I am recalling the book "Self Made Man", where Norah Vincent, a lesbian, disguised herself as a man to live as a man. She engaged in many male activities, such as a bowling league, strip clubs, dating and joining a monastery (an act of betrayal so grievous that I had to stop reading the book at that point)

The most interesting thing to me was the section on her dating. She went from a dating world embodied in that old lesbian joke (What do lesbians drive on a second date? A moving van) to a world where one gets shot down 9 out of 10 times. As she put it (paraphrased): women treated men badly in the dating scene. They demanded emotional crap that they were clearly unwilling to deliver themselves. They were needy, self absorbed and distant. She said she never felt as inferior as when she was pretending to be a man dating a woman.

Since Norah is not a 20 something, one assumes she has 'gatekeeper cred'...or maybe she has expectations more in keeping with a sexual group where one can assume that only 1.5% of all of America is in your sexual demographic (3% for GAL, divided in half...which is generous) So expecting an emotionally mature, dyke Halle Berry is a bit...unreasonable. Add to that she is African American and her list of prospects is short. (Sorry, I'm trying to be realistic here)

LW needs to tweak her 'expectation' knob a little bit. To the de rigour checklist of flannel, golden retrievers, and pick up truck/SUV, she needs to add gay, not an emotional psychopath, and willing to put out.

So...she puts no effort into any relationship with a male and is surprised that she doesn't get a magic 'fulfillment' star at the end of the date. Keen.

Then again, she seems pretty unwilling to put the effort into her female relationships as well.

The fact that the person needs more then you are willing to give is not an indication of a problem on their part. They are what they are. But when everyone you date seems 'needy', maybe it isn't everyone else on the planet. Just saying.

So...she puts no effort into any relationship with a male and is surprised that she doesn't get a magic 'fulfillment' star at the end of the date.

Exactly. Either she's just phoning it in during relationships or she's picking incredibly needy, clingy women. Both can lead to her current self-righteousness.

Also, I have trouble giving the benefit of the doubt to anyone who uses "the bomb" to describe sex.

Oh, and LW? Welcome to Man's World.

You get to ride the emotional roller coaster, drown in the Big Red Wave Pool, have your soul examined in the Hall of Mirrors...all for a shot at a ride through the Tunnel of Love at the end of the day.

I was reading Public Sex, a collection of essays by Pat Califia, and was quite amused to find that, in the essay on "Unmonogamy: Loving Tricks and Tricking Lovers," this very gay gay woman had a lot of the same complaints that I, who am a straight man, have about the whole relationship thing. Here I'd always thought the problem was with me...that as a testosterone-crazed devil-ape/guy, the problem was with me. Pat's essay, and some others in that book, made me think that the problem lies...elsewhere.

She said she'd rather pay cash for sex than deal with one more meltdown from someone who thought that Pat should "marry" (move in with) her because Pat had spent a few hours figuring out how to make her come. I can understand this position, because I feel the same way. She also said that the tears, tantrums and impromptu displays of the martial arts triggered by people changing dance, or bed, partners made her unable to think of the local dyke bar as a good place to go for a quiet beer.

Amy, great answer--very funny and spot on. But, I have to admit, you had a pretty good warm up act with this letter. I was already in stitches halfway through the letter.

What? Women can be difficult to please and emotionally volatile? I don't believe it. As Flydye said, welcome to our world.

It's not just gay women, LW.

To LW:

Please, be kind to us, "testosterone-crazed devil-apes|, stick to women in the future, or
as Amy (may the reason be upon her) put it:
"ditch these complicated human relationships for a simpler kind of love -- the one we'd share with a partner who's beyond happy as long as we keep throwing it a dirty tennis ball and dropping pieces of food on the floor."

"What? Women can be difficult to please and emotionally volatile? I don't believe it. As Flydye said, welcome to our world."

You don't think men can be difficult to please and emotionally volatile? Maybe guys don't cry as much when they're emotionally volatile, but they sure can be.

It's tough for someone of either gender and sexual orientation to find a good match - the person whose temperament compliments (and still excites) theirs. Too stable can be boring. Too crazy is a roller coaster ride.

"Impromptu displays of martial arts?" Eeeek.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a sibling about why he was dating a string of horrible, emotionally unstable, verbally and sometimes physically abusive women. His position was that since all women are crazy, you may as well try to date the hottest one.

Which just meant that he'd tolerate unacceptable behavior from his girlfriends on the assumption that there was nothing better out there, which meant a cycle of horrible relationships that just reinforced his opinion - at the same time he seemed baffled at how I've managed a four-plus years long relationship with no major drama, screaming fights, or repeated break-ups. God, the mystery of it all!

Look, bitches be crazy, I think we all get it. But I've dated some pretty emotionally screwed up men, too, and that was no picnic. I think it's more accurate to say that some people are crazy and best avoided. I really feel for the LW - her slice of the dating pool is way narrower than most people's, which makes it that much harder - and all the baggage that still surrounds being gay must make it that much more difficult to find well-adjusted people. But I don't think having tepid, unfulfilling relationships with a guy (and what about him? Having a girlfriend whose mind is on Miss February all the time can't be fun) is the answer.

It's tough for someone of either gender and sexual orientation to find a good match - the person whose temperament compliments (and still excites) theirs. Too stable can be boring. Too crazy is a roller coaster ride.

Exactly this. And might I add, while "all's fair in love and war", life ain't fair, and that's what we've got to deal with. It's not a gender-related thing, it just is.

> His position was that since all women are crazy, you may as well try to date the hottest one.

LOL!

The truth of the matter is that there is a very high incidence of psychological disorders among lesbians. It's the one sexual orientation that people choose specifically because they are experiencing a psychological disorder. Incidents of physical abuse are also very high, estimated a 1/4 of couples. Drug abuse, institutionalization, self mutilation, depression, all very high.

So it's not appropriate to simply wave off what the LW is experiencing. She should be aware of what she's likely to encounter if she chooses to pursue lesbian relationships. Maybe she should talk to an actual lesbian who isn't going to give her the PC rendition of what lesbian life is really like.

People don't "choose" their sexual orientation.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this. Ask your assistant about it. There are plenty of heterosexual women who pursue lesbian relationships due to their inability or unwillingness to deal with men. It's a well established phenomenon in the lesbian community.

also it's a little ridiculous for you to expect me to provide cites on a blog comment section. Where are your cites?

and what's up with attacking my fucking sexuality!?!

Not one to take disagreements lightly I guess

People don't "choose" their sexual orientation.

What exactly is wrong with that statement? If I said sexual orientation was a matter of choice and that it could be cured, you'd be the first to hoe into me lesbo jill. If women decide to to go after women rather than men, it's what they prefer. They haven't chosen it as such, it's just what they want.

It's the one sexual orientation that people choose specifically because they are experiencing a psychological disorder. Incidents of physical abuse are also very high, estimated a 1/4 of couples. Drug abuse, institutionalization, self mutilation, depression, all very high.

I've got all that except I'm a heterosexual man. Any sympathy you've got free...

Relationships are fucked up because no one knows what the rules are anymore. It used to be you didn't have sex until you got married. Now you have sex, and it MIGHT mean the other person loves you or it MIGHT mean the other person just wanted an orgasm or it MIGHT mean that the other person is in to you and it could go either way.

It used to be if you had sex with a woman and ditched her, you were a cad and a roue and she had every right to be upset. Now if she's upset it means she's crazy to a lot of people.

Add to it that some social circles have casual sex between single friends, others find it reprehensible, some people have the expectation of a monogamous dating relationship after sex, others think you are crazy if you bring it up.

This is the problem.

Dating fucking sucks. I hope my husband outlives me.

I've got to agree with Lesbo Jill on the 'choose' question. I've known a few (maybe 6) college and young adult lesbians who clearly decided on lesbianism because it fit their politics at that time. (What they called feminism.) 20 years later they're married to men with children and usually a house in the burbs.

Maybe not all lesbians choose but at least some do.

At Smith they were called SLUGs... Smith Lesbian Until Graduation

These "lesbians" who choose are not really lesbians then are they? Aren't they just doing what we used to call "experimentation"....and able to do so because women's sexuality tends to be more fluid? It's one thing to only be attracted to women and another to try it out for a while -- for whatever reason.

@NicoleK

A lot of men I know think most of women are crazy.
Why? Because they expect a man to be alternatively emotionally available or cool and dry like Clint Eastwood characters --- and the man has to psych it out when the woman want the first or the second.
Ahh, good old days when women were not allowed to expect anything!

LW: If you put yourself into a box...
You are thinking conventionally.
Why one relationship only?
Why not date a guy for his rewards, and a girl for hers?
A three-way relationship might be rewarding too. Guys love sandwich jobs, and if you find another bi-female, you could have a really good thing going.
There are many reasons why polygamy is the dominant form of marriage in the history of many nations.

@Niki

Is there some reason why they're not 'real' other than that they later change their choice? In some cases, more than once.

That's a perfectly self-consistent circle.

People don't choose who they find hot. OTOH, while the gay men I know have pretty much to a man always known they were gay -- on the playground, they knew they wanted to marry Billy, not Susy, when they grew up -- with women it's been less consistent. I've known more than one woman who did, indeed, seem to have chosen relationships with women to one degree or another, because they had a history of rape or other abuse by men, or had simply despaired of trying to have a relationship of equals with a man.

I think the LW's main problem is just that she's 25. In another ten years, everyone will stop acting so crazy. Including her.

"Oh, and LW? Welcome to Man's World."

Well said flydye.

I'll also second that book, it really shows differences in the sexes. In particular the way women treat men in dating.

LW needs to set aside part of her time, dress like a man, style her hair like a man, in short, impersonate a man, then hook up with some guys to hang out with every once in a while AS a man. Once she hangs out with them enough to hear them all bitch about their SOs, who are just like the ones LW is complaining about, she will either decide to go back to dating men and wait until she finds one that really does rock her world, or else she will understand that it's just not that unusual.

@Thom

I guess I mean "real" in the sense of how you define lesbian. If it's just chicks who are currently having sex with another chick, then "lesbian" is your word. I was suggesting that if lesbian is defined as a homosexual woman, ie: one that is only attracted to women by nature, then the women that Lesbo Jill and you are talking about aren't lesbians, they're just experimenting...or perhaps bi-sexual.

In your 20's, you're bound to run into more women like this than as one gets older.

But I don't think having tepid, unfulfilling relationships with a guy (and what about him? Having a girlfriend whose mind is on Miss February all the time can't be fun) is the answer.

At least they'll have something in common...

At Smith they were called SLUGs... Smith Lesbian Until Graduation

Is that sort of like 'prison gay'?

"Oh, and LW? Welcome to Man's World.

You get to ride the emotional roller coaster, drown in the Big Red Wave Pool, have your soul examined in the Hall of Mirrors...all for a shot at a ride through the Tunnel of Love at the end of the day."

Flyde, that is the best comment on this whole thread!!!

These days, sexuality runs the gamut between black and white, and every shade of grey. However, for the most part, I would agree that many times many women "choose" to be lesbians, or fake lesbians, for however long it suits them...the list is long, but I keep thinking about that woman in Virginia who was "married" to another woman and had a turkey baster child with her. Well, lo and behold, when the relationship went south she decided she was no longer a lesbian and that the lifestyle was wrong for her child. Actually, they awarded the child to the real lesbian, and this fake whack job disappeared with the kid...last I heard down to Virgin Islands or something

Is that sort of like 'prison gay'?

...Well, there are a lot of complaints that both dorms and prisons are overcrowded these days...so maybe the parallels hold :)

Niki is correct.

Actually she's not. Nikki just disqualified about 60% of the lesbian population.

Look it's obvious that you're just going to contradict anything that I write, because I didn't agree with your advice. But you really should try talking to lesbians about these things before you go off on people. Lesbians aren't just female versions of gay men. It's not appropriate to try to analyze us under the lens that you'd apply to gay men. The fact of the matter is that female homosexuality can be very fluid. It's the ideologues who insist that we assume a label and want to force us to live that way, but it's not how people actually experience their lives.

You can call me a bigot for warning the LW about what she's getting into, but it's the truth. All I'm saying is that she should talk to some older lesbians so that she knows what to look out for. There's a good chance that the women that she's running into really are off.

@NicoleK:

Relationships are fucked up because no one knows what the rules are anymore. It used to be you didn't have sex until you got married.

Eh, it used to be you weren't supposed to have sex until you got married, and if you got knocked up you got married. But premarital sex is far, far from new. I've seen statistics as high as 1 in 3 Pilgrim brides going pregnant to the altar. Indeed, common courting practice in Colonial America was "bundling" -- putting the couple to bed together. Sometimes they had a "bundling board" between them, sometimes they simply were wrapped in separate blankets. I'm sure you can imagine how effective a barrier *that* was.

I've read, too, that the reason breach of engagement was a legal matter for so long was that it was pretty much assumed that a woman would lose her virginity once engaged, and thus her worth in the marriage market would be vastly reduced.

Our ancestors liked sex as much as we do.

The truth is on all sides that dating used to be a privilage and now it's just a bore.

Look it's obvious that you're just going to contradict anything that I write, because I didn't agree with your advice.

Ah, the lone dissenting opinion in a site full of acolytes. Glad you're here to set the rest of us straight. So to speak.

There's a good chance that the women that she's running into really are off.

Even if that's true, then it's still her problem, isn't it? She's choosing the crazy ones, they're not being forced upon her. Likely she's into that at first, until time takes its toll and behavior changes from arousing/flattering to desperately needy. What first attracts us can be what drives us away later.

She's choosing the crazy ones, they're not being forced upon her.

Likewise, many people are unethical. All people are not.

I was alone for about eight years because I wanted an ethical man in my life (who matched what I wanted in other ways -- intellectual curiosity, rationality, kindness, strength, entrepreneurial spirit, being tall, etc.).

I didn't settle for unethical men or huff that all men are unethical (which would be as silly and irrational as insisting all or most lesbians are nuts) -- I kept looking.

Likewise, this woman needs to look for women who are lesbians who are well-adjusted, rational, stable, etc. My editorial assistant is one of them (her girlfriend is another), and my sister-in-law is another. A photographer I know is another.

But, lesbo jill, you think a better answer is just bashing lesbians as all being nuts and telling the girl to have unsatisfying relationships with men she's not attracted to or interested in? What is your solution here?

P.S. Every moment you waste with an unsuitable partner is a moment you aren't spending meeting potential suitable ones.

P.S. People who don't agree with my advice are welcome here, but they tend to do better if they present sound arguments.

Off on a tangent and perhaps a silly question: How do you have a sister in law who's a lesbian when you are so proudly not married (and nothing wrong with that)? Do you mean your sister is a lesbian?

Dana, those people were engaged, and there was the expectation of marriage.

The problem is dating rules are totally messed up.

I see it with my single friends, they think they can't admit that they want to meet someone and get married so they pretend it doesn't matter to them, so of course the guys think it doesn't matter to them so don't see them as prospective brides.

"I guess I mean "real" in the sense of how you define lesbian. If it's just chicks who are currently having sex with another chick, then "lesbian" is your word. I was suggesting that if lesbian is defined as a homosexual woman, ie: one that is only attracted to women by nature, then the women that Lesbo Jill and you are talking about aren't lesbians, they're just experimenting...or perhaps bi-sexual."

Well, don't they call themselves lesbians at the time? That, to me, is what seems very confusing. If the LW is young, how can she even know the women she is dating are "real" lesbians or just experimental ones? That alone would make dating more stressful. Most of us don't have to worry that the person we're with will suddenly change sexual orientation and break our hearts.

As the mom of a 17 yr old girl, who has all sorts of friends of various persuasions, I'm seeing a lot of lesbianism. It seems over half my daughter's gfs are gay or bi. And this is still high school not college. Percentage-wise, it just doesn't make sense that most of these girls are born-this-way gay, like boys seem to be. There appears to be more choice involved for girls.

I don't care if someone is gay or straight, but I have been concerned that some of these young girls are going the gay route for the wrong reasons. Some have had bad experiences with men, either their fathers, stepdads, or boyfriends. They're young and (I suspect) still uncomfortable with males and male sexuality.

So, in lesbo Jill's defense (if she is really a lesbian and not a homophobe) she may simply be trying to address these psychological factors.

I, too, would like to know her solution. As per her suggestions, If LW sat down with some older lesbians, what would they advise? Stay straight? Avoid younger women? Get counseling? What?

As the mom of a 17 yr old girl, who has all sorts of friends of various persuasions, I'm seeing a lot of lesbianism. It seems over half my daughter's gfs are gay or bi. And this is still high school not college. Percentage-wise, it just doesn't make sense that most of these girls are born-this-way gay, like boys seem to be. There appears to be more choice involved for girls.

This is an unintentional (?) by-product of third-wave feminism which sought to give women unlimited rights and almost no responsibility.

Now that there are no consequences for women's behavior (hell, women are getting away with murder on a regular basis now) they do whatever they want when the mood strikes. I'll get flamed for this, but women (especially young women) are flighty, and creatures of emotion. Now that they've been given a free pass to explore their emotions rather than consider consequences before acting, we see rampant "sexual experimentation" and the "hot chicks with douchebags" phenomena.

In other words, the whole social reward structure that was rebelled against in the 60s was probably better than where we wound up. Maybe the squares were on to something?

Eh, it used to be you weren't supposed to have sex until you got married, and if you got knocked up you got married. But premarital sex is far, far from new.

Robert A. Heinlein maintained that back in the day, it wasn't unusual for first pregnancies to take, *ahem*, 7 months.

I, too, would like to know her solution. As per her suggestions, If LW sat down with some older lesbians, what would they advise? Stay straight? Avoid younger women? Get counseling? What?

Bitches be trippin'.

All you can do is find one that's about the same level of crazy as you without any serious violence or daddy issues and hope for the best.

And I suspect lesbians and straight men would agree with that.

Let's not bring feminism in. Yes, women have more freedom to choose, which means some will choose unwisely. But it's like blaming freedom of speech because now people can say whatever the hell they want, some of it ugly and hateful. Yet, would we be better off without it? Of course not.

Some of these girls would no doubt be dating/marrying boys if this were the 50s, but that doesn't mean their quality of life (or that of the boy) would be better. It might look better, on the surface, but not BE better than if they are free to pursue what really turns them on in ALL areas, sexually and otherwise.

ls - it's not the freedom to act that's caused the problem, it's the freedom from consequences.

Ask yourself this - would Mary Winkler have gotten 6 months for murder in 1962?

That's what I'm on about. Somehow we've managed to both elevate and infantilize women at the same time. They're precious fragile flowers that need to be protected, but they don't have any restrictions on them.

They must be either children or adults in the eyes of the law, not both. Making them both is why we now see a massive uptick in bad behavior by young women.

I think I would've found Mary Winkler innocent if I'd been on the jury in 1962. That was a very strange case of someone who had never been violent or murderous and has never been again. Based on the outcome, and the rather compelling abuse testimony, I think justice was served there. Some women ARE infantile, or almost childlike, and she is one of them. That will always garner jury and public sympathy, no matter what the era.

Casey Anthony, on the other hand, is a different sort - a scheming, lying, manipulative bitch. You watch - she will face consequences.

I just don't think the case can be made based on a few unique trials that women don't face legal consequences. Certainly, men have been aquitted - just as in the latest rape case in NYC. They went back 3 times to that drunk woman's apt, and her cervix was bruised, yet they were aquitted. The evidence just wasn't strong enough beyond a reasonable doubt. That happens in some trials, but it doesn't mean that all men are unfairly aquitted.

They're young and (I suspect) still uncomfortable with males and male sexuality - LS

With nearly thirty years of he new wave feminist mantra of "sex is bad" "even marital sex is rape" "dont trust men" "every man is a potential rapist" & "1 in 4 will be raped before the age of 20" can you blame them LS?

Let's not bring feminism in -LS

Why not? The original feminist moment was a resounding success, kinda racist if you ask me, but a success none the less. And FYI it wanst men who fucked up your orginazation.

Do you realise that just 4 yrs ago, the president of the NY chapter of NOW, in response to Ted Kennedy not giving his endorsement to Hillary in the primaries berated him an a press relaes caling his failure to endorse Clinton his ultimate betrayal of women. Aparently acctually killing one was just fine, but failing to give a meaningless gesture of open support is far, farworse.

And then in another press release went on to call all grade school boys everywhere in america gangrapists

This is now the face people see when they think about feminism, a corupt politcal activist group wll to lie cheat and steal to get what they want and to hell with the consequeces. So the sad fact is the twited charecture that remain of feminisim will always be brought upin these types of conversations, not becuase we're trying to deride it. But becuase it has insinuated itself so fully into aspects of or society that to not discuss it is to ignore a fairly large portion of the underlying problem

As the mom of a 17 yr old girl, who has all sorts of friends of various persuasions, I'm seeing a lot of lesbianism. It seems over half my daughter's gfs are gay or bi. And this is still high school not college. Percentage-wise, it just doesn't make sense that most of these girls are born-this-way gay, like boys seem to be. There appears to be more choice involved for girls.

I don't think this is so much as girls choosing their sexuality, as kids being kids. Teenage and college-age girls find that they get much more attention from guys if they make out with other girls, hence the term "bar-sexual" (girls who claim to be bi or lesbians and/or make out with other girls in public to attract male attention). I can't count the number of times I've heard girls tells guys "I'm a lesbian" or "I make out with my best friend all the time" because they're hoping the guys will say "WOW that's hot." My former best friend even pulled this on me in front of a couple of guy friends - she kept telling them (even though neither responded whenever she said it) that she used to make out with me all the time in high school, which I can assure you, we did not.

I think I would've found Mary Winkler innocent if I'd been on the jury in 1962. That was a very strange case of someone who had never been violent or murderous and has never been again. Based on the outcome, and the rather compelling abuse testimony, I think justice was served there. Some women ARE infantile, or almost childlike, and she is one of them. That will always garner jury and public sympathy, no matter what the era. -LS

A few things
1. Alot of them men in jail for murder are one time offender with no violent history
2. She spent les then seven moths in jail or shoting a guy in the back while he slept
3. I'm not sure, but I think I remeber reading tht at the time of her arrset she had a shovel and the shotgun in the back of her car.
4. no eveidence of abuse, no police reports no hospital records.
a. Unde current feminst theory(and law if they get there way) the following things qualify as abuse: yelling, criticism, not giving money or gifts on demand, asking for sex again or attempting to iniate it if she says no, refusin to have sex if she initiates it, doing anythin to hurt her feelings, uing physical force to defend yourself from an attack.
5.LAst thing, I'm sure I read that the morning she shot him was the very same day they had an appointment down at there bank where he would have discovered her involvment in a finacial scam and the thousands of dollars she had lost.

