clovenhooves The Personal Is Political Women's Rights Female Separatism What South Korea’s ‘Queen of 4B’ Wants Americans to Know

What South Korea’s ‘Queen of 4B’ Wants Americans to Know

What South Korea’s ‘Queen of 4B’ Wants Americans to Know

 Print Thread
 
Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3 Next
Elsacat
Find
222
Mar 23 2025, 9:37 AM
#11
They don't. What I wrote is in reference to those who want, or have, partners. Those who want to go it alone should never feel pressed to do otherwise.
Reply
Reply
Elsacat
Mar 23 2025, 9:37 AM #11

They don't. What I wrote is in reference to those who want, or have, partners. Those who want to go it alone should never feel pressed to do otherwise.

Reply
Reply
VerdantHorizon
Find
25
Mar 23 2025, 9:41 AM
#12
@Fortherecord: Yes, agreed. I'm a straight woman who's lived with romantic partners, and I also have a few very close female platonic friends that I get along with very well. All the BS of living with a man as a woman aside, living with my friends isn't the same as living with a romantic partner. You can't just take sex/romance out of the relationship and say the dynamic is as satisfying.

I think sometimes some unexamined assumption that people, even feminists, sometimes have that a woman is happiest with a partner, and if she's not choosing a male partner, then obviously she'll just choose a woman instead. It's not like straight women have sex drives anyway, so they're probably happiest being celibate with their BFFs forever /s

Honestly, I'm content living alone, and even if I started dating again I think I'd struggle to share my living space with a man... and I'd definitely *rather* be alone than live with a platonic life partner. No matter how much I love my friends, it's not the same thing. That said, I've often daydreamed of some kind of female-only commune in a row of townhouses or (in really excessive fantasies) buying a bunch of land and putting separate-but-close-by small houses in it, and then having the benefits of a supportive community of neighbors as we age together, without having to actually share a kitchen or a bathroom with anyone 😂

edit: I was typing this comment as @Elsacat posted, and it's not directed specifically at her comment. It's more the sentiment that seems to come up so often.
Edited Mar 23 2025, 9:43 AM by VerdantHorizon. Edit Reason: clarification after awkward comment timing lol
Reply
Reply
VerdantHorizon
Mar 23 2025, 9:41 AM #12

@Fortherecord: Yes, agreed. I'm a straight woman who's lived with romantic partners, and I also have a few very close female platonic friends that I get along with very well. All the BS of living with a man as a woman aside, living with my friends isn't the same as living with a romantic partner. You can't just take sex/romance out of the relationship and say the dynamic is as satisfying.

I think sometimes some unexamined assumption that people, even feminists, sometimes have that a woman is happiest with a partner, and if she's not choosing a male partner, then obviously she'll just choose a woman instead. It's not like straight women have sex drives anyway, so they're probably happiest being celibate with their BFFs forever /s

Honestly, I'm content living alone, and even if I started dating again I think I'd struggle to share my living space with a man... and I'd definitely *rather* be alone than live with a platonic life partner. No matter how much I love my friends, it's not the same thing. That said, I've often daydreamed of some kind of female-only commune in a row of townhouses or (in really excessive fantasies) buying a bunch of land and putting separate-but-close-by small houses in it, and then having the benefits of a supportive community of neighbors as we age together, without having to actually share a kitchen or a bathroom with anyone 😂

edit: I was typing this comment as @Elsacat posted, and it's not directed specifically at her comment. It's more the sentiment that seems to come up so often.

Reply
Reply
Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
Find
719
Mar 23 2025, 11:11 AM
#13
(Mar 23 2025, 9:41 AM)VerdantHorizon That said, I've often daydreamed of some kind of female-only commune in a row of townhouses or (in really excessive fantasies) buying a bunch of land and putting separate-but-close-by small houses in it, and then having the benefits of a supportive community of neighbors as we age together, without having to actually share a kitchen or a bathroom with anyone 😂

I remember reading somewhere, maybe on Ovarit, that this is something some groups of elder women (usually widowed at that point) do — they downsize their home and buy condos/townhomes near each other so they can have their community and support together. I thought it was a nice idea.

Too bad increasing housing unaffordability and lack of new housing supply makes it near impossible for younger women to try and do a similar thing. 🥲
Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐
Reply
Reply
Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
Mar 23 2025, 11:11 AM #13

(Mar 23 2025, 9:41 AM)VerdantHorizon That said, I've often daydreamed of some kind of female-only commune in a row of townhouses or (in really excessive fantasies) buying a bunch of land and putting separate-but-close-by small houses in it, and then having the benefits of a supportive community of neighbors as we age together, without having to actually share a kitchen or a bathroom with anyone 😂

I remember reading somewhere, maybe on Ovarit, that this is something some groups of elder women (usually widowed at that point) do — they downsize their home and buy condos/townhomes near each other so they can have their community and support together. I thought it was a nice idea.

