Mar

27

BwogSex: Vulturian Vagitarians?

Written by

Nothing helps a body unwind from a tiresome first week back at school like sex! Well, this isn’t sex, but it’s the second best thing: allow us to present the third installment in our new and improved BwogSex feature. The following contemplations by Kia Walton were written in response to a question left in our anonymized dropbox – Kia is not the sole writer for Bwogsex, but is our Queer Culture Bureau Chief. Send in your own questions, anecdotes, and ideas to BwogSex (anonymously!), and remember, the weather has changed: it’s time to get busy on the lawns!

This question is as problematic as it is interesting and I am grateful for the query. So… let’s dive in!

Firstly, a rewriting of this anonymous question is in order: “How easy is it to ‘turn’ a ‘desperate, straight’ Columbia girl?” It may seem unhelpful to add quotation marks, which seem only to lend themselves to ambiguous definitions, but I find them more helpful than the rigid preconceptions these words may inspire.

Let’s start with the term “turn.” Turning, in my opinion, is impossible. As a friend of mine succinctly put it, “either you have the desire or you don’t.” (That desire being sexual attention from and/or sexual activity with someone of the same sex).  I cannot “turn” a girl gay (God knows I’ve tried). I can, however, try to tap into the homosexual energy that I believe nearly every single person has (in varying amounts). I would only attempt to woo her with my charm (which usually just boils down to leaving the room when I rip one) and hope that it draws out what is already present. If the girl is receptive to me, it is not because I was able to install some sort of gay chip in her; it was already there, I just had the privilege of activating it.

Then there is this idea of desperation. To say that a Columbia girl must be “desperate” to engage in sexual activity with another girl is both offensive and convenient. Regarding the former, to assume that a straight-identified girl would only hook-up with a another girl when all other options have been extinguished is to assume that the queer-female community (to whom the question is directed) is the merely a receptacle for stale desire, meant for a straight man, but begrudgingly bestowed upon the vulturian vagitarians.  In truth, any straight-identified women explicitly and implicitly express their attraction to other women, and their intent, when there are other viable options.

By creating the context of desperation the question also reinforces the heteronormative and wholly asinine presumption that all girls like boys first and foremost. The truth is more of us are both receptors and producers of homosexual energy than we can recognize or would like to admit. Which is why calling same-sex sexual energy and activity an act of desperation is so convenient. It excuses the actions of the individual, making them a passive force in the goings on. She couldn’t help that there were no cute guys around, right? It’s as if saying homosexuality happened to her in that time, rather than she acted on her own homosexual energy.

That, clearly, completely complicates the idea of what “straight” is (along with all other sexual orientation terminology).  This stems from, I believe, the way in which we have qualified and categorized sexuality. As the PRIDE movement and the reclamation of queer culture took root to encourage positive ownership of sexual orientation, so too came the process of “coming out”. Those that are queer are encouraged to come out as an empowered this or proud that, but in doing this good and brave work, the categorization of sexual identity is perpetuated which does not always promote individual sexual identity. Far more limiting, however, is that because heterosexual culture does not encourage the creation of a hand tailored identity (like homosexuality often can), there are virtually all kinds of gay and just one kind of straight. As such, from what I can see, you get a whole lot of shades of gray waving white flags of heterosexuality.

But to answer the question, and to end, it is as hard to “turn” a “desperate, straight” girl as it is to fight any socialized consciousness that attempts to make something natural feel like something deviant. It is fighting an uphill battle for curiosity, for lust, or for love, and it is sometimes exhausting, sometimes embarrassing, but entirely worth it.

Tags: , , , , ,

55 Comments

  1. Anonymous  

    such a let down from last BwogSex...

  2. bwog

    interesting. however, it desperately needs to be proofread.

  3. gay guy

    Fact: Gay stories are better than lesbian ones.

    • Fellow Gay Guy  

      *like*

    • wow  

      you're an ass. seriously - i find so many gay men that are WILDLY chauvinistic. It's great - it's like benefit from the whole "equality" talk and then turn around and ostracize women.

      congrats. you can live in a self-centered world of all men and forget that there are women who would like even a shred of the privilege you get. way to go, progress.

      • Huzzah!  

        Time for the Minority Olympics! My favorite part of oppression.

        TBH I think you're right, but I also think there are better ways to say it.

        • wow  

          i'm sure you're right and there is a better way to say it. it's just frustrating - i'm not meaning that women - or lesbians specifically - are a minority in need of lovin'. I meant more that most of the people who are benefitting from the whole "equality" movement turn around and use the same tactics once used against them. Gender inequality is still an issue - and I think gay men often prove that. It's sad. And it's essentially the whole gay rights movement in the us right now.