6. OK this is the last thing, asking a woman to wear shoes while you fuck her does not deserve a shotgun balst to your spine as you lay sleeping in your bed just a few yards from your children.

Well, you can connect feminism, and especially the rapid extremism that overtook the feminist movement, as a root cause. I agree. But there are so many other factors, including negative media influences and lack of positive role models.

I mean, we're dealing with young girls who have no idea who Gloria Steinem was and don't care. They know who Beyonce is, and Lindsey Lohan, and thug rappers berating women, and they know that many of their fathers weren't around, for various reasons (in jail...in Cuba...in jail in Cuba, cheated on mom or vice versa...just didn't care, etc). Interesting that the "freedom from responsibility" that feminism supposedly granted women is rarely equally applied to men. Didn't feminism unwittingly also create the same ability for men to bail out of responsibilties? Certainly, the whole social revolution removed the stigma of divorce, premarital sex, and out-of-wedlock births.

But, at any rate, I never hear any of these girls site feminism as a reason they "choose" to be gay, if that is indeed the case. The social shifts that still matter to us have no direct relevance to them. It may be a root cause for why their world is so confusing, but what good does it do to focus on that now?

I meant "rabid", not "rapid".

Jina probably has a point. Also being a 'lesbian' is going to get them all sorts of perks and special treatment. The downside is that when they get older, if they're still in the area, men aren't going to want to get serious with them. It may be cool to sleep with a Bi girl, but you don't want to commit to one.

LS you are right in complaining young women dont have rle models, but neither do men. Most famous buiness men are theives or douchebag reailty tv stars. Most famous athletes are known for bitchin that the tens of millions of dolars they make isnt enough

And while most oung women today dont know the leaders of ral feminism, or the definition of suffrage according to dozens of youtube videos, they do 'know' that they have a 1 in four chance of being raped because evnthe nices guy is a tesosterone drivin rapist in waiting.

The point is to counteract the quasi religious dogma, make it harder for that crap to infulence the media and scoiety and remove some of that confusion

Lujlp: Once again, you have intelligent things to say but I always have trouble reading your posts because of your spelling and sentence structure errors. It detracts from your points.

Lujlp: Once again, you have intelligent things to say but I always have trouble reading your posts because of your spelling and sentence structure errors. It detracts from your points.

Then come up with a cure for dyslexia.

It seems over half my daughter's gfs are gay or bi. . . . Percentage-wise, it just doesn't make sense that most of these girls are born-this-way gay, like boys seem to be. There appears to be more choice involved for girls.

I'm convinced that sex is an inborn need for males, but something that females learn to want and enjoy. Sexual identity is part of this.

I'll get flamed for this, but women (especially young women) are flighty, and creatures of emotion.

All young people (male and female) are flighty and creatures of emotion. Some of the guys I dated in my early 20s I found to be drama queens, manipulative criers and jealous as all get-out.

Given the age of the LW, I suspect that's her problem. People in general in their early 20s still kind of suck at life and relationships. Learn to recognize the red flags, and learn how not to let history repeat itself. Be more awesome yourself and don't settle for less in a partner.

Gee, 25 is still considered young?

I can remember when girls got married, with parental consent, at age 15. You didn't need mom's okay when you were 16.

Losers went to college, hoping not to become "old maids" of 20 or 22.

All through rural America, getting married in or right out of high school was the norm, through the 1960s.

We have infantalized our youth. The age of consent used to be 12 in Canada, until recently. Now, we say teenagers cannot handle sex. When they used to have not only sex, but kids.

A nation of wussies.

Me: Lujlp: Once again, you have intelligent things to say but I always have trouble reading your posts because of your spelling and sentence structure errors. It detracts from your points.

Amy: Luj is dyslexic, but always highly rational and makes great points. In time, you barely notice the, uh, creative spellings. He's always worth reading.

My apologies. I didn't realize that. I still find it distracting, but I won't hold him responsible. (I always thought Lujlp was a female...I am REALLY out of the loop, here!)

Lujlp: Once again, you have intelligent things to say but I always have trouble reading your posts because of your spelling and sentence structure errors. It detracts from your points.

Posted by: Just sayin'

You aught to see what it looks like before I proof read it a few times before I post

Don't they call themselves lesbians at the time?
On the commentary referring to "choosing" to be a lesbian (i.e., for a limited period prior to having a "change" of mind): To be a lesbian is not necessarily the same as *identifying* as a lesbian.
If the LW is young, how can she even know the women she is dating are "real" lesbians or just experimental ones?
Exactly - an excellent point. While I don't fully agree with the generality that all young people are incapable of being self-aware and making sound decisions or identifications, the LW's age group greatly increases her exposure within the dating pool to potential partners who haven't been fully enough experienced within their identification to know what it actually means to them.
I agree with Tom and Gina that "lesbian chic" may be a contributing factor in the phenomenon of women increasingly identifying or behaving as gay or bisexual in a particular situation or, so to speak, as a phase.
As to my opinion on the LW's original question, I concur with Amy's advice.
LW: Dating either gender is liable to make you crazy to some extent. IMO you may as well stick with the one that makes you feel alive and hope that you can find someone within it that makes you crazy in more of the good ways than the wanting-to-pull-your-hair-out way.

"You aught to see what it looks like before I proof read it a few times before I post"

Those words with the red squiggly line under them? Those are the ones that are misspelled. Right click and select the word you were after.

I guess it's me that's "just saying".

I think Luj probably posts like I do, in this little box at the end of the thread, which doesn't have spellcheck, as far as I know (if it does, please let us know how to turn it on).

It depends on your browser.

Mine doesn't have spell check.

I'm very late to this discussion, but I wanted to point our that identity and/or sexuality can be very fluid for young women, independent of irrational fear of men or the desire to seem "sexier" to them. When I was in my late teens, I was involved with a mostly privileged group of 14-20 year-olds. We were all very arty and socially responsible. Years later, and almost none of the girls (including me) are still "gay." I didn't stay in touch with any of the boys, who I am pretty sure were just there to hook up with hot bi chicks.

I think most of us weren't trying to get extra attention or commit to political ideologies - I sure wasn't. I knew that I was a different sort of person, and at that age, with such limited personal experience, it can be hard to understand why. I knew I found women attractive and hard a hard time relating to boys my own age, and so the idea that I was gay seemed reasonable. And, after committing to an identity, it can take a long time to admit that it doesn't really fit - although I still do have the occasional crush on another women. (I'm probably nowhere near either extreme of the Kinsey Scale.)

I still think my youthful compatriots and I did a lot of good, whether or not we understood ourselves. We published a zine that I know helped a lot of other kids (especially those who had been kicked out by their families for being "different") to not be ashamed of themselves, and we went to speaking engagements at schools to help "normal" kids understand that it isn't okay to discriminate against people you don't understand. I was about the least privileged kid you could imagine back then, but those days helped me also, to realize that I could help other people and be taken seriously for my work instead of my family pedigree.

Oh, and for all you feminism bashers out there? It isn't changing gender expectations that is the problem (though now in my mid-30's I still find them as difficult to negotiate as anyone else) - it's the crazy entitlement expectations that the positive reinforcement movement in child-rearing and education has wrought. Seriously, has anyone seen those Dove "this is what it's like to be a girl" ads? Those aren't feminist. They are scary and obnoxious, but teaching any demographic that they have a right to live in fantasy land and everyone else needs to accommodate them or be labelled as abusive... well, it's not my definition of feminism, I can tell you that. But I guess it sells a lot of body wash.

Disclaimer here to note that I found women's studies majors and gender theory majors as obnoxious as everyone else in college.

Personally I can't believe they let her off, but then again I had Nancy Grace explain the motive to me...

I must say that the best part of this trial being over is that Nancy Grace will slowly move out of the spotlight for at least a short period of time.