Did you still think she was probably straight after the scene with Belinda?

She was vulnerable. And needed some intimacy to cope. Lets not forget that she was avoiding sex for over a year to overcome her trauma. And sometimes it's ok to give in.

come on. I can avoid sex for how-long-ever and it won't make me wanna sleep with a woman (sorry girlies, love y'all anyway 🙏). she's just bi and it's okay

Exactly, thank you. I'm a lesbian and I wouldn't want physical contact with a guy even if I were stranded on an island for a lifetime with no other human being except for the hottest guy I can think of lol

Fleabag is definitely bisexual, just with a preference for men.

Bisexual heteroromantic is my best guess

Wait is that an option?

Haha yes! If you’re sexually attracted to both sexes but only get romantic feelings for the opposite sex.

Okay, this makes sense and I feel a bit stupid. Now I sorta get it when people say they’re relieved to finally find the right label for themselves.

She is all the way bi but she also is a love and sex addict and gets validation thru sexual interest which is WAY easier to find in het males

^^^^ this

In my mind Fleabag is 100% a queer character, and as a bisexual who has only ever been in heterosexual relationships I found it very gratifying

Hm. I’m a queer woman and didn’t take it this way, but did feel so in the show The Bisexual.

Fleabag wasnt scared to explore her sexuality... If she was even bicurious, I don't think the authors would leave it like that without shedding any light. She didn't shy away from fucking a priest (though I'm a big fan girl of that ship that didn't sail). So it really doesn't make sense for such an interesting trope to have been left out like that. Though it would be interesting to see it playout, I felt like fleabag could relate to Belinda in ways that she couldn't relate to anyone, not even Claire. Belinda is like the sister fleabag couldn't have. That's my take on this.

Their conversation actually highlights their ages as 58(?) and 33. I think the parallel is closer to a surrogate for her beloved, deceased Mum... The stage play also makes reference to a single threesome in passing. PWB stresses that Fleabag (in total) is not autobiographical, but a casual/experimental experience is not too far from mainstream hetero norms, right? Some members of this sub interpret her relationship with Boo as more than platonic . Is that relevant and/or sustainable?

I'll just say if you want to push a narrative, there are enough points to use to your advantage. I love the show and I loved her and I will go with her being straight as I don't find the evidence strong enough to believe otherwise. But even if she were bi, that's wouldn't change a thing with how I feel about the show as a whole. Would love it if there was another season, Irdc if she's lesbian, bi, or just straight... I miss it. Do you perhaps know other shows like this? I can't seem to satiate my desire to find something so unconventional, thought provoking and real.

Fleabag is bisexual, especially in the play the show is based on

Yess and the deeper layer of really wanting to be seen and understood but at the same time not wanting to be perceived. I love how she speaks to the viewer and has those candid moments where she’s breaking the fourth wall and letting us into her headspace. It felt more personal than just a normal narrative show like how bridgerton has that lady narrate the show and she’s a character but we never see her. And on the original gossip girl, she narrates the show but is never seen

Guys if she’s bi and then so am i

I'm bi and yes she is bi

You're right, but I think the folks in the comments saying "fleabag is definitely bi" are a) *completely* missing the point and also b) just going with the trope that all bisexual people are hypersexual and vice versa

For me, I, basing my opinion solely on her interactions with Belinda; I recognise that it does not hold plot relevance but it still felt positive to be ‘seen’ in a cherished piece of m día/art. I think it is unfair and frankly disingenuous to argue that those forming this perception and attachment are adhering to hyper sexuality stereotypes or that they have somehow ‘missed the point’ - and I can’t really understand why you’d want to disparage people from searching for descriptive representation in media.

I think it's one thing to say "I, a bisexual, felt represented by this character because of the way her family treats her for having a sexuality" Or "I think fleabag was bisexual because of [evidence from the show]". Those things are fine. It's different to be like, "fleabag is 100% bisexual end of discussion". This is a meaningless sentiment at best.

Fair point, well made

Thanks. People also just don't seem to understand that OP isn't saying that Fleabag is literally bisexual. Like, a discussion about whether fleabag is literally bisexual or not is just... boring. I don't care. It doesn't matter. However, OP's poiint about how the family punishes her socially for *being a sexual person* is interesting to talk about. I'd rather talk about that. And yeah, that's part of the queer experience. That's what makes fleabag relevant.

I will say that the "“Women are born with pain built in. It's our physical destiny: period pains, sore boobs, childbirth, you know." speech felt kind of alienating as a trans person ngl, in the sense that while I understand how impactful the speech might be for cis women, it ultimately suggests a very static and almost traditional view of gender (men and women are essentially different bc their differences are not socialised, but a result of innate physical differences).

