![]()
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same
time will that it should become a universal law without
contradiction".
Ladies, Immanuel Kant, potentially the most prolific philosopher
that ever lived. What's he talking about? Well, he reckoned we need
moral rules to guide our actions, that way we act out of duty
rather than inclination. The thought here is, before you endorse
any kind of moral behaviour, ask yourself, could, and would you
want, everyone to do the same?
Here's a likely candidate for such a rule 'Do not discriminate
or perpetuate hatred on the basis of sexuality'. Sounds like our
kinda thing right? And it would pass the universal law litmus test
too, it's both desirable and practical. Yet there's a problem
because if this is a moral law that we all live under, and we're
prescribing it to other people, we sure as hell better comply
ourselves.
But some of us don't. Specifically some lesbians treat
bisexuality as inferior and reprehensible, as though it doesn't
deserve the same respect and recognition as we have demanded for
ourselves. Surely as another niche sexuality lesbians should be
more understanding, not blazing a trail of hatred? Sexuality is a
private and complex phenomena, it unfolds before us, not in
accordance with our will. Or at least that's the line the gay
community have been pedaling, but maybe it's do as I say, not as I
do.
Refusing to date a bisexual girl is a fairly common stance in
the lesbian community, which seems to be based in the idea that
because of the anatomical differences between men and women the
relationship would be somewhat more susceptible to infidelity.
Relationships break up for many reasons, but rarely does a
hankering for different genitalia tear us apart.
To go into why we shouldn't be sceptical about the validity of
relationships with girls who like boys too is to miss the point
entirely. This is about respect and basic regard for other people's
human rights. We were all rightly outraged with the recent events
in Uganda, and why? Because we think that the right to not be
interfered with on the basis of sexuality is universal. Someone
else's sexuality, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, is their
business; we shouldn't legislate against it and nor should we act
in a way that obstructs it. If someone identifies as bisexual it's
not for anyone to probe further or make accusations of promiscuity,
indecision or most bizarrely 'greediness'.
Which brings me on to 'gold star lesbians'. In case you're not
familiar, this is an accolade that some lesbians have awarded
themselves on account of never having slept with a man. That is, to
gain some sense of acclaim from what is essentially a lack of an
experience. Pathetic, right? I don't like tequila but I don't get
off on thinking of myself as a gold star non-tequila
drinker.
I'm not advocating sleeping with men if you don't want to; I'm
not into it so I don't. But whilst there's nothing regrettable
about that there's nothing admirable about it either. To advocate
abstinence in abstraction from the inclinations of any particular
individual is actually incredibly nihilistic. And do bear in mind
that for those women who didn't have the inclination, and were
somehow coerced into it by way of social conformity or perhaps
something more sinister, GSL's your misguided elitism could be
compounding a nasty memory.
So if you are a lesbian who bandies round disparaging comments
about bisexual women or has decided that dating a bisexual lady is
off limits, think about what you're actually doing. We can all be
sceptical about figures in pop-culture who unconvincingly doff
their cap to bisexuality but if it is a dull marketing ploy rather
than a genuine expression, they are the Achilles heel of
bisexuality, not the embodiment of it.
What I'm saying is, let's be reasonable and consistent. Most
importantly, be a Kant about it.
