13:659) Plain Scarf 26-APR-95 21:56
But what bugged me was this slant that the women could choose, but their partners, somehow, lived more settled lives.
I'll be the first to say I'm reading a vibe into this, but this is the WSJ that pitied the poor advertisers who suffered during their purchase of M. Cammemeyer film commercial time. If the Journal was really more sympathetic than I read, I acknowledge it and apologize.
13:660) Faune 27-APR-95 1:26
Hmmm, another variation on the LUG (Lesbian Until Graduation) phenomenon? It's intersting to note that the NY Times had an article recently (Front page, no less -- this week -- Monday?) on spouses who come out after marriage. You gotta wonder though -- some of these couples hadn't had sex for YEARS when hubby came out, and the women were shocked, shocked! at the revelation.
It was also curious to note that only the wives whose husbands were gay spoke for attribution in the article. Also curious was the last paragraph where the author noted that in a few cases the couples reached some kind of "arrangement," without mentioning the word bisexuality.
Re: 'Scarf's post (13:656), and at the risk of opening the can o' worms marked "Labels," I think many people, and women in particular choose to view their MOTSS affairs as a "cosa nostra" because they do not care to mix the personal and the political.
Or perhaps more to the point, they do not want to be associated with certain stereotypes. Speaking for myself, I am no less conscious of my sexuality now than I was when I was twenty. In fact, just the opposite. *But* it is less central to my self-definition, i.e. I don't wear it on my sleeve.