Baby what-now?

[eumelia]

Why?
Why do I keep finding and invariably reading about articles that reduce sexuality to a News spectacle AND on par with bisexual erasure.

Seriously, world, what the fuck?

In the, admittedly, populists article Baby dykes: the young girls who swap their sexuality, meaningful relationships and sexual diversity is reduced to, as mentioned, a News spectacle and bisexuality is no where to be found.

[...]
Along with Katy Perry, Peaches Geldof has now kissed a girl — and she liked it. With that one act she has joined part-time lesbianism, taking advantage of the younger generation's complete acceptance of malleable sexuality.

Emphasis by me.

See, the contradiction with in this opening paragraph is disturbing to me.
First of all... "part-time lesbianism"?
Sexual identity may be considered in our post-modern sensibility a bit more fluid, but the lives that people live within those identity are not.
To qualify a lesbian experience as "part-time" is to immediately diminish it - obviously the majority of the time she's straight and that's how it should be.

Also, bisexual people are not part time anything! Our identities are as stable as the staunchest homo or hetero or cis or trans or any other fluid-identity person in the world.
To be fluid, does not mean that one is not stable - is water inconsistent?
I think not.

In addition, the wording "malleable sexuality" is misleading. If something is malleable that means it is influenced and manipulated from by an external force - that is, our sexual experiences are not actually true since they were manipulated by others to seem... like anything.
Thus, if I kissed a girl and I liked it, in the realm of malleability, the whole idea of liking anything, of having a choice in what we do with our sexuality is canceled out.

Yeah, fuck that.

The whole article is rife with quotes like this and I wouldn't mind going through it and tearing it apart.

Maybe later, if there's any interest.

Comments

[lilacsigil.livejournal.com]

Black! White! Nothing in between because that's too hard.

I can understand the idea of malleability in the sense of shaping your actual lived sexuality to the people or person with whom you are involved, but it's not the sexuality itself that is malleable. It's the choices made and actions taken.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly.

The article is really gross, it's a conservative article masquerading as the most progressive thing on earth. I hate those, they're so bloody misleading.

[schemingreader.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, I am stuck on "part time-lesbianism." Because the employer doesn't want to give benefits? Can I become a freelance lesbian? Is this like being adjunct faculty?

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

LOLZ!

Now I'm giggling uncontrollably!

[mao4269.livejournal.com]

It's not benefits that aren't being given, but a toaster. ;)

[aesiron.livejournal.com]

Thus, if I kissed a girl and I liked it, in the realm of malleability, the whole idea of liking anything, of having a choice in what we do with our sexuality is canceled out.

Can you rephrase this? I've tried rereading it a couple times, but can't parse it.

What does cis (CIS?) mean?

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Cisexual/gender is a somewhat new word trying to denaturalize the idea that non-transsexual/gender is the default and that transsexual/gender is "other" than the the default.

Get it? :)

What exactly isn't parsing for you? If sexuality itself is malleable then the concept that our choices and desires are our own, is not applicable, I think. Because as I said, malleability gives the impression that our identities and sexualities are nothing more than manipulations and that our desire cannot truly be authentic.

[stateofwonder.livejournal.com]

This reminds me of the time that one of my (at the time lesbian-identified) friends called me "part lesbian".

HELL NO. I am not part anything. I'm fully queer, thank you very fucking much.

I don't think I can even stand to read the rest of the article :( I also find it hilarious how the act of kissing a girl and liking is somehow equated with sexual identity.

[aesiron.livejournal.com]

No, not really. Cisexual sounds more like a philosophy than an orientation by that definition.

As for the malleability of sexuality, I think I get what you mean now and, if I do, I don't entirely agree.

Malleability does not mean something is naturally formless, or only exists to be manipulated. My understanding, which I just confirmed by looking up the word, just means that it can be formed, is pliant, or can be worked into another shape, which I agree with. Orientation is genetic, but is also cultural and environmental, which means it's malleable.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Huh? It's not orientation. It's gender identity. Cis means having not crossed over, trans means having crossed over.
Not sure what's philosophical about any of them.

Maybe in the dictionary definition the malleability would work. In the context of the article, I think it trying to show that people who are "experimenting" are easily manipulated by the dirty queers.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Word to everything you said!

[aesiron.livejournal.com]

I can't view the article at work so I can't comment on it, but I was struck and somewhat confused by your statement. I took it to mean that you did not think sexual identity is malleable. I was just looking for clarifcation

As to cisexuality, I guess I'm just not grokking it. Though I fully support sex and gender equality, I don't even pretend to understand transsexuality and transgenderism, and am confused by where cisexuality fits within its continuum. This must be what getting old feels like.

[violachic.livejournal.com]

If one is cissexual, it means that they were born with bits that society assigns to either male or female, and has never identified as anything else; I am cissexual, because I has born, physically, with those bits, and self-identify as female. i.e. not transsexual.

Being cisgender, means that you were assigned a certain gender at birth, and have never self-identified as anything but that gender. i.e. not trans gender.

Don't know if that helps at all.

[quicksilvermad.livejournal.com]

I'm sorely confused...

"part-time lesbianism?"

So, what, like less than forty hours a week you're considered a part-time lesbian—otherwise you have to show up on weekends as a "full time" lesbian and help close up shop with the "sexual register" or whatever? Are there breaks? Paid lunch? And bisexuals work in the "off" shift? HUH?!

WTF, world? You take one song warbled by some chick who has a pitch problem in her voice and apply that to everyone. No. I disagree. Sure, girls can kiss girls and like it. That doesn't suddenly label her—it isn't until she makes the cognizant choice to pursue other women romantically—seriously—that a (I hate this word) label can be applied to her.

There is no part time. There is confused (hell, I am and this is the first place I've admitted it) and curious, but no part time. When someone is discovering themselves as a sexual being, it's a serious matter. Not some stupid pop song.

People (*cough*rightwing*cough*) seem to want to rationalize the idea of young women or men experimenting with these terms. "Part time" and "malleable sexuality." They're scared of the idea of a woman just loving another woman without reservations, hang ups, or second thoughts.

Thanks for making that stupid song, Katy Perry. /sarcasm

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Now that I've had time to think about my issue with the word; I think the word "malleable" is dangerous, especially in the context of sexuality because it implies, besides what I said, that sexuality can be changed at will.
So even if you are attracted to the same-sex then it's no problem for you to return to being attracted to the opposite-sex, which is of course, the better place to be.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I hate that song.

At my brother's wedding the DJ put it on, I was dancing with my GF and my Brother-In-Law and he started laughing like a maniac.
I was a bit baffled by the reaction, but then again, it's not everyday a guy gets to dance with two queer women and hear that atrocious song.

*sigh*

[aesiron.livejournal.com]

That's not what malleable means. I think you're confusing it with mutable.

[aesiron.livejournal.com]

So an intersexual, then?

[quicksilvermad.livejournal.com]

DJ Fail! Ten yard penalty—repeat first down.

The other thing I hate about this song (other than the lyrics and the fact that the moron really cannot sing) is that even when it's just mentioned in passing I get the damn thing stuck in my head.