From: John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Presumption
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:01:57 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Duke University Medical Center

In article <1992Aug12.155727.9941@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu
(Melinda Shore) writes:
>In article <4443@news.duke.edu>, John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu writes:
>> I agree with Romanovsky and Phillips who I quote here from their song, "Give
me
>> a homosexual"
>> 
>> "How straight can they be when they're down on their knees!"

A song which questions the motivations of the use of the term "straight."  It
doesn't suggest labelling someone as "straight."  


>Then you're really no better than the homo-haters who
>identify gay people solely on the basis of our sexual
>practices.

Actually I am no better than anyone and make no claim to be so.  Besides, there
are considerable numbers of persons who are homo-lovers who identify people
solely on the basis of our sexual practices.  

When I was growing up and coming out, straight was used to mean one of two
things.  The first was not doing or wanting to do drugs, the second was not
wanting to or doing homosexual sex. Straight could be expanded and has been to
include many different conservative bents.  The old colloquialism of honest is
rarely used anymore.    

>Here's the thing:  when you use such a restrictive
>definition of sexuality, you're effectively closing the
>door on a broad range of issues related to identity and
>individuality.  

I'm not in favor of using restrictive definitions of sexuality, that why I
don't like to see restrictive definitions such as "straight" used, especially
when, as Jess Anderson does, contrast it against "gay" and "bisexual."  Is it
not possible to be a "bisexual straight" or a "straight bisexual?"  

You're also painting yourself into a
>corner.  If our sexual acts define who we are, then who
>are we when we're not being sexual? 

Acts are what is legislated against.  We are often the receiver of agression
and hate because we either commit or are thought to commit those acts.  Even
Biblical repression is based on acts, not on being.

 Are we gay only
>when we have sex, and asexual the rest of the time?  What
>about self-identified gay people who are virgins, or who
>are celibate?  Are they not gay?

Maybe.  But there is no accepted definition of what being gay is.  That is why
it is important to talk about the boundaries.  If I claimed I was black would
that make me black?  If a black man claimed he was white would that make him
white?  Maybe.  Remember, it was Jess who originally claimed that he could tell
that these persons were straight.  Only later did he announce that they had
told him they were straight.

Another example.  A person is not a criminal unless a jury says so.  A person
is innocent unless convicted.  This may mean that our society is predisposed
towards labeling from the outside (by government) than internally.  On the
other hand, let a person declare their gayness or Lesbianness, etc. and it is
very hard to take back.  Sound that labeling is a confluence of opinions and
has different weight in different situations.

>
>Like Jess, I've been in homosexual relationships with
>several straight people (although in my case they were
>women), and I feel perfectly comfortable with their straight
>identities. 

Their identity may nevertheless be different than what they choose it to be. 
If you were caught and one of these women were married and her husband decided
to sue for divorce on the grounds that his wife is a Lesbian and she were to
say, no I'm not a Lesbian, I'm straight, I just have sex with women
occasionally.  It doesn't matter what she says, it will be labeled as Lesbian
sex.  We cannot control our own labeling.  


 Their overwhelming affectional orientation
>was towards men, but through some odd quirk of fate they
>found themselves with a woman. 

This is what used to be and in many quarters still is a bisexual or a Lesbian. 


 This doesn't make them
>lesbians, and it doesn't make them bisexuals.  It makes
>them straight women who have had sex with another woman.
>Get it?

So no, unless you wish to erase all the history of what "straight" has meant in
the battle for gay and Lesbian and bisexual rights, then it is impossible to
use this word as freely as you and Jess would like.


>-- 
>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
>

Of course I get it, unfortunately you don't.  The label "straight" is just as
limiting and limited as any other, "gay, bisexual, queer, etc."

In your example, it makes them "women who have had sex with another woman."  

You and I and a great many other people disagree about what straight means, but
I can tell you that many of us find "straight" to be a very baggage laden term
around which whole political controversies are laid.

Better to not describe someone as "straight" than to use the term at all.