Lesbians: Art Does not Imitate Life

Excerpted from my book,
ISO (in Search Of):
The Art of Dating, Relationships & Sex for the Discerning Lesbian

Any Lesbian who is currently single knows that it's often a great deal less romantic to be unattached than the media would have us believe. Many of us would love to hang out with the kinds of women we see on the L-Word, yet in the Lesbian Community, this is often not an option. Sophisticated, feminine lesbians are simply not the norm, overall. Most of the actresses who play those roles are in fact, heterosexual. I have frequently been chagrined by this. In all of Hollywood, they could not find a cast of feminine, sophisticated lesbians to play those roles? In this case, it seems that art does not imitate life. It warrants consideration.

Are lesbians primarily less feminine than straight women? I suspect the answer to that is a resounding "Yes." Are masculine lesbians a product of brainwashing -- that in romance there must be two opposite roles-one feminine, one masculine? Most Likely. . .

At the risk of being politically incorrect, [*a concept i reject] I must say that I find it disturbing that so many Lesbians feel it necessary to mimic men. A Lesbian, by definition, doesn't want to be with a man and is a woman who loves women, in the romantic sense. In a very real way, then, masculinity in gay women is a contradiction. It is patently unnecessary to become manly in order to be with another woman. The need to be "manly" then, can sometimes be about gender-confusion, and not about being lesbian. This stance may be offensive to some, but indeed, I could say that I am offended by how easily some lesbians dismiss the beauty and power in themselves by diluting it with masculinity.

So often I hear lesbians complaining about being stereotyped by the world at large. My suggestion is that if you don't wish to be a stereotype, don't act like one.

In the novels I write, I portray women as feminine or at least a lipstick lesbian, but rarely as dykes or otherwise manly females (which is, intrinsically, an oxymoron). I have been accused of catering to straight men or merely "selling out" by doing this, and yet, I find this assessment myopic, contradictory and just plain silly. I love women, because they are women. I love the feminine form. I am attracted to the quintessential qualities that make women FEMALE. If I wanted to be with a man, I would be straight. So this whole outrage based on my supposed treason against Sapphic love, strikes me as absurd.

Why do you suppose that most straight women who experiment with lesbianism, pursue gay women who are manly? It's a comfort zone, that's why. They are not straying too terribly far from being with a man.

The most attractive women, to me, are the ones who are androgynous. I use that term loosely, and colloquially, because the actual definition is way more severe and limiting than the context in which I use it. Androgyny, by its original definition, means ambiguous in gender. Genderless, almost. Like the "Pat" character on Saturday Night Live. You can't tell if the person is male or female. The way I mean it is more like a woman who blends, in a harmonious fashion, the traits of both male and female, to create a balanced person. This means the woman looks like a woman, but can hammer a nail, ride a motorcycle, or be assertive, all without losing her essential womanliness.

A great fictional character that exemplifies this would be Xena, the Warrior Princess from television. She was strong, capable, assertive, loving, loyal, always looked fabulous and feminine. Even when she was cutting someone's throat. . .

I desperately want another term to describe strong, feminine lesbians.

HOMOgenized Female. . .hmmm.

Fembian. MMM.

Sapphian.

It occurred to me that epicene meant having the characteristics of both genders, blended. So how about Femepicene? (fem-ep-uh-seen).

So women who are Femepicene are those most likely to get my attention. I can't speak for every other gay woman.

Catching Hell From the Hellish

Even within my own "supposed" community, the community assigned to me by virtue of my sexual preference, I catch hell in the online dating realm, whenever I complain about the content of insipid emails from the dull and ignorant on personals sites. Misspelled words, fragmented sentences, fake modesty, transparent bravado, shallow beliefs, misplaced haughtiness, gender confusion, the walking wounded.... Sometimes I can't believe it. Unfortunately, I have no choice but to believe it, because it's true. It happens to me repeatedly, like some recurring rash... I continue to get those kinds of mails.

