Actually this is a more serious question than you may think, although it does lend itself to a few Flukey ad libs.
You see, the feminist political agenda has always been driven by a heavy dose of lesbianism, only, as we’re coming to understand better, political lesbianism has less to do with a sexual attraction to women of the same sex than it has to do with a coming together to share the hatred of the opposite sexes (plural).
And getting even.
It’s always been that way, folks, and while I’m not here to name names, the Democrat congress and its apparatus is full of them; the haters, I mean. Enough that you can discern patterns and policies that are downright unconstitutional.
And un-American.
They are French.
Ordinarily, a person’s sexual orientation is of no interest to most people…until…(and we all have a short list of “untils,” don’t we?)…until the elementary teacher starts indoctrinating our young kids…oh, wait, they do that already in many public schools.
Most Christians believe homosexuality is an abomination to God, still they distinguish between the sin and the sinner, and are pretty live-and-let live about it…until gays decide to take it outdoors and get in their face, or try to hijack their religious institutions, like marriage;
or, until the personal politics of hatred become national policy and the good old boy glass ceiling is merely replaced by an equally impenetrable good old girl corset that girdles female professional advancement.
Since the 1980s political homosexuality has taken a big turn, away from equal rights toward political power and patronage, which in part explains the title, above.
To spare you 1000 words, I’ll simply state that gay men (who really aren’t part of this discussion) since the 1980s, have been slowly forced to come out of the closet, or they would be outed by other means by radical gay caballeros. Twenty years ago most gay men would have preferred to keep their private lives private. Most gay men wouldn’t dress up in a pretty pink pinafore and march in the annual Gay Pride Parade even if Joplin had one.
The whole purpose of modern sexual movements is to make the politics of sex (or as some say, gender) the central focus of their lives. In both male and females sexes this political focus has always been best expressed in terms of victimhood, which greatly bears a feminist stamp, going back a century or more.
That older generation of gay men have either forcibly adapted to a world I think many are not that comfortable with, or become Republicans, or like Camille Paglia, struck out on a course all their own, refusing to allow their personal sexual choices to become the political center of their lives…in a group movement not of their making.
Even the casual observer can see that modern gay pride is more political than it is sexual, the cries of victimhood that moves it forward more a product of force and intimidation than supplication.
Hold that thought, for there is a term for this.
Gay women, even real ones, behave somewhat differently. 
For one, lesbians don’t try to see how many can fit into a tub, as men did in the fun bathhouse days before the AIDS warning. If they are sexually promiscuous, they are not very public about it.
And much more than gay men, even radical gay men, lesbian identity seems wrapped up in the politics of being women and a hatred for men, instead of a mere preference against them… (Gay men hate neither women nor straight men)…and a hatred for things those men hold in high esteem, such as pretty women, who Nature seems to favor biologically in all species as better genetic material for passing the species on.
There seems to be something missing in some women that is instinctively understood by males seeking to pass the species forward. I didn’t know an engaging smile and pleasant demeanor were that important a biological indicator. 
As so many feminist writers analyze ad nauseum, their bitterness is against the entire straight world, not just men, but on the theory the world was designed and controlled by men, from a position of power, which, while probably true in Botswana or Provence, was never really true in America. Any person lucky enough to be born in America is more fortunate than any of their type…gay, homely, spindly, fat, extra smart, extra stupid, when scaled against their same type in any other country in the world, at any other period of world history.
All American freedom has done is to allow nature to take its course, and it is this natural flow of human choice that feminists most disapprove, for they have been excluded out of a lot of things, things they like to say now they hated all along.
You don’t have to be Freud, or Fellini, to figure this out.
Not that all straight women are petite and weak, or even pretty. They are not without resourcefulness and toughness, as well as guile and street- (and book-) smarts. So-called homely straight women settled every valley and plain on the continent, gee-hawing that plow as well as Pa, birthing baby number Six on Monday, back in the kitchen feeding One through Five on Wednesday.
And burying half of them. Throughout American history the more biologically-preferred women have had to also bear the lion’s share of grief, grief their angry counterparts seemed to have been able to avoid back in New York.
And everyone knows Mammy Yokum could turn Germain Greer into a pretzel (a little plug for my friend EPU) with one hand, while using the other to light her pipe. So don’t boast to me how hard Hillary can throw a lamp.
Nah, this anger runs deep, and to my mind, Limbaugh is right. Feminist-lesbians hate that pretty little girl who can juggle 15 different things as much as they do the stupid man for picking her instead of them. She, not them, has been the more adaptable creature throughout history (a little biological lingo there) and to undo this reality, feminists have to undo the laws of nature and replace them with politics.
So, are political lesbians very sexual at all?