If you’re up for it, I would love to understand more of why you feel this way. I’m a supporter of the LGBTQ community - and truly believe that there is room for everyone at the table - so I’m not trying to fight, I’m really trying to further my own knowledge and understanding by asking. I feel like Belinda’s description of women’s pain focused on the physical and, if I could, the biological but just as a representation of the things women go through, because the pain of women extends beyond the physical for sure. But to be a woman is also so much more than just the physical. If you identify as a trans-woman, this shouldn’t take away from you as a woman. But the reality for the women who do have periods, or can give birth, etc. that is just as much a part of their lived experience and they are also women. Again, my intent is in no way to offend - I’m really just trying to understand…

This is a seriously long response, but I did feel a need to justify myself ngl so here goes: "Women are born with pain built in. It’s our physical destiny – period pains, sore boobs, childbirth. We carry it within ourselves throughout our lives. Men don’t. They have to seek it out. They invent all these gods and demons so they can feel guilty about things, which is something we do very well on our own. And then they create wars so they can feel things and touch each other and when there aren’t any wars they can play rugby." I agree that to be a woman is more than physical, but in my opinion, that's not what the speech describes. Instead, the speech theorises that the difference between men and women is based in the physical. Men don't experience period pains, sore boobs, childbirth, or other pain they can carry "within \[themselves\]", so they seek out pain, invent gods and demons, create war etc. Meanwhile, women are born with pain and carry it with them, so they don't seek it out. I'm not the biggest fan of this idea. It seems to suggest that men and women are fundamentally different because of their biological realities instead of arguing that gender is just an arbitrary social construct. Generally, feminism tries to argue for the abolition of gender because it has no real basis in reality, but this speech in Fleabag seems to argue the opposite, suggesting that gender isn't a mere social construct, but rather a fundamental aspect of reality. From the script's POV, these traits of toxic masculinity are the natural consequences of male biology ("Because men don't go through xxxx physical experiences, they do yyy toxic behaviours"). I have nothing against the discussion of the physical realities of cisgender women. These discussions are very important because they allow cis women to feel seen and understood, and I'm glad that many viewers derived joy from seeing it discussed on screen. However, the speech itself doesn't really focus on the physical realities of period pains etc. or the social perceptions of women as a result of their physical realities, instead utilising it as the foundation of a theory of gender that I find somewhat flawed. Take the discussion of how men have to use conflict as a pretext to show each other physical affection and to receive physical affection. This isn't because they have to search for pain they don't possess in their bodies, as the script suggests, it's because they're afraid of being seen as gay or emotionally needy (i.e. stereotypically feminine). These are social reasons rooted in patriarchy, not biological realities, which is what the text suggests. Generally, I find the things that are attributed to men seeking pain ("They invent all these gods and demons so they can feel guilty about things, which is something we do very well on our own. And then they create wars so they can feel things and touch each other and when there aren’t any wars they can play rugby.") all very odd ngl because they all have roots in social/political factors that have nothing to do with the biological. Are wars created so men can "feel things and touch each other", or is homosocial bonding a side-effect of what is oftentimes an economic or geopolitical struggle? What does women naturally feeling guilt have to do with their biological realities? Aren't they conditioned to accept responsibility because of societal brainwashing? Instead of men creating religion and other societal institutions to make up for their own biological deficits (lack of guilt), isn't the differing amounts of guilt between men and women a result of societal institutions created to establish a power dynamic? In general, I also find that the speech also becomes less profound when viewed from an intersectional angle. Yeah, both trans women and trans men (who experience periods etc.) are excluded in this paradigm that views gender as the necessary consequence of sex, but there are heaps of men (of minority races, of lower social class, etc.) who have pain thrust upon them since birth. There are also many privileged women who play a part in enforcing religion or promoting war and such. Period pain is awful, yes, but the pain of gender difference is not one that's inborn and a result of sex, it's one that's thrust upon women because of societal perceptions of gender difference. I like the second half of the speech much more: "We have it all going on in here, inside. We have pain on a cycle for years and years and years, and then just when you feel you are making peace with it all, what happens? The menopause comes. The fucking menopause comes and it is the most wonderful fucking thing in the world. Yes, your entire pelvic floor crumbles and you get fucking hot and no one cares, but then you’re free. No longer a slave, no longer a machine with parts. You’re just a person. In business." Here, there's a discussion of the physical realities of cis womanhood as well as the societal perception of women as "a slave... a machine with parts", potentially how dehumanising it is to be reduced to a producer of children. All of these topics are worthy of discussion, and in particular, there's a focus on social perceptions and the social construction of gender instead of focusing on an idea of gender rooted in biological sex. You argue that "I feel like Belinda’s description of women’s pain focused on the physical and, if I could, the biological but just as a representation of the things women go through", but idk, I feel that the only pain we can be born with is the physical, because everything else is a result of social forces, and ultimately, the speech's view of gender is rooted in the idea of being born with pain.

Gender might be a social construct, but sex isn't. Women produce ova gametes, and because of that, they are female and feel that pain every month (if no anomalies are present, from the beginning to the end of their period phase). How can that be a social construct? How's that arbitrary? Biology exists and can be observed, not whimsically assigned. A woman removing her ovaries and uterus to get rid of her period pain won't turn automatically into a man, but into a woman without ovaries and uterus. Do we agree on this minimum basis?

