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: (Default)
It's amazing how fast we are to label things that...really don't matter. Gender, sexual preference, varieties of relationships, race...why do any of these things mean anything?

I recently read a fascinating book by Wendy-O Matik. The book was called Redefining Our Relationships. It dealt with the emotional aspects of non-monogamous relationships, including even discussions about friendships.

Wendy-O used one term in a steadfast light--her partner. All other terms were interchanged. Lover, friend, sex buddy, family, soul mate...and it got me wondering. I've often pondered the culturally-imposed black-and-white perspective on relationships of the romantic variety, and to a certain extent also thought about friends whom I'm intimate with...but this brought to mind a new concept. Even with the freeing up of concepts within boundaries, I was still imposing boundaries on my relationships--romantic or not. And truthfully, why? They're all lovers, and some are soul mates. Like B, whom I have slept with, and whom I continue to flirt with, who sometimes holds my hand or massages me. Or R, whom I live with, share physical and emotional intimacy with, and the majority of my time. Or S, whom I have slept with in the past, but who now is someone I see or speak to only on occasion, when we have something to say to the other, or we happen upon one another in a given setting.

Why distinguish these people's relationships with me by confining them to labels? Yes, S is my ex boyfriend; but he is not merely that. And R is my boyfriend, but he has also been a friend for nearly a decade before we began dating. These relationships simply don't exist within a definition...they are each unique. To define these relationships within society's narrow ideas would be to cheapen and limit the ability to interact with these lovers, to share the natural love every human has for another.


relationships: (Default)

November 2009

8910111213 14


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 02:06 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios