relationships: (abstract)
I truly do not think homosexuality, or heterosexuality, is natural.

I believe the behaviors are natural, the identity is not. The identity is socially constructed.

Society has made this odd determination that we define people by sexual preference.

And really, aren't there a million traits we insist on having or not having in our partners? Things aside from presence or lack of external genitalia and tits? Yet society does not define us as "blondsexuals" or "frecklesexuals" or "leggysexuals"...we have some loose colloquial terms to define us as such ("ass man" or "chubby chaser" or "rice chaser"), but nothing that is steadfastly slammed into our identity as our genital preference.

I find it so peculiar. Of all the arbitrary sexual preferences to include in our identity, why penises? Why vaginas? Why breasts?

And really, in a society in which sex is generally pretty taboo, why is anything about sexual preference included in our primary identity structure? I mean, we label ourselves in fairly widely known terms like "masochist" or "sadist" but these are generally not considered part of our primary public identity (unless any individual one of us makes the choice to express it as a primary facet of who we are).

I guess the truth is, I think sexual orientation is so arbitrarily important, and it really bothers me to see what I view as a massive inconsistency in social identities.
relationships: (sexual)
Before you leap up and scream about how I'm lying to you and tell me all these ancient cultures in which people engaged in homosexuality...read EXACTLY what I'm saying.

The identity of homosexuals is a relatively limited concept.

Homosexuality itself exists in plenty of cultures--and animal kingdoms. But the idea of pigeon-holing sexuality is not so universal. Homosexuality used to be considered a behavior--and in many cultures, it still is. Instead of being part of who the person is, it's a behaviour sie engages in.

In many cultures, people aren't labeled for their behavior. It's intrinsic in the language even. In many cultures, there is no literal translation for 'doctor' or 'homosexual'...instead, they describe the person. "He practices medicine," or "She sleeps with women." In fact, this is a point we discussed in my justice department ethics class...in this society, we treat the offender as the crime, and punish hir instead of punishing the behavior. But, that's a tangent.

It wasn't until around the 19th century that it became common to label the people engaging in same-sex sex as homosexuals. Prior to that, homosexual behavior was a sin, and perceived as wrong, but it was a sin, it was not the person. An adulterer, for instance, may be labeled and stigmatized, but it's not nearly as interlaced with the personal identity as homosexuality has become.

Hell, the word homosexual didn't even exist until Kerbeny coined the term sometime in the mid 1800s (and yeah, I know, concepts can exist before they're named--not presenting this as ultimate proof).

We are a society that likes to label. We like things in nice neat little boxes. It's comfortable to us. So we as a society create and impose labels, because to name something is to know it. Not all societies, now or historically, have such an innate need to pigeon hole its people--to many of them, behavior is how a person acts, not what a person is.

Profile

relationships: (Default)
Relationships

November 2009

S M T W T F S
1234567
8910111213 14
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 25th, 2017 04:56 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios