Tools
A recent article in the New York Times Magazine discussed women's sexual orientation and whether it's fluid—that is, subject to change in the course of each woman's life. I know mine has changed. For a decade, all my lovers were female and I identified myself as a lesbian. And then... I changed. Now I have two male partners, and at the moment, I'm not feeling very drawn to women sexually.
Many women's sexual identities are complex. The trouble is, we lack language for this. The words "bisexual" and "pansexual" are annoyingly coy and vague, and I hadn't found another one-word descriptor of my sexuality that appealed to me. Could fluid be the new label of choice for women who travel up and down the Kinsey scale during their lives? I asked some other women what they thought.
Stranger Personals
Miss K: "When I came out, I identified as a dyke because of the political and social statement as much as the sexual orientation. Fifteen years later, I now identify as queer. I was married to a female-to-male transsexual, and when we walked down the street, people saw a straight couple. It meant I was treated differently by the straights and by my fellow dykes who didn't enjoy the same privilege. Now, I'm in love with a butch genderqueer—born female, not taking hormones. He identifies with male pronouns, and he has a very masculine energy. But I don't relate to him as a bio-male, and I'm not looking to move back over to bio-men. But in this way, yeah, my sexuality is fluid, because I can bend my brain, I guess, as my partners can bend their genders."
Red: "I identify as kinky first and heteroflexible second. Among my three key relationships, I happen to have a girlfriend who is very clearly bisexual. I am not. I show up to women's parties and enjoy the eye candy, but the only woman I really want to be with is my girlfriend. I think my sexuality is fixed, but it's fixed on the need for power exchange, not plumbing. My gender preference is pretty fluid. It's vanilla lesbian sex that doesn't do anything for me."
Molly: "I used to wonder, am I missing out on something awesome? I've had crushes on women who are beautiful and smart, and asked myself, could I actually be with her? But I think I am hardwired for a physical attraction to men. I think women are beautiful and sexy, and I admire women for different reasons, but have sex with them? No. I do believe other people's sexuality can be fluid, though."
A new term wouldn't magically erase tensions about sexual
orientation, however. Sex writer Midori—who once had a long-term
male partner and is now happily married to a woman—summed it up:
"We're still trapped in a binary, or at best tertiary, view of
orientation. Humans aren't particularly good with the grayscale view of
life." 
1
Fluid is probably as good a word as any to describe it, though in my mind that seems to indicate change over time, whereas I wonder why we're caught up in describing our sexual attraction primarily by type of genitals in the first place. I'm typically attracted to androgynous or feminine men. I have no desire whatsoever for super masculine men. Am I still straight? I'm very attracted to feminine women in fantasy land but don't really want to have sex with one. And I have no sexual desire for Republicans, people who wear cowboy boots, or poets, regardless of genitalia. Sexuality is way more complex than male/female.
2
Disclaimer-- as a male, my opinions are not worth much on this issue.
If sexuality is fluid, it's probably fluid like glass. Things may change a bit, but a car window's never going to instantly morph into a shot glass.
For all genders, sexuality is more complex than gay/straight/bi. It's also more complex that physical reactions to t.v. images, which is all the study tested. It's still a fascinating Times article, though.
If sexuality is fluid, it's probably fluid like glass. Things may change a bit, but a car window's never going to instantly morph into a shot glass.
For all genders, sexuality is more complex than gay/straight/bi. It's also more complex that physical reactions to t.v. images, which is all the study tested. It's still a fascinating Times article, though.
3
I'm glad you wrote about this. It very much reflects my own experience. The only way I've come up with describing my own sexuality is to say that gender isn't a tie-breaker.
Wish I just had one word for it, though.
Wish I just had one word for it, though.
5
Definitely fluid. I'd love it if that became an option to check on social networking sites.
Straight
Bi
Gay
Fluid
Love it.
Straight
Bi
Gay
Fluid
Love it.
6
Matisse was a painfully boring writer when she actually wrote about her stated subject matter (kink, remember?). Now that it's nothing but bullshit sophomore-year-of-college-style identity politics it's goddamn unbearable.
7
Uh, I have to agree with Dirtytime. Is this really a column anymore? Pretty weak, getting quotes from 3 friends and calling it a column. Anyone at the Stranger exercise any editorial review over what she dials in?
8
I too am (biologically and, for lack of sufficient motivation to the contrary, presentationally) male. Some of my other wiring, not so much, and I have a number of female friends whose dating choices have wandered across the map. That said:
Glass isn't actually fluid. That's an old misconception.
Sexuality, however... I am not sure to what degree it's fluid (like a setting on a slider switch?) and to what degree we have a series of yes-no-maybe switches for various subsets of sexuality that fluctuate, or that might be set to "on" but we don't discover them until a certain catalytic event...?
I was pretty definitely hetero until I dated a MF couple. It didn't feel so much like a "fluid" transition as a finding-of-something-that-was-already-there. So there you go.
Glass isn't actually fluid. That's an old misconception.
Sexuality, however... I am not sure to what degree it's fluid (like a setting on a slider switch?) and to what degree we have a series of yes-no-maybe switches for various subsets of sexuality that fluctuate, or that might be set to "on" but we don't discover them until a certain catalytic event...?
I was pretty definitely hetero until I dated a MF couple. It didn't feel so much like a "fluid" transition as a finding-of-something-that-was-already-there. So there you go.
9
To Dirtytime and Crabby:
If you don't like, don't read it;
Reading and then bashing, THAT is nothing but bullshit sophomore-year-of-college-style identity politics!
If you don't like, don't read it;
Reading and then bashing, THAT is nothing but bullshit sophomore-year-of-college-style identity politics!
10
I like the term fluid sexuality. I usually identify myself as an equal opportunity pervert; you're welcome to try out, but you may not get the position.
That being said, it is still a question of one unique person interacting with other unique persons. We all make it up as we go along.
I enjoy reading the diversity of issues brought forth on this column. Kink, gender, sexual orientation. Even if I may not find every column interesting to me personally, they all offer a veiwpoint from an unique person; that is, not myself. By that very distinction, it is worth reading. At least a little.
That being said, it is still a question of one unique person interacting with other unique persons. We all make it up as we go along.
I enjoy reading the diversity of issues brought forth on this column. Kink, gender, sexual orientation. Even if I may not find every column interesting to me personally, they all offer a veiwpoint from an unique person; that is, not myself. By that very distinction, it is worth reading. At least a little.
11
I enjoy the variety of topics presented and is one of the reason I always look forward to reading this column.
12
To me, the term fluid means being open to other opportunities and experiences....not focusing on what you've always enjoyed (whether it be from gender or sexual activity standpoint) and just being open.
I'm not yet 30 and enjoy the possibility that someday I might enjoy a longterm lesbian or poly or submissive or female to male or insert-your-own-label here, relationship even though I am not currently.
I'm not yet 30 and enjoy the possibility that someday I might enjoy a longterm lesbian or poly or submissive or female to male or insert-your-own-label here, relationship even though I am not currently.
13
To me, the term fluid means being open to other opportunities and experiences....not focusing on what you've always enjoyed (whether it be from gender or sexual activity standpoint) and just being open.
I'm not yet 30 and enjoy the possibility that someday I might enjoy a longterm lesbian or poly or submissive or female to male or insert-your-own-label here, relationship even though I am not currently.
I'm not yet 30 and enjoy the possibility that someday I might enjoy a longterm lesbian or poly or submissive or female to male or insert-your-own-label here, relationship even though I am not currently.
15
"When I came out, I identified as a dyke because of the political and social statement as much as the sexual orientation. Fifteen years later, I now identify as queer. I was married to a female-to-male transsexual, and when we walked down the street, people saw a straight couple. ... Now, I'm in love with a butch genderqueer—born female, not taking hormones. He identifies with male pronouns, and he has a very masculine energy. But I don't relate to him as a bio-male, and I'm not looking to move back over to bio-men."