I even started a special forum called Atypical Lesbians, to try to accommodate those who felt as I did. I saw it as a sort of Underground Railroad for chagrined, dispirited lesbians who wanted more from their lives and their people; those who wanted to rise above the mundane and stereotypical. I have simply lost my patience with the kind of mentality so commonly revealed in ads and emails from personals sites. Associating with those "types" just depresses me. But five months after I launched the forum, there's very little activity, because apparently, there are not enough lesbians out there who are Atypical. Notwithstanding my good intentions, it's not like you can bring any rise to the unleavened, as it were. This is another thing that Political Correctness helps keep afloat. No one speaks out, no one says this is not acceptable. It keeps us all from evolving. Some truths are still the truths, even if they are uncomfortable to some.

So...I am an individualist, non-conformist...among other things some would label "bitch." Why is it that having standards for yourself and others, automatically relegates you to bitch-status? I don't enjoy being so schismatic with my identity and the identity of others...but somehow if I don't, I feel I will be sucked into the abyss. And if I'm going to be sucked into the abyss, I want it to be the Bliss Abyss, not the abyss of ignorance.

I suppose all this means I am also an Intellectual Separatist. I'm not judging the people, per se, just their behavior, their choices, and the surrounding issues that arise. But it's often so hard to divide a subjective self-concept or cosmology from the objective universal ones. Meaning, some people have certain ideas about themselves, and anything that threatens it is rejected out of hand. Even if what they believe is inaccurate or delusional. They believe what they believe and sometimes can't understand that beliefs are malleable; that evolution is predicated on questions and data-gathering; that what is true now, is not always written in stone; and perhaps most importantly, that if you don't educate yourself and make learning your friend, you will be INCAPABLE of understanding the very concepts that might lead to inner peace and happiness. Contrarily, you also cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Ultimately everyone has to take the reins on their own buggy and guide it where they want it to go.

And then there's that old Prime Directive (from Star Trek)--never interfere with the natural evolution of a species. I think that applies here, too. We can help when asked or when we think we might be able to LightSwitch someone; we can put our ideas out there and hope they are considered. But ultimately, everyone is on her own path, and what she learns has to be visceral. Ideas will only take you so far. Action is the defining element. And I can't make anyone do anything they don't want to do.

Drag Shows are Aptly Named

Drag shows are aptly named. They are a drag.

Please don't ever expect me to join you at a drag show. I'd sooner perform an appendectomy on myself with a SPOON. And I'm GAY.

All gay bars have drag shows, because apparently, gay people en masse don't have anything else to offer in the entertainment realm. (Notwithstanding the Melissa Etheridge's and Ellen Degeneres's of the world--thank god for them). I'm not expecting a rendition of Bent, but Hell's Bells. Can't they do better than a same tired old stereotypical thing where men and women dress up as women and men and pretend to have talent? Can you pretend to play that unplugged electric guitar any more convincingly? It strikes me as some puerile backyard presentation to mom and dad by a bunch of 7 year olds. "Mom! Mom! Look what *I* can do!"

I know I'm just ripe for an attack from the Homo Hit Squad, but damn! Is being politically correct more important than being honest? I will never understand why people don't want to reach for more in their expressions of selfhood.

And there's another added confusion--is it just me, or is there something inherently wrong with lesbians getting excited about a man, pretending to be a woman? (Like they don't KNOW that under the sequins and fishnet stockings, resides a live, pulsing penis). And the same goes for the drag KINGS. Why would i get excited about a woman pretending to be a man? If I were sexually aroused by a man, I'd be straight.

And have you ever noticed how the audience at drag shows will applaud when the "performer" hits a money-note in the song? Um...hello! He's not REALLY singing, so why are you applauding that? The recording of the REAL singer can't hear you. It's a case of either the willing suspension of disbelief, or the unwitting suspension of rational thought. Either way, something vital is being suspended, and i just find it absurd. I just won't support that crap anymore. I'd rather eat my own brains.

Okay, Homo-Hit-Squad, release the hounds. And you guys try not to break a nail.