          • Fellow Gay Guy  

            You're kind of a humorless feminist stereotype.

          • Anonymous

            Or you're just a douche

          • lol  

            your refusal to take this critique seriously (and instead to dismiss it as the product of a negative female stereotype) only serves to drive the point home that you're a chauvinistic douche.

          • Anonymous  

            I love how you infer anti-feminist sentiments from a gay man saying he prefers gay stories and another gay man approving.

            Go be self-righteous somewhere else.

          • Anon  

            analysis spot on dear sir.

          • gay guy

            I hate when minority struggles are racialized.

          • diifferent perspective, part 2  

            Crap, posted this in the wrong place.

            Fine, maybe I was out of line to bring race into the discussion as an analogy; I concede to the possibility.

            How about:

            A man says, "Fact: Male stories are better than female ones." Another man agrees.

            A cissexual says, "Fact: Cis stories are better than trans ones." Another cissexual agrees.

            A heterosexual says, "Fact: straight stories are better than gay ones." Another heterosexual agrees.

            A gay man says, "Fact: Gay stories are better than lesbian ones." Another gay man agrees.

            No matter how you swing it, there’s something distasteful about how the OP originally wrote his comment. I (and others probably) would have been more accepting (maybe) if he had said something to the like of, "I liked the gay stories better than this lesbian one because [reason reason]" or "this article isn't as fun as the previous ones because [reason reason]", but no. Instead he implies that gay stories are. just. better! After all, it’s a -fact- that gay men have more interesting experiences than lesbians.

            If you want to prove wrong the people who are calling the OP chauvinistic, tell us WHY his statement could not POSSIBLY be considered chauvinistic to lesbians, using just his statement. Go!

          • diifferent perspective

            Think about it this way: if a white person posted on an article about a black person's experience, saying, "Fact: white stories are better than black ones," and another white person agreed with the first, what would you say to that?

            Maybe the white person just doesn't relate to the article's contents! Fine, fair enough, that's understandable. However, instead of saying something like, "Oh, I don't really relate to this" or "I relate to your previous articles on being white better because [list reasons]" or, I don't know, not commenting at all, the white person says, "Fact: white stories are better than black ones," propagating the idea that 'being white' is somehow an inherently better thing than 'being black' and one shouldn't write articles about 'being black' because, hey, those stories just aren't as awesome.

            Sentences! How you phrase them creates completely different meanings.

            Would someone actually reply with that? At Columbia, unlikely*. However, just because we're past that point in open racism** does not mean other kyriarchal institutions are at the same level of progress.

            Also, please remember that it's common for people of (more) privilege to trivialize a (more) marginalized group's experiences by saying, "You're making a big deal out of nothing! CLEARLY we didn't mean that; you're purposefully misinterpreting it, so your feelings of being marginalized are moot."

            *feel free to disagree
            **please don't misinterpret this as being "there's no racism."

  4. All these references

    To Homo energy remind me of molecular orbital theory.

  5. what?  

    this isn't boring, it's great! thanks for the reframing, the insight, and the analysis.

  6. Dear Bwog  

    I love when you update on Saturday nights. It makes me feel better about being in Butler.

  7. why  

    are most (all?) of the bwogsex articles about homosexual-centric?

  8. educational

    Considering that probably a good percentage of people at Columbia have never heard of the term "heteronormative" in their life or have no idea what that means, I think this post was fantastic.

  9. Lesbian article + no erection =

    FAIL

  10. :(  

    The first Bwogsex is about a gay guy who sleeps with straight women. The second Bwogsex is about a gay woman who wants to sleep with a straight woman. The moral of the story? Straight guys at Columbia have no chance.

  11. too tired to read all comments  

    ...but shit, this thing had way too many fucking words. Had so much potential, but too many letters.

    As for the straight SEAS guys, we get sex, from girls, at least some of us. We might wish we had more, but we exist, and we're good looking sometimes.

    Anyway, not even my hand is getting action tonight. Goodnight, Bwog. Goodnight moon.

  12. come on  

    you know, nice and all. but I kind of expect more sex from a sex column, is that too much to ask? if there was a lot of BwogSex posts I wouldn't mind if you sprinkled in some gender theory or activism every once in a while, but please. give us something first.

  13. Anonymous  

    I LOVE KIA WALTON!

  14. Rob  

    I LOVE KIA WALTON TOO!!! My suga mama!!

  15. this  

    is so awesome. Great job, Kia.

  16. Yes!

    This post needs to put up on a wall and framed.

    While this wasn't the spiciest article (it's obviously not describing lesbian sex), I thought it was very informative and addressed a lot of common misconceptions that need to be discussed. A desperate straight woman is a good match for a desperate straight guy, but certainly not for a homosexual woman.