That is the dumbest shit I've read all week.
That is the dumbest shit I've read all week.
16
Dear "Queenosexual", piss the fuck off to scratching your nuts in front of the TV while watching the O'Reilly show, where you belong. Or perhaps that might be just a little bit too challenging for your intellectual capacity.
Getting back to the topic at hand, the "fluid" term is interesting, but I do wonder how much of it is fundamental change, or how much of it is simply having more or less of a capacity for variety from the start, and expressing more or less of that spectrum as life goes on (and you become more confident about expressing different aspects rather than feeling that you're locked into "choosing sides", or, for those who become more conventional, becoming less risk-taking as you get older).
On the other hand, IDing as a lesbian and then flipping over to not being particularly interested in women at all seems to be more of a significant change than just focussing in on a particular part of your sexuality for a while.
It's certainly an area that I am eagerly awaiting more information from. But I think that Kinsey was on the right track even in the 50s, with his theory that we are all somewhere in the bi continuum. How much *change* is involved will be interesting to find out (although I don't know how you'd determine the difference between actual change and different modes of expression...)
Getting back to the topic at hand, the "fluid" term is interesting, but I do wonder how much of it is fundamental change, or how much of it is simply having more or less of a capacity for variety from the start, and expressing more or less of that spectrum as life goes on (and you become more confident about expressing different aspects rather than feeling that you're locked into "choosing sides", or, for those who become more conventional, becoming less risk-taking as you get older).
On the other hand, IDing as a lesbian and then flipping over to not being particularly interested in women at all seems to be more of a significant change than just focussing in on a particular part of your sexuality for a while.
It's certainly an area that I am eagerly awaiting more information from. But I think that Kinsey was on the right track even in the 50s, with his theory that we are all somewhere in the bi continuum. How much *change* is involved will be interesting to find out (although I don't know how you'd determine the difference between actual change and different modes of expression...)
17
I think they should give matisse more space. I think she's a beautiful and intelligent writer and often enjoy her blog. But lately i've been consistently disspointed by the stranger collumn-- it's just not enough words to actually say anything. It always feels like she swoops in, begins to make a point, doesn't really get to expand, and then ducks out. That's my take, anyway.
18
I'd be happy to stop reading this stupid shitdrivel that passes for a "column" at this increasingly irrelevant and insular rag of a weekly as soon as one of two things happens:
1) The Stranger gets someone to write an ACTUAL kink column
or
2) The Seattle Weekly hires ONE decent writer.
sadly, neither of these things seem likely.
(note to editors: if you want a REAL sicko pervert to write a kink column, I'm your man. You can't have an out-of-touch wanna-be ice queen writing about all the wonderfully disgusting things that turn people on if you want anyone outside of your privileged hipster-aspiring-to-yuppie circle to actually take you seriously.)
1) The Stranger gets someone to write an ACTUAL kink column
or
2) The Seattle Weekly hires ONE decent writer.
sadly, neither of these things seem likely.
(note to editors: if you want a REAL sicko pervert to write a kink column, I'm your man. You can't have an out-of-touch wanna-be ice queen writing about all the wonderfully disgusting things that turn people on if you want anyone outside of your privileged hipster-aspiring-to-yuppie circle to actually take you seriously.)
19
I don't think terminology really matters. Terms help all of us with definitions, but language is constantly evolving. I don't think sexuality has really evolved, but now we are able to better and more openly express how people have felt for a very, very long time.
But yeah, because of how we are trained by society, people get bogged down by definition. In theory you should just be who you are, but how the hell do you explain it to someone else without using words? So methinks we'll continue to struggle with things until our lexicon has exhausted all the possible variations - which will probaby be never.
