more fun with words
Jun. 14th, 2006 10:01 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
adrienmundi(or, Why I Am Not a (fill in the blank)-sexual)
The insistence on labelling is something I'm generally against, especially the noun-form construction that seems to be an end point, a limit or box contingent upon an unspoken appeal to ontology*. Ideally, I think identity labelling and defining should be conscious, contingent and agglutinating, adjectival constructions to modify the (often assumed) noun of a person.
But let's look at how this plays out with contemporary models of (x)-sexuality. There are three main flavors (well actually, two, and then "those exceptions"): hetero-, homo-, and bisexuality. For most people, it seems like this is most easily assigned by asking the question, "Am I attracted to men, women, or both?" For me, this gets tricky fast.
I strongly suspect that most people naturalize the connection between sex (usually only to the level of (natally original) genitals) and gender. In other words, people they assume to be women or men can be expected to have a specific set of parts that always conform to what their classification of women or men is based upon (see the circularity?). For me, that's awfully assumptive. I tend to assume nothing about someone's parts, because I just don't know. As I've often said, if it gets to the point where it will matter to me what's present, I'm already committed to working with whatever I find, and I'm OK with that.
But I don't know if someone is a "man" or "woman"** until they tell me that's what they are, because I don't base that assignment on my assessment of external cues that should speak to me of clothed body parts. Heck, I've known "men" and "women" with parts not usually assigned to those categories by others; again, I'm more than OK with this. To me, identity should be self-defined, and allowed to change as needed, as often as needed. So, that cute person across the bar with the smooth, flat chest, green eyes, and great hair? All I know is that I think they're cute; all I need to know is that I think they're cute. I won't know anything else about them unless/until I talk to them, and even then, the most important question will be, "Do you think I'm interesting?"
So, OK, based on my attractions, I can't claim either hetero- or homosexuality. What about that other option? You know, the one with the amoral, the indecisive, untrustworthy types? Sorry, but bisexuality doesn't work for me, either. See, the way most people use the terms (discussed above), bisexuality doesn't mean "attracted to both sets of genitals", but "attracted to both genders, "men" and "women"". Sure, I'm attracted to some people who say they're "men", and some people who say they're "women", but that's certainly not all I'm attracted to. I don't think there are only two choices, and my attraction isn't based on how well or poorly one hits markers of this arbitrary binary of choices.
But another, often unexamined aspect to the claiming of (x)sexuality is the referentiality. For either homo- or hetero- to work as prefixes, one must stake a position as a "woman" or "man". I don't do that. I'm neither "woman" nor "man". I'm also not some combination of the two; I'm "something else"*** I'm Linguistically speaking, I could almost be the poster child for a nonstandard, but more consistent, definition of heterosexuality; I'm attracted to people who are other than me. However clever I sometimes feel at considering that, though, is quickly dampened by the set of assumptions and meanings attached to that term in the public discourse.
So, to recap: I'm not attracted solely to "men" or "women", nor to a group composed of just "men" and "women", and I'm not a "man" or "woman" myself, so all of the three conventional labels are useless and wrong for me. Ultimately, it comes down to me being a person who is attracted to whatever it is I'm attracted to. Or, as I like to say:
I like pretty.
*Yeah, I know; I can't help writing/thinking/speaking like this a lot of the time.
** Scare quotes because we're entering language about my perceptions, and that's always how I use or encounter these terms.
*** Working title for the ongoing project.
The insistence on labelling is something I'm generally against, especially the noun-form construction that seems to be an end point, a limit or box contingent upon an unspoken appeal to ontology*. Ideally, I think identity labelling and defining should be conscious, contingent and agglutinating, adjectival constructions to modify the (often assumed) noun of a person.
But let's look at how this plays out with contemporary models of (x)-sexuality. There are three main flavors (well actually, two, and then "those exceptions"): hetero-, homo-, and bisexuality. For most people, it seems like this is most easily assigned by asking the question, "Am I attracted to men, women, or both?" For me, this gets tricky fast.
I strongly suspect that most people naturalize the connection between sex (usually only to the level of (natally original) genitals) and gender. In other words, people they assume to be women or men can be expected to have a specific set of parts that always conform to what their classification of women or men is based upon (see the circularity?). For me, that's awfully assumptive. I tend to assume nothing about someone's parts, because I just don't know. As I've often said, if it gets to the point where it will matter to me what's present, I'm already committed to working with whatever I find, and I'm OK with that.
But I don't know if someone is a "man" or "woman"** until they tell me that's what they are, because I don't base that assignment on my assessment of external cues that should speak to me of clothed body parts. Heck, I've known "men" and "women" with parts not usually assigned to those categories by others; again, I'm more than OK with this. To me, identity should be self-defined, and allowed to change as needed, as often as needed. So, that cute person across the bar with the smooth, flat chest, green eyes, and great hair? All I know is that I think they're cute; all I need to know is that I think they're cute. I won't know anything else about them unless/until I talk to them, and even then, the most important question will be, "Do you think I'm interesting?"
So, OK, based on my attractions, I can't claim either hetero- or homosexuality. What about that other option? You know, the one with the amoral, the indecisive, untrustworthy types? Sorry, but bisexuality doesn't work for me, either. See, the way most people use the terms (discussed above), bisexuality doesn't mean "attracted to both sets of genitals", but "attracted to both genders, "men" and "women"". Sure, I'm attracted to some people who say they're "men", and some people who say they're "women", but that's certainly not all I'm attracted to. I don't think there are only two choices, and my attraction isn't based on how well or poorly one hits markers of this arbitrary binary of choices.
But another, often unexamined aspect to the claiming of (x)sexuality is the referentiality. For either homo- or hetero- to work as prefixes, one must stake a position as a "woman" or "man". I don't do that. I'm neither "woman" nor "man". I'm also not some combination of the two; I'm "something else"*** I'm Linguistically speaking, I could almost be the poster child for a nonstandard, but more consistent, definition of heterosexuality; I'm attracted to people who are other than me. However clever I sometimes feel at considering that, though, is quickly dampened by the set of assumptions and meanings attached to that term in the public discourse.
So, to recap: I'm not attracted solely to "men" or "women", nor to a group composed of just "men" and "women", and I'm not a "man" or "woman" myself, so all of the three conventional labels are useless and wrong for me. Ultimately, it comes down to me being a person who is attracted to whatever it is I'm attracted to. Or, as I like to say:
I like pretty.
*Yeah, I know; I can't help writing/thinking/speaking like this a lot of the time.
** Scare quotes because we're entering language about my perceptions, and that's always how I use or encounter these terms.
*** Working title for the ongoing project.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-06-14 02:48 pm (UTC)I know where ya coming from. I'm not all the way there ... but I understand.
Of course I had to use that icon to be funny!
no subject
Date: 2006-06-14 03:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-06-14 03:27 pm (UTC)though aaaallll-sexual is pretty fabulous, i must say.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-06-14 03:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-06-14 03:29 pm (UTC)Yeah. In my perfect world, the particular shape of somebody's parts would not be an issue until long after you shared enough closeness with them to make fussing over their shapes seem absurdly petty. Honestly, who has sex with *parts*, anyway? Are there really people who want sex with parts, not people? (I wish I didn't know the answer to that.)
I like pretty.
That's a splendid summary.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-06-14 03:43 pm (UTC)To save time because these days I lack patience, I simply use the latter of the three societallly accepted words.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-06-14 11:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-15 01:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2006-06-17 12:40 am (UTC)