Too bad increasing housing unaffordability and lack of new housing supply makes it near impossible for younger women to try and do a similar thing. 🥲

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Reply
Reply
Possum
angry lesbian 🌈
Find
86
Mar 23 2025, 11:26 AM
#14
There's a population of women that I've noticed as a lesbian who want a deep sisterly bond with a woman but have 0 romantic/sexual feelings for women and are often disgusted by the idea that lesbian/bi couples are typically physically attracted to women, typically kiss women, and even typically (gasp!) have sex with women. They seem to want something like a "chosen sister", like others have said there's a difference between a female roommate and a live-in romantic partner and I think these "political lesbian" women want something different from those two types of relationships. I think they want "political sisterhood", not romantic but also not necessarily the same as a typical friendship.

I think they want a familial relationship with a woman, it's more than just "platonic female roommate" because they seem to want a level of commitment and emotional intimacy that's beyond typical friendship. Like an adult version of the very committed and emotionally intimate friendships girls sometimes have, where your platonic BFF is your EVERYTHING and you want to live together forever and buy a house together and grow old together. I wouldn't buy a house with a typical friend but I would buy a house with my sister, donate a kidney to my sister, love her kids and treat them as part of my family, become a caregiver if she was seriously ill or disabled, etc (we're pretty close, obviously not all bio sisters have that relationship). My relationship with my sister is different than a typical friend (even a close friend), but also very different from my romantic relationships with women. Sisterhood, friendship, and romantic partnerships are three distinct types of relationships.

Not all straight feminists would want "political sisterhood" (as you can see from responses in this thread) and straight women shouldn't be pressured to follow "political sisterhood" to be a "real" radfem. But I do think women who desire "political sisterhood" exist. Since these women exist and are often drawn toward feminist and women's spaces I would just like them to start calling what they want "political sisterhood" or "chosen sisterhood" instead of conflating it with lesbianism (or bisexuality. can't speak for bi women but I'm pretty sure they don't view their wives/girlfriends as platonic sisters lol.).

I'm kind of rambling now and I don't really know what point I'm trying to make lol. Just an observation I guess that there seems to be a population of women who are drawn toward feminism and specifically the word "lesbian" when in reality they want something like "chosen sisterhood", a platonic commitment deeper than a typical friendship but not romantic or sexual. They have an interesting perspective but imo it's lesbophobic for them to call it "political lesbianism". And as others have said, insensitive to straight women to treat "political sisterhood" as a direct replacement for romantic relationships.

Also not trying to speak for/about all women who are "political lesbians", just my own observations on it.
Reply
Reply
Possum
angry lesbian 🌈
Mar 23 2025, 11:26 AM #14

There's a population of women that I've noticed as a lesbian who want a deep sisterly bond with a woman but have 0 romantic/sexual feelings for women and are often disgusted by the idea that lesbian/bi couples are typically physically attracted to women, typically kiss women, and even typically (gasp!) have sex with women. They seem to want something like a "chosen sister", like others have said there's a difference between a female roommate and a live-in romantic partner and I think these "political lesbian" women want something different from those two types of relationships. I think they want "political sisterhood", not romantic but also not necessarily the same as a typical friendship.

I think they want a familial relationship with a woman, it's more than just "platonic female roommate" because they seem to want a level of commitment and emotional intimacy that's beyond typical friendship. Like an adult version of the very committed and emotionally intimate friendships girls sometimes have, where your platonic BFF is your EVERYTHING and you want to live together forever and buy a house together and grow old together. I wouldn't buy a house with a typical friend but I would buy a house with my sister, donate a kidney to my sister, love her kids and treat them as part of my family, become a caregiver if she was seriously ill or disabled, etc (we're pretty close, obviously not all bio sisters have that relationship). My relationship with my sister is different than a typical friend (even a close friend), but also very different from my romantic relationships with women. Sisterhood, friendship, and romantic partnerships are three distinct types of relationships.

Not all straight feminists would want "political sisterhood" (as you can see from responses in this thread) and straight women shouldn't be pressured to follow "political sisterhood" to be a "real" radfem. But I do think women who desire "political sisterhood" exist. Since these women exist and are often drawn toward feminist and women's spaces I would just like them to start calling what they want "political sisterhood" or "chosen sisterhood" instead of conflating it with lesbianism (or bisexuality. can't speak for bi women but I'm pretty sure they don't view their wives/girlfriends as platonic sisters lol.).

