What straight women gotta do with lesbians?
This short article does not wish to provide insights into which woman lesbian is going to be eventually attracted to and even more she would like to be with her for the rest of her life and have a family with. This article aims at providing insights into incorrect assumptions regarding lesbian's taste(s) for heterosexual women.
Namely, I quite often found myself in situations when all of a sudden heterosexual married women start mentioning their husbands and I wondered why? I questioned myself, did I say something or made a certain gesture that made them assume I fancied them? I know myself, I rarely fall in love therefore I could not find any such reasons: I mean, I could occasionally feel attraction (which I rarely acted on) but actually finding myself in a relationship with a woman that always required proper context and I rather let woman chose me then I chose her and for the reasons mentioned I knew it was not me who had any emotional or sexual thoughts about those married women. For that reason I started finding such behavior by heterosexual women rather annoying and I mean really annoying to the point that I decided to write this article.
I know I already read this type of article written by other lesbians, however I must repeat their thoughts: heterosexual women do not flatter yourself that every lesbian would fancy a heterosexual woman or consider 'tasting' you intimately. If you do then it is something about yourself and the 'blame' is on your side that made you think that way, it is rather you who felt being attracted to the lesbian you encountered not the other way around. I mean, why a lesbian would be attracted to a heterosexual (married) woman, what are the reasons for such unreasonable assumption? What is so special about you and why do you think lesbians are 'treaschures destroyers' of the relationships (what made you think that at all)?
I know, contrary to common belief, not every lesbian is a promiscuous, I never had a one night stand, had only two girlfriends and with the latter I would stay with her for the rest of my life if her father didn't set to ruin our relationship from the day we met due to his political and religious beliefs and in the end he succeeded. Therefore it is a mystery to me why so many heterosexual women assume lesbians would find them always attractive because they are for instance beautiful, witty, humorous – do heterosexual women assume that every men is always attracted to them? Why would assume that, would they consider this kind assumptions reasonable and on what grounds? If we use analogy or metaphor with preference for certain tastes, colours, designes, art, even philosophies we can say 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' and we can explain that statement with Dubos's, Hume's and Kant's philosophies that tastes for something are individually prefered and unless someone expresses that preference it can not be known to the other person and even less someone can infer or imply universal taste or preference for something - it is simply incorrect thinking without providing proper reasons. Why I use analogy with tastes for human attraction? Humans have tried to make different explanations for attractions and offered different concepts of love. Here is my article History of Love on concepts of love through western history if you wish to know some of the explanations. However, humans have not provided a universal explanation of emotional and sexual attraction and marriage commitment yet. I also do not offer any explanation of the causes of attraction – why and to whom in this article.
Therefore explanation through analogy of tastes still apply. Let us explain the reasons for statement that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder': judgments of beauty are not (or at least not canonically) mediated by inferences from principles or applications of concepts, but rather have all the immediacy of straightforwardly sensory judgments. It is the idea, in other words, that we do not reason to the conclusion that things are beautiful, but rather “taste” that they are. Here is an early expression of the thesis, from Dubos’s Critical Reflections on Poetry, Painting, and Music, which first appeared in 1719 (from Standford Encyclopedia):
"Do we ever reason, in order to know whether a ragoo be good or bad; and has it ever entered into any body’s head, after having settled the geometrical principles of taste, and defined the qualities of each ingredient that enters into the composition of those messes, to examine into the proportion observed in their mixture, in order to decide whether it be good or bad? No, this is never practiced. We have a sense given us by nature to distinguish whether the cook acted according to the rules of his art. People taste the ragoo, and tho’ unacquainted with those rules, they are able to tell whether it be good or no. The same may be said in some respect of the productions of the mind, and of pictures made to please and move us". (Dubos, Jean-Baptiste. 1748,vol. II, Critical Reflections on Poetry, Painting, and Music, T. Nugent (trans.), London. p. 238–239).
And here is a late expression, from Kant’s 1790 Critique of the Power of Judgment:
"If someone reads me his poem or takes me to a play that in the end fails to please my taste, then he can adduce Batteux or Lessing, or even older and more famous critics of taste, and adduce all the rules they established as proofs that his poem is beautiful… . I will stop my ears, listen to no reasons and arguments, and would rather believe that those rules of the critics are false … than allow that my judgment should be determined by means of a priori grounds of proof, since it is supposed to be a judgment of taste and not of the understanding of reason". (Kant, Immanuel, 1790, Critique of the Power of Judgment, trans. P. Guyer, and E. Matthews, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 165.).
But the theory of taste would not have enjoyed its eighteenth-century run, nor would it continue now to exert its influence, had it been without resources to counter an obvious rationalist objection. There is a wide difference—so goes the objection—between judging the excellence of a ragout and judging the excellence of a poem or a play. More often than not, poems and plays are objects of great complication. But taking in all that complication requires a lot of cognitive work, including the application of concepts and the drawing of inferences. Judging the beauty of poems and plays, then, is evidently not immediate and so evidently not a matter of taste.
The chief way of meeting this objection was first to distinguish between the act of grasping the object preparatory to judging it and the act of judging the object once grasped, and then to allow the former, but not the latter, to be as concept- and inference-mediated as any rationalist might wish.
Here is Hume, with characteristic clarity:
"[I]n order to pave the way for [a judgment of taste], and give a proper discernment of its object, it is often necessary, we find, that much reasoning should precede, that nice distinctions be made, just conclusions drawn, distant comparisons formed, complicated relations examined, and general facts fixed and ascertained. Some species of beauty, especially the natural kinds, on their first appearance command our affection and approbation; and where they fail of this effect, it is impossible for any reasoning to redress their influence, or adapt them better to our taste and sentiment". (Hume, David, 1751, Section I, Hume, D., 1751, Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, in L.A.).
With this short expose on reason and judgment of tastes I tried to show that when married heterosexual women think or imagine that every lesbian would feel (any) attraction towards them they should follow Hume's lead of giving 'a proper discernment of its object ... much reasoning should precede, that nice distinctions be made, just conclusions drawn, distant comparisons formed, complicated relations examined, and general facts fixed and ascertained'. The same applies to their husbands if they would feel any envy or jealousy – again there is no reason for those.