There was always something political in the rise of feminist lesbianism (or is it lesbian feminism?) going back to the early 1900s. We know finer eastern universities were big recruiting grounds by the 1970s. But Camile Paglia claimed to be the only self-proclaimed lesbian at Yale in 1968, so their power sure had grown by the 1980’s…so much that many young girls had to pretend to be gay (not sure how you do that…but impossible if you’re a guy, so you can understand how easy on the sexual calisthenics the gay-rules for girls must be) in order to be socially acceptable in the academic cliques. This is according to a Yale woman of that period…sorry I can’t remember her name…who asked the question as to how many Yale women, once they graduated, would quietly renounce all association with lesbianism so they could marry and raise a family, while still possibly pursuing a profession that got them into that lesbian mess in the first place. (Having it both ways is a serious rebuff of the sisterhood, and not good for moving up the ladder, FYI.)
Lesbianism as professional choice.
I’ve never kissed a girl politically, much less a guy, so I’m not sure how that works. But what’s instructive is the power the lesbian academic community had over those girls by the 1980s. It was what drove Paglia out, a true intellectual and committed (sexual) lesbian, with no interest in seeing her sexual choices politicized, or perhaps worse, having to hang out with CliffsNotes lezzies.
Feminist lesbianism had become the “in” group for whatever career aspirations they might have shared. It have become the “third sex.” They are neither male, nor female, but angry men with tits.
Pity the poor young professional women who has to deal with this brood just to get ahead. All corporate men care about is your golf game.
Like gay men, feminists have been able to shape a political movement around fear and intimidation by their members, able to withhold social approval, as well as professional access; jobs, promotions as a means of control.
And that has a name.
If you know anything of a feminist named Catherine McKinnon, of the University of Michigan Law School, she actually nailed it…never intending a philistine like me to turn it back on her…. but she stated that in any sexual relationship where power is the dominant driver, what occurs, even in marriage….
…is rape.
And there you have it.
I’ve always looked upon sexual matters as ranging from lust (when I was young) to love (when I grew up), from exploration to appreciation, (and fond remembrance) but the role of unwanted power in sex is genuinely a kind of sexual assault. I saw that in Russia. Only McKinnon was blinded by her hatred to assume that only men could dish this power-trip out, under a theory similar to black theology, that only whites can be racist.
Political lesbianism and feminism are almost indistinguishable, only it is no longer an up-east derangement. It is now one of the fattest sows and biggest saps on the public treasuries going, pushing a seine net through every campus in America, gobbling up a prodigious number of joiners, who, these days, had been well primed since 6th grade.
It is no longer clandestine and under the covers (sic). And for professional women, it is the main train pulling out of the station on Track No 1. If you want to be a single professional female, (and what 19 year-old girl doesn’t?) it is the only express headed out of town. You only have to pay your dues to the sisterhood and the world, and all you survey in it, will be yours.
To a point.
Look where those early graduates from the 70s are now. They are the queen bees. Talk about ring knockers. (sic) Any ROTC graduate who ever sat for promotion up against a West Pointer with the same time-in-grade knows what I mean.
So, yes, a straight woman has about as much chance moving up in government service or politics, without kissing those sisters’ rings, as Gene Kelly could in getting a job on the back line of the chorus in Guys and Dolls on Broadway today.
It’s a closed union shop.
So what else is in it for this brood on non-sexual, pretend lesbians, if it isn’t gazing into Hillary’s gorgeous brown eyes, and combing the rat tangles out of her hair? Or rubbing down Janet Napolitano’s size 10’s with horse liniment? Or clinking Coronas in footed tubs with Marcy Kaptur beachside on Lake Erie?
Well, actually, as I began with…it’s getting even, the same thing that drives Barack Obama.
With Obama, “getting even” started with English imperialism and slavery, but for gays I think it goes much further back, when God intervened to queer that great deal they had going in Sodom and Gomorrah in 1780 BC. Hate can’t get any more ancient than that.
So, yes, this election is going to be more about cultural survival than you know, and I have no intention of turning into a pillar of salt by turning to watch it play out.
I know there are many fine straight women in the Democrat Party and its subsidiaries in the press. But they must all genuflect and kiss the ring of the get-even politics of a bunch of hateful men with tits, and yes, not a few of them had to proclaim themselves pretend-lesbians in situ during those college days at Wellesley and Byrn Mawr.
All must pay homage to the sisterhood. they know there are certain dues they must pay, and can only rise so far.
I know, this isn’t American. But that’s how it is.
It is French.
So, no, a young pretty woman who wants to be with only one man and raise a family hasn’t a chance in hell of making it very far in the Democrat Party.
#I’mjustsaying.
The Wicked Queen at one end, and Snow White at the other, that’s how Nature, and Walt Disney, intended it.
(Yeah, I know you’re asking, and I am, too: What did Walt Disney know that we didn’t all those years?)