I'm kind of rambling now and I don't really know what point I'm trying to make lol. Just an observation I guess that there seems to be a population of women who are drawn toward feminism and specifically the word "lesbian" when in reality they want something like "chosen sisterhood", a platonic commitment deeper than a typical friendship but not romantic or sexual. They have an interesting perspective but imo it's lesbophobic for them to call it "political lesbianism". And as others have said, insensitive to straight women to treat "political sisterhood" as a direct replacement for romantic relationships.

Also not trying to speak for/about all women who are "political lesbians", just my own observations on it.

Reply
Reply
komorebi
“I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own.” – Audre Lorde
Find
316
Mar 23 2025, 11:58 AM
#15
Before I add my note, just gonna reiterate that women of any sexuality aren't obliged to partner up with anyone, and the expectation that they do or always want to is sexist. Also +1 to women building communes. Honestly, life would be so much better if things were structured around matriarchal communes xd

(Mar 23 2025, 9:41 AM)VerdantHorizon @Fortherecord: Yes, agreed. I'm a straight woman who's lived with romantic partners, and I also have a few very close female platonic friends that I get along with very well. All the BS of living with a man as a woman aside, living with my friends isn't the same as living with a romantic partner. You can't just take sex/romance out of the relationship and say the dynamic is as satisfying.

I think sometimes some unexamined assumption that people, even feminists, sometimes have that a woman is happiest with a partner, and if she's not choosing a male partner, then obviously she'll just choose a woman instead. It's not like straight women have sex drives anyway, so they're probably happiest being celibate with their BFFs forever /s

Honestly, I'm content living alone, and even if I started dating again I think I'd struggle to share my living space with a man... and I'd definitely *rather* be alone than live with a platonic life partner. No matter how much I love my friends, it's not the same thing.

Going to leave a slight counterpoint here. Not even disagreement; just a different point of view that comes from different life experiences. I have a male romantic partner that I care for very much. But, for example, if either of us became disabled and unable to have sex anymore, I don't these changes would mean we were no longer in a romantic relationship. Just speaking personally, sex is less important to me than the bond I've created with another person, and I don't think of it in terms of the dynamic become "more" or "less" satisfying. In the same vein, if I were to lose my partner, I think I'd be perfectly happy living with my bestie as a platonic life partner. But then again, perhaps I'm just odd that way. 😅 (I am also bisexual, so maybe that influences my outlook in...some way...?)
Reply
Reply
komorebi
“I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own.” – Audre Lorde
Mar 23 2025, 11:58 AM #15

Before I add my note, just gonna reiterate that women of any sexuality aren't obliged to partner up with anyone, and the expectation that they do or always want to is sexist. Also +1 to women building communes. Honestly, life would be so much better if things were structured around matriarchal communes xd

(Mar 23 2025, 9:41 AM)VerdantHorizon @Fortherecord: Yes, agreed. I'm a straight woman who's lived with romantic partners, and I also have a few very close female platonic friends that I get along with very well. All the BS of living with a man as a woman aside, living with my friends isn't the same as living with a romantic partner. You can't just take sex/romance out of the relationship and say the dynamic is as satisfying.

I think sometimes some unexamined assumption that people, even feminists, sometimes have that a woman is happiest with a partner, and if she's not choosing a male partner, then obviously she'll just choose a woman instead. It's not like straight women have sex drives anyway, so they're probably happiest being celibate with their BFFs forever /s

Honestly, I'm content living alone, and even if I started dating again I think I'd struggle to share my living space with a man... and I'd definitely *rather* be alone than live with a platonic life partner. No matter how much I love my friends, it's not the same thing.

Going to leave a slight counterpoint here. Not even disagreement; just a different point of view that comes from different life experiences. I have a male romantic partner that I care for very much. But, for example, if either of us became disabled and unable to have sex anymore, I don't these changes would mean we were no longer in a romantic relationship. Just speaking personally, sex is less important to me than the bond I've created with another person, and I don't think of it in terms of the dynamic become "more" or "less" satisfying. In the same vein, if I were to lose my partner, I think I'd be perfectly happy living with my bestie as a platonic life partner. But then again, perhaps I'm just odd that way. 😅 (I am also bisexual, so maybe that influences my outlook in...some way...?)

Reply
Reply
Fortherecord
Find
21
Mar 23 2025, 1:51 PM
#16
(Mar 23 2025, 9:41 AM)VerdantHorizon @Fortherecord: Yes, agreed. I'm a straight woman who's lived with romantic partners, and I also have a few very close female platonic friends that I get along with very well. All the BS of living with a man as a woman aside, living with my friends isn't the same as living with a romantic partner. You can't just take sex/romance out of the relationship and say the dynamic is as satisfying.

