddeal of beauty......and you jackasses wonder why they also tend to be defiant?
Posted by: Will | Aug 10, 2006 9:01:22 AM
Why, how dare you. I've known several non-defiant lesbians. Bigot!
You are correct that the argument as you state it is poppycock. It's not, however, the observation that was actually MADE.
Posted by: Joe Long | Aug 10, 2006 9:34:48 AM
Thanks for braving the knee-jerk responses. Your posts always get me thinking, truly thinking.
Posted by: kate | Aug 10, 2006 11:09:52 AM
This of course goes well with the earlier series of essays on same-sex marriage. There is a couple that lives accross the street from me. They are female (both of them). They are unattractive. My wife and I have steeled ourselves into believing they are sisters until something becomes obvious that they are otherwise.
We have to do that because the culture has tought us that if you are not attractive and living together you probably are lesbian. My sister and her room mate (my sister is fairly attractive, the room-mate is not) have to deal with the same thing. I believe this is why they are both (far too) aggressively[1] trying to find men to marry.
[1] They are by far old enough. The problem is the aggression itself. Men, in my not so humble experience, like slightly forward women but despise those that seem to be hiding a club behind their back. This borders on the club.
Posted by: Nick | Aug 10, 2006 11:44:05 AM
I wonder if the change to a nearly totally individualistic society plays into this. In other words, all available intimacy is now on a voluntary, merit basis subject to the "market". If we had larger immediate and extended families, or arranged marriages, or purposeful communities of single people, or any number of things that have been abandoned, rightly or wrongly, in favor of individualism, then perhaps young people of both sexes would not see their only prospects of meaningful intimacy hinging more and more on their sexual attractiveness. Individualism coupled with sexual libertine ways makes being erotically desirable not only self-justifying, but about the only justifying (along with fame and fortune)thing in people's lives.
Posted by: peter speckhard | Aug 10, 2006 12:21:58 PM
1) I once heard a philosophy professor, Bill Marra, say that he worried about the problem of 'dogs' (ugly girls) for decades, until he read Solzynitsyn.
2) I know a young girl with one eye looking in the wrong direction - she has the most beautiful character of any young person I know. It is, however, I have thus far found, hopeless introducing her to the kindest young Christian men. You can see them looking straight at the eye, and that's it. She won't become a lesbian, because she's a believing Christian, but no reason why not would occur to her, or be put to her, if she wasn't.
3) I once had as a colleague a lesbian self-publicist. She and her companion were both very well educated people, and it often seemed to me that, 50 years ago, they would have been one of those blue stocking couples no-body gave much thought to.
I think ugliness certainly is important, and it's very brave to name it. Another related thing is simply dislike of one's body, ugly or not.
Posted by: Francesca | Aug 10, 2006 2:18:08 PM
Francesca: And I know a young lady who was born with many birth defects and has many surgeries to try to repair them and has lived with much cruelty (sadly at the hands of her own father who couldn't accept her physical deformaties and so could not see the beautiful gift his daughter is). None of the surgeries have made her "normal" looking and yet she is the most delightful, lovely person I have ever met. Someone rightly nicknamed her "Sunshine" which is the most fitting nickname for a person I have ever heard. And I am not alone in thinking this as she married a couple of years ago to a young man who is simply besotted with her.
Posted by: Buttercup | Aug 10, 2006 2:28:57 PM
I agree that the stated correlation exists, but I am very skeptical about the causality. One reason is that the correlation is quite different with gay men.
The general trend I notice (though with lots of exceptions) is that gay men tend to look somewhat feminine, and lesbians tend to look somewhat masculine. In general a feminine appearance tends to be more attractive to both men and women (witness the preference for women's faces on magazine covers regardless of target market). It is quite common for gay men to be attractive to women - the woman with a hopeless crush on a gay man is a staple of pop culture, but a man with a crush on a lesbian is almost unknown. So my guess is that the "unloveliness" is not a cause but an effect of something that causes both lesbianism and generally masculine traits.