    I also agree "turning" is the silliest idea. If anyone knows where I can find the 'turn on lesbian desire' switch in a straight woman, please tell me.

  17. diifferent perspective, part 2  

    You couldn't just reply directly to the comment? Fine, maybe I was out of line to bring race into the discussion as an analogy; I concede to the possibility.

    How about:

    A man says, \Fact: Male stories are better than female ones.\ Another man agrees.

    A cissexual says, \Fact: Cis stories are better than trans ones.\ Another cissexual agrees.

    A heterosexual says, \Fact: straight stories are better than gay ones.\ Another heterosexual agrees.

    A gay man says, \Fact: Gay stories are better than lesbian ones.\ Another gay man agrees.

    No matter how you swing it, there's something distasteful about how the OP originally wrote his comment. I (and others probably) would have been more accepting (maybe) if he had said something to the like of, \I liked the gay stories better than this lesbian one because [reason reason]\, but no. Instead he implies that gay stories are. just. better! After all, it's a -fact- that gay men have more interesting experiences than lesbians.

    If you want to prove wrong the people who are calling the OP chauvinistic, tell us WHY his statement could not POSSIBLY be considered chauvinistic to lesbians, using just his statement. Go!

  18. Straight girl  

    I think that this post is a bit too defensive and actually does not adequately address female sexuality, which is much more complicated(of course) than male sexuality. Studies have shown that when females get turned on they are attracted to a wider spectrum of people, so both boys and girls. When guys are turned on, they are more attracted to one specific group. If they are straight, they want the girl more. If gay, they want the guy more.

    It isn't like the person asking the question is saying that lesbians turn to girls only because they can't get a guy. Lesbians are more attracted to girls than guys in all instances. But for straight girls, that is not the case. If I'm at a party and I want to hook up with someone, I'd prefer it to be a guy. If there are no guys and I still want to hook up with someone, I'm much more willing to go for a girl. It isn't about how charming you are, but about how turned on I am.

    Are you going to be able to turn me? Probably not. But we could both still get a pretty fun night out of it.

    • whoa  

      miss the point of the post much? gg, girlfriend.

      ps - what about the bisexuals? the pansexuals? the etc. and all? oh wait they don't exist. i'm sorry for being so confused.

    • so confused  

      Or maybe you're bisexual with a higher preference for guys?

      If you were truly and completely straight (e.g. Kinsey 0), you'd never ever want to be in any sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. Ever. No matter how turned on you are. If you feel cool with having a hook-up relationship with someone of the same sex, then you're not as straight as you think.

      "Studies have shown that when females get turned on they are attracted to a wider spectrum of people, so both boys and girls."

      1. Citation needed
      2. Or maybe they are attracted to a wider spectrum of people, so they feel turned on by them. (Statement could be combated, but hey, I need this study you're talking about.)

      • Straight girl  

        http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?_r=2

        Just because a person classifies herself as straight doesn't mean she is never attracted to girls. Bisexuals do exist. There are people as attracted to guys as girls. The reason people claim they don't exist is because it is much easier for them to date guys than girls.

        • so confused  

          I am officially confused. Can you point out what exactly in the original post that you found defensive? I'm really not sure how what you're saying and what Walton is saying disagree.

          • Straight girl  

            Most of the things we are saying don't disagree, but I am saying that most girls that identify as straight WILL go for a guy over a girl if there are available guys around.

            "By creating the context of desperation the question also reinforces the heteronormative and wholly asinine presumption that all girls like boys first and foremost."-Walton

            --All girls don't like boys first and foremost, but straight girls do.

          • so confused  

            I think there's just a misinterpretation of Walton's words here. When I read that sentence, I understood it as saying that the heteronormative assumption assumes that -all- girls, heterosexual and nonheterosexual, must actually like boys first. She's not saying that straight girls don't like boys first and foremost. What she has a problem with is that people often have this wrong belief that non-100%-straight girls must also like boys first; they just "can't get them" so they turn to girls.

            Does the above make sense?

  19. ...  

    I'd let Kia Walton "have the privilege of activating my gay chip" any day.

  20. for the record

    KIA WALTON is AMAZING. Trust.

    Also, this post is actually great -- I'm not sure what the purpose of BwogSex is, but hopefully there is room for meaningful, informative conversation amidst all the...how do I put it, "action-focused" sex talk. She's disrupting a lot of norms/common sense ideas about sexuality and lesbianism, which deserves some real credit.

    BwogSex might benefit its readers by having this mixture of sex and theory (for lack of a better word) talk.

    Go Kia!

  21. Anonymous

    Kia Walton is my hero

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.