I think sometimes some unexamined assumption that people, even feminists, sometimes have that a woman is happiest with a partner, and if she's not choosing a male partner, then obviously she'll just choose a woman instead. It's not like straight women have sex drives anyway, so they're probably happiest being celibate with their BFFs forever /s

Honestly, I'm content living alone, and even if I started dating again I think I'd struggle to share my living space with a man... and I'd definitely *rather* be alone than live with a platonic life partner. No matter how much I love my friends, it's not the same thing. That said, I've often daydreamed of some kind of female-only commune in a row of townhouses or (in really excessive fantasies) buying a bunch of land and putting separate-but-close-by small houses in it, and then having the benefits of a supportive community of neighbors as we age together, without having to actually share a kitchen or a bathroom with anyone 😂

edit: I was typing this comment as @Elsacat posted, and it's not directed specifically at her comment. It's more the sentiment that seems to come up so often.

A lot of times, asexual women/bisexual women/lesbians will flippantly promote heterosexual women having "female platonic life partners". It is tone deaf. Because they are already attracted to women (lesbian and bisexual women, some asexual women are non sexually attracted to women) to them female friendship and romance is close enough and is emotionally satisfying. 

There is also the weirdness where some lesbians are armament that heterosexual women don't orgasm with men or that sex with men is not satisfying so they don't' see how offensive this platonic wife stuff is.  Many flippantly don't see relationships with men as a legit thing(while simultaneously complaining about people dismissing their romances). 

They don't know how it is to feel NO attraction to women whatsoever. More so how it feels to be viscerally sexually/romantically/emotionally repulsed by women.  There is a lot of weird discourse that female friendship is this transformative/roller coaster/"emotionally intense" thing. And I was so confused until I realized most of the radical feminist saying this were not heterosexual. Female friendship is good, but the constant projection by non-heterosexual women is beyond weird and suspect.

Either way, I am tired of heterosexual lives being theorized with. Let heterosexual women who choose to be single decide. Stop sitting up and theorizing on our living arrangements and who we will choose as life partners. The OP for this thread claims to be heterosexual, but 9/10 these topics are started by bisexual or lesbians-- and they simply don't have a right to participate or moderate these conversations.  

I feel some radical feminist think their theories are not valid unless they can determine that celibacy and a lack of romance is not this perfect thing and that female friendship is NOT a valid/real replacement for male romantic companionship. Whether a heterosexual woman can be happy without romance with men is irrelevant. It is NOT the same. Women are not replacements for men.
Reply
Reply
Fortherecord
Mar 23 2025, 1:51 PM #16

(Mar 23 2025, 9:41 AM)VerdantHorizon @Fortherecord: Yes, agreed. I'm a straight woman who's lived with romantic partners, and I also have a few very close female platonic friends that I get along with very well. All the BS of living with a man as a woman aside, living with my friends isn't the same as living with a romantic partner. You can't just take sex/romance out of the relationship and say the dynamic is as satisfying.

I think sometimes some unexamined assumption that people, even feminists, sometimes have that a woman is happiest with a partner, and if she's not choosing a male partner, then obviously she'll just choose a woman instead. It's not like straight women have sex drives anyway, so they're probably happiest being celibate with their BFFs forever /s

Honestly, I'm content living alone, and even if I started dating again I think I'd struggle to share my living space with a man... and I'd definitely *rather* be alone than live with a platonic life partner. No matter how much I love my friends, it's not the same thing. That said, I've often daydreamed of some kind of female-only commune in a row of townhouses or (in really excessive fantasies) buying a bunch of land and putting separate-but-close-by small houses in it, and then having the benefits of a supportive community of neighbors as we age together, without having to actually share a kitchen or a bathroom with anyone 😂

edit: I was typing this comment as @Elsacat posted, and it's not directed specifically at her comment. It's more the sentiment that seems to come up so often.

A lot of times, asexual women/bisexual women/lesbians will flippantly promote heterosexual women having "female platonic life partners". It is tone deaf. Because they are already attracted to women (lesbian and bisexual women, some asexual women are non sexually attracted to women) to them female friendship and romance is close enough and is emotionally satisfying. 

There is also the weirdness where some lesbians are armament that heterosexual women don't orgasm with men or that sex with men is not satisfying so they don't' see how offensive this platonic wife stuff is.  Many flippantly don't see relationships with men as a legit thing(while simultaneously complaining about people dismissing their romances). 

They don't know how it is to feel NO attraction to women whatsoever. More so how it feels to be viscerally sexually/romantically/emotionally repulsed by women.  There is a lot of weird discourse that female friendship is this transformative/roller coaster/"emotionally intense" thing. And I was so confused until I realized most of the radical feminist saying this were not heterosexual. Female friendship is good, but the constant projection by non-heterosexual women is beyond weird and suspect.

Either way, I am tired of heterosexual lives being theorized with. Let heterosexual women who choose to be single decide. Stop sitting up and theorizing on our living arrangements and who we will choose as life partners. The OP for this thread claims to be heterosexual, but 9/10 these topics are started by bisexual or lesbians-- and they simply don't have a right to participate or moderate these conversations.  

I feel some radical feminist think their theories are not valid unless they can determine that celibacy and a lack of romance is not this perfect thing and that female friendship is NOT a valid/real replacement for male romantic companionship. Whether a heterosexual woman can be happy without romance with men is irrelevant. It is NOT the same. Women are not replacements for men.

Reply
Reply
VerdantHorizon
Find
25
Mar 23 2025, 2:04 PM
#17
(Mar 23 2025, 11:58 AM)komorebi Going to leave a slight counterpoint here. Not even disagreement; just a different point of view that comes from different life experiences. I have a male romantic partner that I care for very much. But, for example, if either of us became disabled and unable to have sex anymore, I don't these changes would mean we were no longer in a romantic relationship. Just speaking personally, sex is less important to me than the bond I've created with another person, and I don't think of it in terms of the dynamic become "more" or "less" satisfying. In the same vein, if I were to lose my partner, I think I'd be perfectly happy living with my bestie as a platonic life partner. But then again, perhaps I'm just odd that way. 😅 (I am also bisexual, so maybe that influences my outlook in...some way...?)

I don't think I expressed myself very well in that comment :\ I don't disagree with you at all! A romantic relationship is still romantic without sex, but (ime) a sexless romantic relationship is still different than a sexless platonic relationship, even if one feels strong love for their sister or bestie.

If something happened to your partner and you did end up platonically living with your bestie, would that living situation feel different than the one you're in now with your romantic partner? Even if you found it equally enjoyable, and I don't mean worse-different, just not interchangeable.

At least in my experience, it would! That's all I meant. (edit: And if you feel differently, then we are different people and I'm not trying to invalidate you, just to express my perspective!) I love my close female friends and sisters, but sororal love and platonic love and romantic love don't feel the same to me, and if I desperately wanted romantic love I would not be satisfied with having a really tight BFF instead, or if I wanted to live with a husband I wouldn't be satisfied living with my sisters instead. So it's off-putting when people (not that it was said in this thread, but sometimes in feminist spaces) suggest that straight women should just partner up with other women if they're romantic-lonely, as if the relationships are interchangeable and anyone will do.
Edited Mar 23 2025, 2:09 PM by VerdantHorizon. Edit Reason: minor social anxiety making me reword this!
Reply
Reply
VerdantHorizon
Mar 23 2025, 2:04 PM #17

(Mar 23 2025, 11:58 AM)komorebi Going to leave a slight counterpoint here. Not even disagreement; just a different point of view that comes from different life experiences. I have a male romantic partner that I care for very much. But, for example, if either of us became disabled and unable to have sex anymore, I don't these changes would mean we were no longer in a romantic relationship. Just speaking personally, sex is less important to me than the bond I've created with another person, and I don't think of it in terms of the dynamic become "more" or "less" satisfying. In the same vein, if I were to lose my partner, I think I'd be perfectly happy living with my bestie as a platonic life partner. But then again, perhaps I'm just odd that way. 😅 (I am also bisexual, so maybe that influences my outlook in...some way...?)

I don't think I expressed myself very well in that comment :\ I don't disagree with you at all! A romantic relationship is still romantic without sex, but (ime) a sexless romantic relationship is still different than a sexless platonic relationship, even if one feels strong love for their sister or bestie.

If something happened to your partner and you did end up platonically living with your bestie, would that living situation feel different than the one you're in now with your romantic partner? Even if you found it equally enjoyable, and I don't mean worse-different, just not interchangeable.

At least in my experience, it would! That's all I meant. (edit: And if you feel differently, then we are different people and I'm not trying to invalidate you, just to express my perspective!) I love my close female friends and sisters, but sororal love and platonic love and romantic love don't feel the same to me, and if I desperately wanted romantic love I would not be satisfied with having a really tight BFF instead, or if I wanted to live with a husband I wouldn't be satisfied living with my sisters instead. So it's off-putting when people (not that it was said in this thread, but sometimes in feminist spaces) suggest that straight women should just partner up with other women if they're romantic-lonely, as if the relationships are interchangeable and anyone will do.