As to the people who commente negatively about the column, I guess you kinda miss the point (but maybe that was intended). Its fine to disagree, but you are making it personal by the tone of your derogatory comments. If she sucks so much, why do you read her? Or, better yet, where is YOUR column?? Why don't you give everyone an equal right to take potshots at you for no good reason other than maybe you are just being an a-hole and you find power in anonymity?
But yeah, because of how we are trained by society, people get bogged down by definition. In theory you should just be who you are, but how the hell do you explain it to someone else without using words? So methinks we'll continue to struggle with things until our lexicon has exhausted all the possible variations - which will probaby be never.
As to the people who commente negatively about the column, I guess you kinda miss the point (but maybe that was intended). Its fine to disagree, but you are making it personal by the tone of your derogatory comments. If she sucks so much, why do you read her? Or, better yet, where is YOUR column?? Why don't you give everyone an equal right to take potshots at you for no good reason other than maybe you are just being an a-hole and you find power in anonymity?
20
Well, reading and then ONLY bashing has it's place; people like me still occasionally listen to Rethugs just SO I can bash. The problem with Matisse's writing isn't that's it's bad (she's a quite capable writer when she wants to be), it's that she is intellectually a VERY lazy writer. That's why you see so many columns like today's and MUCH worse, the "telephone" columns. She just can't seem to get the hang of being both interesting AND writing under a deadline (lots of people can't, that's why there are so few good columnists in any field). On the third hand, her Thursday blog post was a true gem. She's obviously a much better writer AND thinker when she's not under deadline pressure.
21
Dirtytime, I couldn't agree with you more, on all counts. I loathe Matisse's column more and more every week. But I still read it in the hopes that there will be something interesting or entertaining (or even both!) in it. And on the rare occasion, there is.. But I think for the most part you can't oust someone with such a powerful femanine post and "don't-fuck-with-me-I'm-so-ahead-of-my-time-cause-I-have-two-boyfriends" attitude.
22
fuck it. I'm not even gay and I will happily suck two cocks if it will convince The Stranger of my credibility as a replacement kink writer.
23
Sexuality, attraction and identification are too obscured by social experience to be fairly evaluated. Most people don't have enough conviction or courage to express their real feelings.
I thought this was going to be a column about female ejaculation, or watersports
I thought this was going to be a column about female ejaculation, or watersports
24
I consider myself Sapien-Sexual, smart people turn me on. I like playing with the largest sexual organ on any human, the brain. The plumbing is only relevant when considering how I'm going to be interfacing with that brain.
25
Dear Control Tower,
Thank you for lighting up the way in subject areas better left alone by the amatuerish catterwalling of jealousy.
Though ripping away the first rules of dialog at times, may seem counter-intuitive, I again bring forward thoughts of repetative symbolisms to adhere the truth with a very firm strike.
Namely that of business directives.
I have heard tell of unreasonable business practices overlooked by the "normalcy" of Human Resource Departments taking aim at the workers place in issues of privacy and in the romancing of prenuptual disgareements.
Take for instance,
a "semi- ficticious" manager I once worked for whose name for the moment I will call Richard S.
Now Richard S., believe it or not isn't such a bad guy when you give him all of the control and power over the "joke".
Many people, irregardless of intent and after thought, think
"all jokes are funny".
Do you have insight into why we as a "collective bargain" in the game of life, at times find ourselves back to the very place where we started, only to find our will more resolved than previously determined to "yield not to the rings of power in graduate surveillance halls of large corporate shielding" ?.
What I imply here is of course somewhat obscurred by the other side of "semi-sweetend fiction" in the annuls of security memos held secret for years thoughout the up and down slide of mergers, take overs and job relocation of "bad managers making bad decisions".
As an example, do you think it a fair request of a subordinate employee, who under the guise of pleasing the "middle weight Type A retentive character" boss while the boss boss watches from high in the anti-bellum of the camera eye;
as the subordinate sacrifices their eternal goal of privacy over the "graduation ring" that undoubtedly is prized above
" superior management skills subverted " , to require fealty ?