An interesting point of commonality between gay men and lesbians is that probably both groups tend to suffer most from rejection by men rather than women. Effeminate men suffer all kinds of bullying and rejection by other men (starting from boyhood), and masculine-looking women likewise tend to be rejected by men. I don't know if that means anything but it's interesting.
Posted by: Matthias | Aug 10, 2006 3:00:06 PM
I can see your point, Matthias. It could be that *some* lesbians look 'ugly' because they don't like their bodies and hence try to look 'masculine' - but this has the opposite to the desired effect, since, to other people, a masculine face on a woman is unattractive.
Buttercup - I *really* hope the same will come true for the young girl I mentioned. To me, guys are insane who can't see what a lovely wife she would make.
Posted by: Francesca | Aug 10, 2006 3:12:24 PM
About gay men ... when I was young and single, some of us (women) used to complain that the best-looking men were mostly gay. Does that mean that men who aren't attractive enough to snag a man have to resort to women?
Posted by: Juli | Aug 10, 2006 3:37:29 PM
But you see, men and women are very DIFFERENT. There's no particular reason what's true of an exclusively female thing like lesbianism, should be true of a purely male malfunction.
Gay guys are often quite attractive by female standards, I'm told, but lesbians very rarely by male standards. Makes sense to me to start with the observed facts. In a plethora of ways, the expressions of male and female homosexuality are very different, so I wouldn't personally assume that causation was especially similar. Dr. Hutchens could as easily have written "The Lovely Gay Guy", but it would have been a very different essay.
Posted by: Joe Long | Aug 10, 2006 4:21:12 PM
That anything as complicated as human reproduction works at all is nothing short of a miracle of the highest order. Think about the senses involved in even recognizing the gender of a fellow human being. Think about the processes involved in finding some particular person attractive over and above another.
Sometimes it goes wrong.
The problem comes in with denying that there is a wrong or a right. The problem is with the human's ability to manipulate this complex system God has designed and the failure to bow to the authority of nature.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Aug 10, 2006 4:26:28 PM
This is an interesting thought. I agree that there is a culture of rejection for women who do not fit this society's ideal of beauty. Relationships with men have become so complicated that I can see the temptation to not want to try, especially if there's a history of abuse or neglect. Many of the lesbians I've had contact with (again, not all, but many) are "butchy." But I think that we are all so starved for real love and real affection and so often unable or ill-equipped to give it to the opposite sex that it can seem that only love from the same sex will satisfy and understand that need. Our same-sex friendships are often so lacking in depth and our language has become so limited that we as a culture are unable to express the feelings that we long for.
I remember many years ago spending time with a large group of young people who were for the most part committed to sexual purity. I was amazed at the same-sex intimacy and affection that was displayed. Some of it might have been regional (many were from the south, whereas I'm a cold mid-westerner), but there was an innocence to the friendships that I have rarely encountered. The young women would walk hand in hand. The young men would wrestle and play sports. Of the ones I kept in touch with, they all went on to be happily married with many children. My point is that because the pressure was taken off to be sexually desirable at all times(I should mention they were very modest dressers, too), the women were free to be feminine and to have the physically affectionate relationships that are denied to us in the culture at large. If I walked with my best friend hand-in-hand, people would assume we were lesbians, even though we are both married with children.
I think many women become attracted to other women because they know another woman will understand their feelings, will know they need a hug, won't flip out if they cry or otherwise express womanly emotions. I also think they believe that another woman will understand what they desire sexually and romantically. Another woman will write love notes and do special things, instead of being glued to the t.v. or only interested in "quickies." And another woman will understand when you're having a "fat day" and will love you whether you fit into your skinny jeans or not.
This isn't to say there aren't men like this. Many of us get lucky and find men who love us even when we're not the most beautiful woman he's ever seen (but who are smart enough to lie), who love us after our bodies have changed from childbearing, who love us as we wrinkle and get gray hair, who see us through love-colored glasses. But others aren't so lucky.