Reply
Reply
Fortherecord
Find
21
Mar 23 2025, 2:05 PM
#18
(Mar 23 2025, 11:58 AM)komorebi Before I add my note, just gonna reiterate that women of any sexuality aren't obliged to partner up with anyone, and the expectation that they do or always want to is sexist. Also +1 to women building communes. Honestly, life would be so much better if things were structured around matriarchal communes xd

(Mar 23 2025, 9:41 AM)VerdantHorizon @Fortherecord: Yes, agreed. I'm a straight woman who's lived with romantic partners, and I also have a few very close female platonic friends that I get along with very well. All the BS of living with a man as a woman aside, living with my friends isn't the same as living with a romantic partner. You can't just take sex/romance out of the relationship and say the dynamic is as satisfying.

I think sometimes some unexamined assumption that people, even feminists, sometimes have that a woman is happiest with a partner, and if she's not choosing a male partner, then obviously she'll just choose a woman instead. It's not like straight women have sex drives anyway, so they're probably happiest being celibate with their BFFs forever /s

Honestly, I'm content living alone, and even if I started dating again I think I'd struggle to share my living space with a man... and I'd definitely *rather* be alone than live with a platonic life partner. No matter how much I love my friends, it's not the same thing.

Going to leave a slight counterpoint here. Not even disagreement; just a different point of view that comes from different life experiences. I have a male romantic partner that I care for very much. But, for example, if either of us became disabled and unable to have sex anymore, I don't these changes would mean we were no longer in a romantic relationship. Just speaking personally, sex is less important to me than the bond I've created with another person, and I don't think of it in terms of the dynamic become "more" or "less" satisfying. In the same vein, if I were to lose my partner, I think I'd be perfectly happy living with my bestie as a platonic life partner. But then again, perhaps I'm just odd that way. 😅 (I am also bisexual, so maybe that influences my outlook in...some way...?)

A sexless romantic relationship with a man is NOT the same as a platonic life partnership with women as a HETERO-sexual woman. There is no deep romantic or visceral feelings heterosexual women have towards women whatsoever regardless of how wonderful the friendship is. With a man a sexless relationship could still be satisfying because we have underlying emotional feelings. 

You being bisexual proves the point I have been making. There is a mental block by non-heterosexual women on this topic. Yes you being bisexual causes a lack of understanding.
Reply
Reply
Fortherecord
Mar 23 2025, 2:05 PM #18

(Mar 23 2025, 11:58 AM)komorebi Before I add my note, just gonna reiterate that women of any sexuality aren't obliged to partner up with anyone, and the expectation that they do or always want to is sexist. Also +1 to women building communes. Honestly, life would be so much better if things were structured around matriarchal communes xd

(Mar 23 2025, 9:41 AM)VerdantHorizon @Fortherecord: Yes, agreed. I'm a straight woman who's lived with romantic partners, and I also have a few very close female platonic friends that I get along with very well. All the BS of living with a man as a woman aside, living with my friends isn't the same as living with a romantic partner. You can't just take sex/romance out of the relationship and say the dynamic is as satisfying.

I think sometimes some unexamined assumption that people, even feminists, sometimes have that a woman is happiest with a partner, and if she's not choosing a male partner, then obviously she'll just choose a woman instead. It's not like straight women have sex drives anyway, so they're probably happiest being celibate with their BFFs forever /s

Honestly, I'm content living alone, and even if I started dating again I think I'd struggle to share my living space with a man... and I'd definitely *rather* be alone than live with a platonic life partner. No matter how much I love my friends, it's not the same thing.

Going to leave a slight counterpoint here. Not even disagreement; just a different point of view that comes from different life experiences. I have a male romantic partner that I care for very much. But, for example, if either of us became disabled and unable to have sex anymore, I don't these changes would mean we were no longer in a romantic relationship. Just speaking personally, sex is less important to me than the bond I've created with another person, and I don't think of it in terms of the dynamic become "more" or "less" satisfying. In the same vein, if I were to lose my partner, I think I'd be perfectly happy living with my bestie as a platonic life partner. But then again, perhaps I'm just odd that way. 😅 (I am also bisexual, so maybe that influences my outlook in...some way...?)

A sexless romantic relationship with a man is NOT the same as a platonic life partnership with women as a HETERO-sexual woman. There is no deep romantic or visceral feelings heterosexual women have towards women whatsoever regardless of how wonderful the friendship is. With a man a sexless relationship could still be satisfying because we have underlying emotional feelings. 

You being bisexual proves the point I have been making. There is a mental block by non-heterosexual women on this topic. Yes you being bisexual causes a lack of understanding.

Reply
Reply
Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
Find
719
Mar 23 2025, 3:06 PM
#19
Fortherecord As a heterosexual woman it is not appealing at all. You would never tell a lesbian to have a platonic life partnership with a gay male. The fact it doesn't involve romance and sex doesn't make it less tone deaf and dismissive.
Why would anyone ask for that to be done? 4B is done in the context of [straight] women choosing to not seek out partnerships with the oppressor class, to make a political statement, for safety, etc. Lesbian women are oppressed on the axes of being female and being homosexual. What benefit would there be for someone to tell a lesbian woman to have a platonic life partnership with a gay male? There is no good reason for this, besides things like economic hardships in unjust systems, like Dworkin marrying a gay man to get healthcare coverage iirc. For female separatism and 4B-type movements, the reason is to make a stance against the oppressor class.

I think anyone "telling" straight women to go have platonic life partnerships with other women seems like the 2nd wave "political lesbianism" type of activism. Which I think differs from the modern 4B. Just because 4B means no sex/relationships with men, it doesn't mean straight women need to go make themselves fill the void of a romantic relationship with a male with a platonic female relationship. The point of 4B should be for women to center themselves in their own lives and stop providing the copious amounts of free labor, emotional/mental/sexual/physical, that they give to men.

Fortherecord Stop sitting up and theorizing on our living arrangements and who we will choose as life partners. The OP for this thread claims to be heterosexual, but 9/10 these topics are started by bisexual or lesbians-- and they simply don't have a right to participate or moderate these conversations.
I'm not sure what "these conversations" mean, but bisexual and lesbian women are welcome to participate in discussions regarding 4B and female separatism. Anyone can "theorize" on anyone's living arrangements. The idea that women who have no interest in romantic relationships with men should not be allowed to theorize on women's living arrangements or relationships with men is strange. If anything, SSA women are more likely to point out the implicit biases and behaviors that straight women put up with with men that those who aren't sexually attracted to men wouldn't bother to put up with. Women gain nothing from being told to not discuss their observations on how other women, women they might not share the same perspectives or lived realities with, interact in society.

Fortherecord With a man a sexless relationship could still be satisfying because we have underlying emotional feelings.
I'm confused. Sexuality is based on sexual attraction. Why can't heterosexual woman have "emotional feelings" with other women? I'm straight, and I love my close female friends and family members. I could never be sexually attracted to my female friends, because I'm straight. I could be sexually attracted to men, but have no emotional feelings for them. I could have emotional feelings for a man, but not be sexually attracted to them. If the "underlying emotional feelings" are what make sexless relationships with men satisfying for straight women, does that mean straight women don't have underlying emotional feelings for women..? I would disagree with that. Love isn't inherently sexual..? One doesn't need to feel love to have sex, one don't need sex to feel love.

Regardless, in the end, yes, a straight woman having a platonic partnership with another woman is going to be different from a sexless relationship with a man. Mainly there would not be any sexual attraction at all. Of course, there will be something missing. It's not meant to be appealing, it's meant to promote women's liberation from male oppression.
Edited Mar 23 2025, 3:10 PM by Clover.
Reply
Reply
Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
Mar 23 2025, 3:06 PM #19

Fortherecord As a heterosexual woman it is not appealing at all. You would never tell a lesbian to have a platonic life partnership with a gay male. The fact it doesn't involve romance and sex doesn't make it less tone deaf and dismissive.
Why would anyone ask for that to be done? 4B is done in the context of [straight] women choosing to not seek out partnerships with the oppressor class, to make a political statement, for safety, etc. Lesbian women are oppressed on the axes of being female and being homosexual. What benefit would there be for someone to tell a lesbian woman to have a platonic life partnership with a gay male? There is no good reason for this, besides things like economic hardships in unjust systems, like Dworkin marrying a gay man to get healthcare coverage iirc. For female separatism and 4B-type movements, the reason is to make a stance against the oppressor class.

I think anyone "telling" straight women to go have platonic life partnerships with other women seems like the 2nd wave "political lesbianism" type of activism. Which I think differs from the modern 4B. Just because 4B means no sex/relationships with men, it doesn't mean straight women need to go make themselves fill the void of a romantic relationship with a male with a platonic female relationship. The point of 4B should be for women to center themselves in their own lives and stop providing the copious amounts of free labor, emotional/mental/sexual/physical, that they give to men.

Fortherecord Stop sitting up and theorizing on our living arrangements and who we will choose as life partners. The OP for this thread claims to be heterosexual, but 9/10 these topics are started by bisexual or lesbians-- and they simply don't have a right to participate or moderate these conversations.
I'm not sure what "these conversations" mean, but bisexual and lesbian women are welcome to participate in discussions regarding 4B and female separatism. Anyone can "theorize" on anyone's living arrangements. The idea that women who have no interest in romantic relationships with men should not be allowed to theorize on women's living arrangements or relationships with men is strange. If anything, SSA women are more likely to point out the implicit biases and behaviors that straight women put up with with men that those who aren't sexually attracted to men wouldn't bother to put up with. Women gain nothing from being told to not discuss their observations on how other women, women they might not share the same perspectives or lived realities with, interact in society.