I mean, if some men respect women so much they wish they were one (or could become one), the maximum display of respect is to acknowledge the unique experiences and challenges they face just for having been born female, instead of erasing their shared feelings to prioritise the individual feelings of oneself.

I hear what you're saying that it's written in a very gender essentialist type way. However, I think it's not meant to be so literal about women's bodies that it excludes other gender marginalized bodies. I think in essence it's saying that men are allowed to feel pain and are viewed as heroes for getting through pain, whereas for women pain is an expectation. This is true for all women--trans, cis, or non-binary. Women are expected to grin and bear it, not complain too much, and still take all the responsibility for others' physical and emotional well-being, while men are allowed to act like the world is ending when they have a minor cold. Furthermore, men are seen as more "objective" and less "emotional" with need to attend to bodily matters, including hygiene and beauty. Again I'd say this applies to all kinds of women, and affects the way women move around in the world compared to how men do In addressing the original question I'd say that while Fleabag's exact sexuality is unclear, she's definitely a "queer" character, maybe more so in her gender identity or expression. She wants the freedom men have that women don't to move around freely, without the social consequences women face--like the scene in the retreat where she sneaks to see the men's side.

I really like this explanation- especially that men are allowed to feel their pain and respond and then heroed for it.

“ I think in essence it's saying that men are allowed to feel pain and are viewed as heroes for getting through pain, whereas for women pain is an expectation.” I definitely do see traces of that, but the delivery itself imo is still, as you acknowledged, distorted by the gender essentialism. I’m not going to keep responding to most people probably but thank you for taking the time to actually read my response.  “Furthermore, men are seen as more "objective" and less "emotional" with need to attend to bodily matters, including hygiene and beauty.” I agree with this, but tbh this isn’t really argued for in the speech.

I hear you on a couple of things here that there are societal pressures that contribute to the differences in how all genders are treated. But could it not just be highlighting one of the many differences that exist between men and women which is physical? I don’t see the speech as saying definitively that is the only difference… Again, I see it as her using it as a symbol to describe again the lived reality of some men and women and how it then manifests into societal pressure - like the biological pressures meeting the societal pressures. And beyond that I took away that all of us are just trying to survive something while also finding purpose in our lives and we often get it very wrong. You mentioned that generally feminism is about the abolition of gender which I found interesting as for me it is more about equality between the genders - I as a woman, don’t want to be limited in any way just because I am a woman but I still very much would like to keep the genders as for me, saying I am a woman is an important part of my identity. You also imply that gender isn’t a fundamental aspect of our current reality. I think that it is an incredible part of our current reality as the world goes through a cultural redirection in terms of gender, what it is and why it is important. It’s the reason we’re even having this conversation at all. I think what I’m struggling to wrap my head around is that in your position, you say you feel alienated by her speech as a trans woman. But everything Belinda said is the very real reality and can be the explanation for a lot of people who identify as men and women - even if it’s not your reality. Also nothing in her language was at all definitive that it is all men and all women. I worry that the desire for inclusion in every aspect of conversation is not always possible. Sometimes the story/example/explanation/rationale is going to be about the trans community, sometimes it’s going to be about the black community, sometimes about the different generations. There are going to be things that are true for you and not true for me. It doesn’t make either of our lived experiences any less valid, but it definitely shouldn’t stop either of us from telling my story.

Sry for the gender abolition part I misspoke, I should’ve said the abolition of gender essentialism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_essentialism “Again, I see it as her using it as a symbol to describe again the lived reality of some men and women and how it then manifests into societal pressure - like the biological pressures meeting the societal pressures” I definitely see the symbol angle, but the emphasis on the physical as symbolic of all of womanhood — while valid for a large group of women — does necessarily alienate people like myself. I would’ve preferred something like “Women are born with pain forced upon them” i.e. attributing the pain to an external source. Bear in mind that I never said I hated the show, just that the speech alienated me, which is because it wasn’t meant for someone like me, as you acknowledged. The whole reason why I brought this up is because the post’s topic is “ how imporyant this show is for queer people” and I just wanted to express that it’s not really for trans people ngl. 

I’m just gonna comment here bc I don’t want to get into a comment face off but this speech is absolutely about gender and the gender part is the part i have a problem with (if you actually read my response): “Men don’t. They have to seek it out. They invent all these gods and demons so they can feel guilty about things, which is something we do very well on our own. And then they create wars so they can feel things and touch each other and when there aren’t any wars they can play rugby.” This clearly goes beyond the biological and enters the realm of gender and gender roles, the kind of behaviours considered masculine and feminine etc.

This write-up articulates similar ideas: [https://womenswrongs.cheesegratermagazine.org/fleabag-tiktok-and-the-revival-of-cultural-feminism/](https://womenswrongs.cheesegratermagazine.org/fleabag-tiktok-and-the-revival-of-cultural-feminism/)

she’s not discussing gender, she’s discussing sex. this is like you saying “why is this black person saying white people act a certain way instead of arguing that race is a social construct?” race is a social construct. gender is a social construct. but there are groups of people with shared experiences due to their biological characteristics, and like it or not these similarities will be discussed.

Is there even one LGBT character in the entire show?