Sorry to write such a long comment, but I have so much sympathy for gay people. They want what we all want - to be loved unconditionally. That doesn't make their actions right, but then, many people are "looking for love in all the wrong places." I agree with Mr. Hutchens that we have a responsibility to "venerate the image of God" in all those with whome we come into contact.
Posted by: Lucy | Aug 10, 2006 4:44:37 PM
Whilst agreeing with Matthias that the cause and effect could work the other way, I have the same doubts as Lucy about correlating gay men and lesbians. So far as I can see from the outside, as with the couple I mentioned above, with lesbians it's not all about sex and attractiveness. Its a rather undemanding friendship. That's why I said that, in the past, without the requirement to self-identify as lesbians, many such couples would just be plain old blue-stockings who had the occasional cuddle. Whereas anyone can see that gay male culture is heavily focused on looks and physical appearance.
Posted by: Francesca | Aug 10, 2006 5:23:25 PM
Truly, I can't believe what I just read. "There would be fewer lesbians, far fewer, I think, if we took care to search for and admire beauty in girls and women of unfashionable appearance."
I didn't approve of our niece's "marriage" to her girl friend (very formal event), but I can assure you she is gorgeous, with no history of abuse or rejection, except the usual stuff we all go through at the awkward age.
I think you're stuck in old wives' tales.
Posted by: Norma | Aug 10, 2006 6:33:45 PM
"[N]o history of abuse or rejection, except the usual stuff we all go through at the awkward age." Nicely put, Norma. If I could relive my adolescent years, two important emphases would be greater kindness to those whose beauty was less obvious and a thicker skin when I was on the receiving end of petty abuse and rejection.
Posted by: Reader John | Aug 10, 2006 9:27:08 PM
I have seen more lesbians who are viewed as unattractive than attractive, so I'd have to partially agree with you here. Yesterday I saw a lesbian couple, one of whom was incredibly unattractive. My immediate reaction to her was very shallow and judgemental: "Oh that poor woman, she's so ugly!"
Now here's the real irony of my judgemental attitude toward this woman: I am no longer an attractive woman and am, myself, often very upset with how differently people treat me now than they did when I was attractive. (When I was in my 20s and early 30s, I was what many people called beautiful. I was frequently told I should be a model, not a career working woman. Now that I am in my 40s, almost all of that beauty is gone, thanks to being overweight, and it is amazing how differently people -- esp. men - treat me.) Until I lost my good looks, I never realized how much I counted on, banked on, my appearance to get people's respect.
As a Christian, I want to learn to treat everyone with respect, no matter how they look, how powerful or powerless they are, etc. It's a lesson that is taking me a lifetime to learn. I love this post, because it reminds me of an area that I really need to grow in.
Posted by: Startled Saint | Aug 11, 2006 11:04:30 AM
One of my closest friends used to be a lesbian. It was thanks to her that I got to read a lot of lesbian literature, Mary Daly et al., and through reading it, to understand that lesbianism is a very complex thing. My friend had 'converted' to lesbianism at about the age of 18, out of a visceral, uncontrollable loathing for the power dynamics of relationships between the sexes.
Apparently she doesn't feel this way anymore, because I heard recently to my shock that she was living with a man. Food for thought.
Posted by: cantemir | Aug 12, 2006 7:39:00 AM
Everything is infinitely complex. Have you ever considered that if we could not generalize accurately, most truths could not be expressed? And have you, Norma, ever considered that the same would be true if rules, which can only be stated as propositions, could be completely discounted by the discovery of exceptions? And did you actually READ what I wrote?
Posted by: smh | Aug 12, 2006 1:03:50 PM
"Women are impossible to talk to..."
An old men's tale furthered by knee-jerk reactions like those of Dora.
Posted by: joe | Aug 13, 2006 6:49:17 AM
knee-jerk reactions like those of Dora
Who is Dora?
Posted by: Juli | Aug 13, 2006 9:07:05 AM
>>>knee-jerk reactions like those of Dora
Who is Dora?