Fortherecord With a man a sexless relationship could still be satisfying because we have underlying emotional feelings.
I'm confused. Sexuality is based on sexual attraction. Why can't heterosexual woman have "emotional feelings" with other women? I'm straight, and I love my close female friends and family members. I could never be sexually attracted to my female friends, because I'm straight. I could be sexually attracted to men, but have no emotional feelings for them. I could have emotional feelings for a man, but not be sexually attracted to them. If the "underlying emotional feelings" are what make sexless relationships with men satisfying for straight women, does that mean straight women don't have underlying emotional feelings for women..? I would disagree with that. Love isn't inherently sexual..? One doesn't need to feel love to have sex, one don't need sex to feel love.

Regardless, in the end, yes, a straight woman having a platonic partnership with another woman is going to be different from a sexless relationship with a man. Mainly there would not be any sexual attraction at all. Of course, there will be something missing. It's not meant to be appealing, it's meant to promote women's liberation from male oppression.

Reply
Reply
komorebi
“I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own.” – Audre Lorde
Find
316
Mar 23 2025, 3:07 PM
#20
(Mar 23 2025, 2:04 PM)VerdantHorizon I don't think I expressed myself very well in that comment :\ I don't disagree with you at all! A romantic relationship is still romantic without sex, but (ime) a sexless romantic relationship is still different than a sexless platonic relationship, even if one feels strong love for their sister or bestie.

If something happened to your partner and you did end up platonically living with your bestie, would that living situation feel different than the one you're in now with your romantic partner? Even if you found it equally enjoyable, and I don't mean worse-different, just not interchangeable.

At least in my experience, it would! That's all I meant. (edit: And if you feel differently, then we are different people and I'm not trying to invalidate you, just to express my perspective!) I love my close female friends and sisters, but sororal love and platonic love and romantic love don't feel the same to me, and if I desperately wanted romantic love I would not be satisfied with having a really tight BFF instead, or if I wanted to live with a husband I wouldn't be satisfied living with my sisters instead. So it's off-putting when people (not that it was said in this thread, but sometimes in feminist spaces) suggest that straight women should just partner up with other women if they're romantic-lonely, as if the relationships are interchangeable and anyone will do.

I get where you're coming from, and yeah, I don't think we're disagreeing, it's just different POVs because we're different people. To answer your question, yep, it would feel different, but I don't think that I would feel it to be "unsatisfying" in the same way that you describe for yourself. I think that people just feel differently on this topic, that's all.

Which is not at all to suggest that just because I'm fine with it, that other women should be. I don't think anyone on this thread has or would suggest that straight women should just accept partners they're not attracted to, lol. All I'm saying is that women aren't a monolith and that people's preferences on this topic may vary greatly, which hopefully isn't controversial.
Reply
Reply
komorebi
“I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own.” – Audre Lorde
Mar 23 2025, 3:07 PM #20

(Mar 23 2025, 2:04 PM)VerdantHorizon I don't think I expressed myself very well in that comment :\ I don't disagree with you at all! A romantic relationship is still romantic without sex, but (ime) a sexless romantic relationship is still different than a sexless platonic relationship, even if one feels strong love for their sister or bestie.

If something happened to your partner and you did end up platonically living with your bestie, would that living situation feel different than the one you're in now with your romantic partner? Even if you found it equally enjoyable, and I don't mean worse-different, just not interchangeable.

At least in my experience, it would! That's all I meant. (edit: And if you feel differently, then we are different people and I'm not trying to invalidate you, just to express my perspective!) I love my close female friends and sisters, but sororal love and platonic love and romantic love don't feel the same to me, and if I desperately wanted romantic love I would not be satisfied with having a really tight BFF instead, or if I wanted to live with a husband I wouldn't be satisfied living with my sisters instead. So it's off-putting when people (not that it was said in this thread, but sometimes in feminist spaces) suggest that straight women should just partner up with other women if they're romantic-lonely, as if the relationships are interchangeable and anyone will do.

I get where you're coming from, and yeah, I don't think we're disagreeing, it's just different POVs because we're different people. To answer your question, yep, it would feel different, but I don't think that I would feel it to be "unsatisfying" in the same way that you describe for yourself. I think that people just feel differently on this topic, that's all.

Which is not at all to suggest that just because I'm fine with it, that other women should be. I don't think anyone on this thread has or would suggest that straight women should just accept partners they're not attracted to, lol. All I'm saying is that women aren't a monolith and that people's preferences on this topic may vary greatly, which hopefully isn't controversial.

Reply
Reply
Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3 Next
 Print Thread
Recently Browsing
 6 Guest(s)
Recently Browsing
 6 Guest(s)