In cases of professional harrasment that are undetermined through a court of law yet held up in appeal, do you think the under-dogged attitudes held to be clear evidence hidden behind minutia of middle management layering a common occurrance in today's transfer zones of " get the weak link out of the problem spot " an effective strategy for mitigation... or do you prefer the out and out "eviseration" of graduate mistakes driven to extremes by the lust of revengeful pre-designerd management strategy ?.
I don't wish to make the past a "constant" moan of un-resolved conflict, yet I feel that to let ones heart be sacrificed to a poor mans "graduate' tassle" an unfair advantage to those who have been "polluted" by the corruption of chemical dependancy twisted by numerous "management favorable promotions" and "down graded status of the worker drone" a "pressing issue" in re-compensation.
My choice would be to ask the ring of the graduated business degree to be "removed" from the argument before the heart is ripped out of the bed of love... do you concure (?)... or do you have further light with which to educate me on; such a delicate matter of trust.
More...
Thank you for lighting up the way in subject areas better left alone by the amatuerish catterwalling of jealousy.
Though ripping away the first rules of dialog at times, may seem counter-intuitive, I again bring forward thoughts of repetative symbolisms to adhere the truth with a very firm strike.
Namely that of business directives.
I have heard tell of unreasonable business practices overlooked by the "normalcy" of Human Resource Departments taking aim at the workers place in issues of privacy and in the romancing of prenuptual disgareements.
Take for instance,
a "semi- ficticious" manager I once worked for whose name for the moment I will call Richard S.
Now Richard S., believe it or not isn't such a bad guy when you give him all of the control and power over the "joke".
Many people, irregardless of intent and after thought, think
"all jokes are funny".
Do you have insight into why we as a "collective bargain" in the game of life, at times find ourselves back to the very place where we started, only to find our will more resolved than previously determined to "yield not to the rings of power in graduate surveillance halls of large corporate shielding" ?.
What I imply here is of course somewhat obscurred by the other side of "semi-sweetend fiction" in the annuls of security memos held secret for years thoughout the up and down slide of mergers, take overs and job relocation of "bad managers making bad decisions".
As an example, do you think it a fair request of a subordinate employee, who under the guise of pleasing the "middle weight Type A retentive character" boss while the boss boss watches from high in the anti-bellum of the camera eye;
as the subordinate sacrifices their eternal goal of privacy over the "graduation ring" that undoubtedly is prized above
" superior management skills subverted " , to require fealty ?
In cases of professional harrasment that are undetermined through a court of law yet held up in appeal, do you think the under-dogged attitudes held to be clear evidence hidden behind minutia of middle management layering a common occurrance in today's transfer zones of " get the weak link out of the problem spot " an effective strategy for mitigation... or do you prefer the out and out "eviseration" of graduate mistakes driven to extremes by the lust of revengeful pre-designerd management strategy ?.
I don't wish to make the past a "constant" moan of un-resolved conflict, yet I feel that to let ones heart be sacrificed to a poor mans "graduate' tassle" an unfair advantage to those who have been "polluted" by the corruption of chemical dependancy twisted by numerous "management favorable promotions" and "down graded status of the worker drone" a "pressing issue" in re-compensation.
My choice would be to ask the ring of the graduated business degree to be "removed" from the argument before the heart is ripped out of the bed of love... do you concure (?)... or do you have further light with which to educate me on; such a delicate matter of trust.
26
I don't think that "fluid" is the proper word to describe a sinful lifestyle. I think that the better term is "perversity."
29
I like the term fluid. I've described myself as "bisexual" for years but didn't always feel like it fit. At times, women have been more compelling to me sexually, at others, men have. I have no idea why this is so, or what influences these changes.
Although my tastes are, and have always been, pretty vanilla--regardless of my partner's gender--I enjoy reading Control Tower when Matisse takes on relationship dynamics (poly, queer or otherwise) or topics like this.
This has been said but bears repeating: If you don't like the column, skip it. If you have a criticism just state it instead of posting some empty insult or namecalling. Otherwise, you're just engaging in the blogging equivalent of flinging your own shit at other people.