<<<
Think he meant Norma--not that I am expressing an opinion one way or the other whether her reactions were knee jerk.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Aug 13, 2006 6:50:42 PM
Juli - I remember hearing a comedian (I don't recall the name) explain it like this: "I know where gay men come from. Some men are so good looking that at some point in their lives they wake up, look in the mirror, and say "Damn! I'm not wasting this on a woman!""
Posted by: matt | Aug 14, 2006 2:31:04 AM
Juli - I remember hearing a comedian (I don't recall the name) explain it like this: "I know where gay men come from. Some men are so good looking that at some point in their lives they wake up, look in the mirror, and say "Damn! I'm not wasting this on a woman!""
Posted by: matt | Aug 14, 2006 2:31:42 AM
Cantemir,
Your experience supports my view that homosexuality is an activity, not an identity.
Posted by: Douglas | Aug 14, 2006 2:20:06 PM
Hi Douglas, I don't agree that homosexuality is an activity, not an identity.
1) I used to think so, until I came to know very well a severely physically disabled man who, as they say, 'self-identifies as gay.' This man has never had any kind of sex. As a very scrupulous Christian, he lived chastely before the accident that disabled him. Over the years, I came to realize that he does have a homosexual psychology. And it's not just 'in his head.' He adores movies like "The Full Monty" and, I have good reason to believe has a hidden collection of Chippendale videos :) It could be said to be in his head in the sense of being entirely visual, but the man's psychology is homosexual, not heterosexual. I didn't go so far as even to believe in a homosexual psychology, or an orientation, before I came to know this person - I thought homosexuality was homosexual acts. It isn't. I know that's weird, but, from my observation, it's a fact.
2) More latterly, I've formed a friendship with a far more liberal Christian, who is nonetheless a deliberately chaste gay. He suffers from the Christian teaching on homosexuality to the extent of having to hang on to his faith by his fingernails. And yet, his homosexuality is in his 'self-identification' as a homosexual, not in any current or recent homosexual activity.
Posted by: Francesca | Aug 14, 2006 5:18:10 PM
Francesca,
The men you describe identify as homosexual because they fantasize about sexual acts with other men. If a man never has sexual intercourse with a woman, he is still, inescapably, a man. In order to define himself as a homosexual man, he has to resort to a specific sexual act. Homosexuality is, in other words, one of a number of sexual fetishes.
Posted by: Douglas | Aug 15, 2006 10:19:05 AM
I came to the conclusion, some time ago, that men move toward homosexuality as an instance of "it seemed good at the time." Then, a choice becomes an act, becomes a habit, becomes a character.
Posted by: Bruce C. Meyer | Aug 15, 2006 12:40:06 PM
Francesca,
I agree with Douglas, and I hope I'm not needlessly belabouring his point, but the behavior you bring up (particularly the use of pornography by your disabled friend) is homosexual activity, just as if I were to look upon a woman lustfully then I would be committing adultery with her.
As to the distinction between homosexual psychology and homosexual activity, every action has its beginning in thought and will. Now, every person has a predilection to certain sins, due to the fallenness of the will. So in a certain sense, one could say that these men have a "homosexual psychology" in the same way someone mught have a larcenous psychology or a wrathful psychology.
Now I of course do not know your two friends. If the second man means by his "self identification" as a homosexual that he recognizes his tendency toward that sin, then that is quite admirable and healthy. If instead he means that he considers those desires legitimate and integral to his self, then he is as badly mistaken as I would be to think that I ought to lust after women.
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | Aug 15, 2006 2:44:10 PM
"what I believe to be a universally known but rarely acknowledged connection between physical unattractiveness and lesbianism. Most (not all, of course, but most) lesbians I have known are far from comely by current standards"
My experience of lesbians does not accord with that of SMH as above. Is there any sociological data/research to support this supposed universal knowledge? Otherwise, it seems, all we have are competing experiences.
Posted by: Kamilla | Aug 15, 2006 8:31:36 PM
Kamilla:
Bingo!
