
As a woman who has been married and who has a child to show for it, I am usually assumed to be heterosexual.
As a fully satisfied celibate woman who has no intention of getting into a relationship with anybody any time soon - and certainly not a man - I generally permit that assumption: it is habitual, comfortable; it is not (overtly or immediately) detrimental; it is easy just to let it be. And why question if it makes no difference anyway?
This is why, when listing my privileges (the ones of which I am conscious, I mean), I have fallen into the habit of describing myself as “more or less” or “pretty much” heterosexual. What I mean by that is that all of my sexual relationships and 98% of my sexual adventures have been with men. What I mean is also that I have experienced het privilege all my life, because I have always performed, and always been read as, a heterosexual woman. What I also mean is that even if this has not been exactly contrary to my natural inclinations, certainly it has not involved the full expression or development of my natural inclinations.
If I were in a free universe I would almost certainly not identify as heterosexual.
It’s difficult to know how I would identify. Based on my life story to date, I would identify as a woman-loving celibate. But the only reason I have that life story, the only reason that I have come to be a woman-loving celibate is because I do not live and have never lived in a free universe. So who knows? In that mythical free universe I might identify or not as anything I pleased, whenever I pleased, and who knows what would please me if I had not had this heterosexual indoctrination?… But stop! I don’t want to get side-tracked by imagining how things might have turned out different in some parallel but fundamentally freer universe. What a waste of time.
I am not in a free universe, but I am free in some places. In my real-life heart I am free, and in my real-life heart I can and now do identify myself, to myself, as a woman-loving celibate. That’s a start.
In the real world outside my own body, I am not free and as such I am… a single woman presumed heterosexual who is troubled by all that this means. Because I don’t actively sleep with women, I am claimed almost against my will by the heterosexual in-group, the ones who don’t even realise that they are a group, the ones who generously assume that you are “normal” just like them unless and until you start putting evidence right in their faces that in fact you are a deviant.
I can’t abandon heterosexual privilege, because short of wearing a sign on my head that says “I AM A LESBIAN”, there is no way to prevent heterosexual people from lazily assuming that I am One Of Them. In truth, “can’t” may be an excuse for “won’t”. Although I wish that there was no such thing as het privilege in the first place, now that I have it, I can’t honestly stand up and claim that I even particularly want to abandon it in favour of the oppression that would replace it. I don’t know what abandoning the privilege would mean, what it would look like, how it would play out in my life, whether anyone would even take me seriously, and in any case - what would be the point?
I have heard a lot at various times about political lesbians and in all honesty I can’t see any appeal in that “identity”. It sounds too much to me like privileged straight women, purposefully single, magnanimously extending sisterhood to real lesbians, garnering feminist credibility for pretending to abandon their heterosexual privilege, without actually examining or understanding the very real differences in their experiences of privilege and oppression. Without try to see how it all works in real life, how it might feel as a real lesbian to be “offered” sisterhood (read, to be claimed in sisterhood) by a bunch of privileged singletons who think they have some sort of clue what it is like to actually live as a woman-partnered woman. I wonder how many of those singletons would be willing to walk around with an “I AM A LESBIAN” sign on their heads?
Where does that leave me? I’m pretty much back to square one, except for this:
At least in the places where I am free, I will stop aligning myself with men by referring to myself (even with qualifiers) as heterosexual. Instead, when called upon or otherwise moved to identify myself, I will identify as a woman-loving celibate. This plays well in my heart, much better, much more aligned with my own self than the labels that I have hitherto felt forced to apply to my lived reality.
In the context of acknowledging privilege, I will not pretend that I do not have heterosexual privilege because that would be inaccurate. That would be denial. But I will prefer to express it as something like “closet privilege” rather than het privilege. Because “closet privilege”, although it sounds kind of lame and evasive, also expresses well how this privilege feels to me. It feels like a privilege that stifles, that forces me to pretend to be someone I am not in order to be accepted by those around me.
******************
I have more to say on this, about how it fits in with my growing consciousness of race privilege, my thinking about the privilege of lightness as being of a kind, in some ways, with closet privilege. The two separate ideas connecting, banging together, exploding into brightness that hurts and cleans at the same time.
In the meantime, I just wanted to link this post of Dark Daughta’s and the Marilyn Frye piece Dark Daughta refers to, which have both been a part of the analysis I have brought to this post and to the one I will write soon on lightness.
25 February 2008 at 8:12 am
Yeah…you set my gaydar a-pinging a while ago lady!
25 February 2008 at 12:51 pm
At least here on the net you can have a little bit of that free universe. It feels comfortable talking about sexuality on the net, because there is not so much priviledge to loose here.
@erika: I have never understood that gaydar thing. Why do I need something like this? I sure don’t have one. But then I also don’t have a hetdar either. As long as people leave me alone/ don’t mention “it” I asume them asexual. And for all purposes they are, unless I want sexual relations with them or they with me.
25 February 2008 at 1:46 pm
Hey again, Maia,
I’m hearing what you’re saying about identifying and being simultaneously labeled in the outside world.
This has always been such a sticky and difficult issue for me. Having spent about 12 or 13 years as an out dyke in community and then deciding as I aged that the kind of life I wanted to lead, with children involved wasn’t materializing, too many relationships with so much pain, so much ignorance, so much drama, not productive in the ways I wanted to build, I decided that I wouldn’t wait to find a woman who might be able to share my dreams. Pissy sad. Trust me. I know. (wry smile) I had particular dreams and I wasn’t willing to take the risk that these would fall to the wayside with me ending up every inch the elder feline lady eventually dying alone with no one to mark her passing. I grew up alone. Didn’t want more of the same.