Most people can't fling their own shit artfully enough to make it worth reading, so spare us.
Although my tastes are, and have always been, pretty vanilla--regardless of my partner's gender--I enjoy reading Control Tower when Matisse takes on relationship dynamics (poly, queer or otherwise) or topics like this.
This has been said but bears repeating: If you don't like the column, skip it. If you have a criticism just state it instead of posting some empty insult or namecalling. Otherwise, you're just engaging in the blogging equivalent of flinging your own shit at other people.
Most people can't fling their own shit artfully enough to make it worth reading, so spare us.
30
Hey redheadedbitch: Thanks for a thoughtful critique.
Hey dirtytime: You write "note to editors: if you want a REAL sicko pervert to write a kink column, I'm your man." Don't flatter yourself. Overinflated insults don't mask a poverty of content.
Hey dirtytime: You write "note to editors: if you want a REAL sicko pervert to write a kink column, I'm your man." Don't flatter yourself. Overinflated insults don't mask a poverty of content.
31
I think one dynamic going on here is that Matisse is writing about topics and events that are relevant and interesting to her...but she's been in the kink scene for so long that she isn't thinking in terms of kink 101 any more. I agree that her thoughts need more space than the column allows, and I think the people who are complaining are misinterpreting what her column is about. If you're looking for your weekly dose of kinky jerk-off fodder, then no, Matisse probably isn't your writer. I wonder what is MM's understanding or contract with the Stranger about what the column should be.
32
Women, in my experience. When it comes to amourous feelings about anything, and perhaps especially sexuality. Women themselves don't seem to be as emotionaly fixed on ANYTHING as much as they want to believe. When a woman tells me how she feels, I know to cherish and appreciate it for what it is and most importantly AT THAT MOMENT. They have this thing where they feel so strongly about something, they have never felt so strongly about anything else their whole life.
It always reminds of that Seinfeld episode where Jerry is told by George how to pass the lie detector test, "it's not a lie if you believe it is true."
So a woman identifies as a lesbian and out of the blue decides she needs a man. She wasn't lying, she probably had no clue she could ever be attracted to men. I think she just as confused herself? I don't think she should be judged. You accept it and move on. Just like some women are mystified that they have fallen out of love with the men they married. They felt so strongly about it at that time?
Emotions, as well as amorous emotions change, are especially ethereal. It makes perfect sense that for some women sexuality would be the same way.
It always reminds of that Seinfeld episode where Jerry is told by George how to pass the lie detector test, "it's not a lie if you believe it is true."
So a woman identifies as a lesbian and out of the blue decides she needs a man. She wasn't lying, she probably had no clue she could ever be attracted to men. I think she just as confused herself? I don't think she should be judged. You accept it and move on. Just like some women are mystified that they have fallen out of love with the men they married. They felt so strongly about it at that time?
Emotions, as well as amorous emotions change, are especially ethereal. It makes perfect sense that for some women sexuality would be the same way.
33
Never could figure out why someone had to pick just one and stick to it. If you look at history, the concepts of hetero and homo are relatively new.
34
Didn't there used to be a "things to do" with all the kinky events going on in Seattle? Where can I find that?
35
When a man says "women's sexuality is fluid" I always hear "two dudes is gross but two chicks is hot."
36
Maybe we should coin a new term for people who have "fluid" sexuality--how about "proteosexual" (from the word "protean", meaning "changeable")? (I was going to suggest "mutosexual" (from the Latin word for change) but it sounded too much like someone who had a sexual fetish for mutants--and while I like the characters from X-Men, I personally prefer my partners to be flesh-and-blood rather than two-dimensional. ^_^ Seriously, though, there's an interesting book that just came out about the subject; it's titled (appropriately enough) "Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women's Love & Desire", and it's by Lisa M. Diamond. Pretty interesting IMHO.
More Control Tower
RSS
Twitter
Comments (36) RSS