Posted by: Juli | Aug 16, 2006 2:28:27 AM
SMH: "Most (not all, of course, but most) lesbians I have known are far from comely by current standards"
Kamilla: "My experience of lesbians does not accord with that of SMH as above."
Kamilla,
Where are you writing from? The most casual visit to Midtown Atlanta or perusal of Creative Loafing will confirm Mr. Hutchens' observation. Indeed, if they are to be true to their cause, lesbians must go out of their way to be masculine or, at the least, androgynous, even to the tragic and self-loathing extreme of having their breasts removed. (This is known euphemistically as "male-chest reconstructive surgery," and yes, a number of lesbians really do it.) I am genuinely puzzled as to your competing experience.
Posted by: Douglas | Aug 16, 2006 10:11:30 AM
Dear Ethan,
Thank you for another typically fine post.
I think a problem in the recent discussion hinges on what one means respectively by "identity" and "activity."
E.g., the former could either mean self-identification, or identification in the sense of social/cultural classification by society (and the two are of course intertwined if not identical). However, from a Christian standpoint it does not coincide with "essence" as something irreducible and unalterable -- though many gay apologists do assert "sexual identity" to be such. (Interestingly, a new generation of gays is now asserting sexual identity to be a "choice," rather than innate.)
Likewise, the original mention of "activity" seemed implicitly to limit that to overt physical acts of intercourse, as opposed to mental acts of fantasy or to viewing porn.
One major problem we have in modern society, with its rejection of essentialism in favor of functionalism, is that consequently people identify themselves by what they do -- identity = activity. This is contrary to the Christian faith, in which we are essentially rational beings made in the image and likeness of God, though we are often far from acting as such in our fallen state (i.e., the likeness no longer conforms to the image). Once again, the modern outlook denies the Fall, by denying certain activites to be inherently immoral.
This leads back to the point of SMH's post. The lesbian often makes herself unattractive (or more so) by her behavior (e.g. bizarre clothes and grooming, in addition to sexual conduct and the distortions that introduces into other aspects of personal deportment). What is needed to remedy this is to look beyond the surface and treat the lesbian according to her essence, as a person created in the iamge and likeness of God, and to act toward her such that the likeness is brought to redemption and reconformity to the image.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Aug 16, 2006 10:36:08 AM
woman are lesbians because they find the male form ugly and unappealing and because they physically, sexually, emotionally DESIRE women. and many lesbians are stunning. they just prefer women, and not because men have rejected them. women are their prefernce, not a compromise.
Posted by: me | Aug 16, 2006 11:49:34 AM
"Indeed, if they are to be true to their cause, lesbians must go out of their way to be masculine or, at the least, androgynous, even to the tragic and self-loathing extreme of having their breasts removed"
I have lived in the Midwest and the West and I travel a lot. But, Doug, I think you are making my point. They go out of their way to "make" themselves masculine - not that they are naturallly so.
Either you and James Altena are misunderstanding SMH's post, or I am. But I think the second paragraph of the original post makes it clear it is not I. SMH is talking about women who are naturally unattractive (as he refers back to his unattractive, adolescent self), not those who make themselves artificially so after embracing lesbianism.
My experience does differ from SMH's and yours, which is why I am wondering about any sociological research that might confirm this universal "knowledge".
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | Aug 16, 2006 1:00:21 PM
Well, I checked out Creative Loafing. I found and add for a dating service with a rather attractive heterosexual couple and saw a link about Atlanta's "hottest" men and women but no ovcious evidence of ugly lesbians.
I guess I'm just not looking hard enough?