So, I started dating men. They’re sad and stunted for the most part. I think there are glimmers that I appreciate with Paps. But he knows how much work he is not doing, how much consciousness raising he refuses to do. He knows the effect it’s having on our relationship.
I think defining as poly has allowed me space to maintain my relationship to my queerness as much as having a really powerful politic does, too.
I don’t call myself a dyke anymore, though she’s still in here with me and in times when Stinkapee has asked, I don’t deny her or me comprehension of all who I am inside.
But the world with its bits and pieces of privilege offered calls.
I also think about how different styles of dress commonly understood to communicate this sexuality or that are understood outside queer community.
I don’t think I’m going to be able to keep working queer femme. It just reads as straight tart when you’re walking next to a straight man.
My hair works marvelously in Black community spaces though. It’s a question mark sitting up atop my head. It fairly screams there’s something not quite right about this sista. So, the hair stays. Short natural hair in Black community circles is just read as academic and highly intelligent, conservative. Not dykely. Bald is read as mad and attention getting, maybe fashionable rather than queer.
Hmmm…
I’ve really trumpeted my queerness in blogland in order to make sure the hetero mamas didn’t come calling misreading me as one of their own, prepared to have conversations about husbands and children and mother in laws and lactivism.
I trumpeted it so that straight Black wimmin seeing that I had a male partner would not come calling expecting me to willingly participate in conversations about how best to silence oneself so as to keep a male partner happy with patriarchal ego well fed.
I trumpeted it so that sex bloggers who saw my writings would be forced to not identify too closely with me, forced to not mistake me for a fatty beach bunny interested in stroking men for their pleasure.
I trumpeted it so that I could fuck with the perceptions of queers who understand radical queerness and radical sexuality as something that comes in a white, thin, partying, urban, serial monogamous experience.
I trumpeted it so that I could have space to be sexual and perverse in ways that bring me pleasure.
I trumpeted my queerness so I might attract allies who could see me clear and realize that there was more here than what the world, needing to label me and Paps a heterosexual coupling, me as the mother of “his” children, might be able to recognize.
How’s it working for me? Not identifying as heterosexual and breaking down exactly what I mean when I position myself as queer, womancentric, feminist? Hmmm…who knows…if I do, I’ll let you know.
25 February 2008 at 8:38 pm
J - Not sure about privilege on the net, but certainly it feels safer to write (quasi anonymously) about sexuality here than to talk about it in real life.
Re gaydar I get what you are saying but E has no doubt seen some “clues” from me because she is one of the (rare) people I actually feel safe around IRL. So I don’t have a problem with her pointing a gaydar at me, even though I probably would have a problem if she were someone else…
DD - yeah, trumpeting. I’m going to be doing a lot more of that in future. I’m feeling good and liberated at having sloughed off the heterosexual label, no longer aligning myself as a manstroker. Big happy smiles.
27 February 2008 at 8:11 am
Gaydar is useful…especially if your about to snog the person in question….
As a woman you need to be able to sort out intentions; snogging you cos they really like you or snogging you because they want to tell a man they fancy that they have kissed a woman to poke at his porn-lesbian interest.
Don’t grimise/laugh/pity me, I’ve had my heart broken many times because I hadn’t stopped to work that one out.
Bloody porn….it’s got a lot to answer for.
29 February 2008 at 12:35 am
Thanks for sharing that with us. Fwiw, you never struck me as either het or gay, because I happily assume everyone is bisexual until they tell me otherwise.
29 February 2008 at 1:01 am
I’m intrigued by the assumptions people make. Most assume het, some appear to assume asexual, or bi - which is all a bit unsettling to me.
Personally, I don’t see a person’s partnering preferences (or lack thereof) as relevant* so I attempt to make no assumptions at least until the topic naturally arises e.g. when actually chatting about partnerships or childbearing etc.
(*unless I were interested in them - ha, very rare to non-existent these days - or that they were interested in me - also mercifully rare these days)
Notice too that I don’t claim that I *make* no assumptions, only that I *attempt* not to make them. I was raised in the school of hetero-supremacist indoctrination so my attempt to avoid assumptions does not always meet with total success. To say the least.
I am curious how Jokerine and Magickitty managed to escape hetero-supremacist indoctrination only to end up with a different set of assumptions?
Or is it that when you say you assume a lack of partnering preference (asexual = no sex at all; bisexual = no preference) what you really mean is actually that you do not make any assumptions of partnering preference and I’m just picking nits here?
Just wondering…
4 March 2008 at 9:35 am
I certainly did not escape hetero-supremacist indoctrination. But from very early on the whole trara about who would like to fuck what type of person seemed… stupid (?)… to me. (maybe silly is a better word.)I kind of figured out for myself that what organs a person had and my attraction to them didn’t correlate. Not that I’ve ever had a sexual relation ship with anyone that didn’t have dangly bits, but then again I’ve only had a relationship with two people. Not enough for a statistic
As for other people I think I rather meant I don’t asume a preference. I used “asexual”, because most interactions I have with people are non-sexual and thus their preferences are irrelevant. Is this clearer?
Paula.
4 March 2008 at 1:04 pm
Jokerine - yes, much. Thank you
I think the confusion arose because to me “asexual” has a specific meaning of not wanting to have sex at all, whereas you used it to mean that sexual preference didn’t come into *your* perceptions since you view it (as I do) as mostly irrelevant to the interactions you generally have.
Fixed
6 March 2008 at 5:39 pm
I’ve identified as bisexual since I was sixteen, and through conscious conditioning of my thought processes, I always try to not assume the sexual preferences of people I meet. But being bisexual, I like to assume that everyone I like is similar to me!
6 March 2008 at 8:50 pm
M - thank you.
xx