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | Aug 16, 2006 6:29:28 PM
I also can't type - I'm fast, just not very good. . ..Sorry,
Kamilla
Posted by: mistypist! | Aug 16, 2006 6:30:50 PM
Well, I've refrained from commenting on this, because, frankly, I thought Dr. Hutchin's hypothesis was just too funny for words. But let me say this: I have an office right off Dupont Circle, in the District of Columbia, which comes pretty close to being the "Gay/Lebian/Transgendered" capital of the Mid-Atlantic Region (DC having one of the highest percentages of homosexuals--and one of the highest rates of HIV/AIDS--in the country). Wandering about the Circle at lunch can be like visiting an alien culture (or a freak show, depending on the number of piercings on display). From several years of empirical observation, I would have to say that the distribution of comeliness among obvious lesbians (I am assuming that two women engaged in PDA or entwined around each other as they go down the street qualify) parallels that of the heterosexual community. That is to say, there are a few real lookers, a lot of average girls, and a few whose faces could curdle fresh milk. I have to say, this is about the mix I have found among obviously straight women. It would seem that in the real world, average looks prevail. Which might be why they are--average.
Now, as to why women become lesbians, I have no clue. I do observe that with women, same-sex relationships seem to be more of a transient phenomenon than with men. That is to say, a lot of women can take up with other women, and then drop it for heterosexual relations with men, without much dislocation. Aside from the numerous examples of celebrity lesbianism, we can look at American college campuses, where there is an entire subset of women called LUGs--Lesbians Unitl Graduation. It seems these women find intimate relationships with other women less stressing (or more fashionable) than hooking up with male classmates--until they graduate, go into the real world, and start looking for husbands. Conversely, older women married for many years suddenly "discover" that they were lesbians all along when hubby leaves them for a silicone enhanced trophy wife.
Going back into history, one can note that lesbianism was rampant in the seraglios of Turkish pashas for centuries. With hundreds of concubines and only one pasha, the ladies found other ways to satisfy their desires. But, given the opportunity, they preferred men--even in the form of royal eunuchs.
With men, on the other hand, it seems to be either one way or the other. Straight men do not have casual relationships with other men, nor do gay men find it easy to suddenly take up with women.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 16, 2006 6:46:45 PM
I didn't take the time to read all of the comments, however, I just want to say this... Anyone who thinks that lesbianism is a choice, and the people "refuse" to change, needs to have their asses beat! It's not their fault...they are born that way...so lay the hell off! Have a problem with it? Turn the other way!!!!!!!! What people do in their own lives is their business, not yours, so get a life besides obsessing with other people's!!!!
Posted by: Dallas | Aug 18, 2006 10:39:16 PM
Dallas,
First, there is NO evidence that lesbians are "born that way," as opposed to possible (and much disputed) evidence of putative genetic factors that may create a greater susceptibility to homosexual stimuli. Simiarly, there is (again disputed) genetic evidence that Native Americans are more susceptible to the the stimulus of alcohol. That doesn't mean that anyone is biologically programmed to be gay, any more than a Native American is biologically programmed to be an alcoholic. Expression of most genetic traits is not fixed or determinate, but highly dependent upon environmental factors. So, even if irrefutable evidence is found for a genetic factor in formation of homosexual preference (and none exists yet --if you have it, then post the link to that scientific study to this web site), it remains only a factor, that interacts with many other variables. Being "gay" is not like being blue- or brown-eyed, and if you think it is, you simply don't understand anything about genetics.
Second, we don't just call for gays and lesbians to be changed -- we call for all of us to be changed by God's grace to be what He intends us to be, for we are all sinners in our own way. The difference is that we don't pretend that our sin is not sin.
Third, it's interesting that you would post a comment calling for violence against people whose views you can't even take the time to read, while evidently fancying yourself to be far more tolerant and broad-minded than they are.
You will be in our prayers, Dallas.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Aug 19, 2006 5:56:52 PM
>>>Anyone who thinks that lesbianism is a choice, and the people "refuse" to change, needs to have their asses beat! <<<
Start beating, then, because the historical evidence for women choosing to live as lesbians is pretty extensive. Of course, you can always continue to redefine "lesbian" in a way that excludes everyone except women who choose to love other women exclusively throughout their entire lifetimes, but then you are left with a very small set, indeed. And you'll have trouble finding any evidence of a correlation between genetics and lesbianism, even less than for male homosexuals.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 19, 2006 6:13:33 PM
Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004