OK, sure. For the record, I do want to point back to language in my original like 'the way a lot of people implement the term'; I certainly didn't intend to be all encompassing with my ramblings on the point.
That being said, I suspect my problem is categorical; I just don't understand the categorical weighting. I get that penises and vaginas work differently, but to me, it also seems that each individual set of genitals works differently, too. Add in the mental connections to the person who owns them, and individuation only multiplies. Or, to paraphrase one of my favorite biohistorians, intracategorical variation is greater than intercategorical variation (again, to me).
From another take on the same or similar angle, when it gets down to nuts and bolts, there's a large difference I've observed in getting physical with people at either end of the height spectrum (I'm sure this affects me more than others, being nearer one end than a lot of others); some thing just aren't possible, or possible the same way, across that difference. It's interesting to me that the categories of experience aren't named, though; there aren't 'shortosexuals' or 'tallosexuals', and 'bisexual' isn't constructed across the assumed polarity of height as a category. I feel pretty certain that this comes down to a lot of social contruction, particularly to the weighting of some categories and the dismissing of others as only individual variation.
In my ideal circumstance, I would call for an explosion of categorization, because everyone's individual preferences should, I think, be allowed equal weight where they are the subject. That this would almost certainly lead to a deemphasis of the currently privileged categories is just gravy*.
*Not intended as an appeal to potential gravysexuals, but if that's your thing, get on with your bad self.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-06-02 01:09 pm (UTC)That being said, I suspect my problem is categorical; I just don't understand the categorical weighting. I get that penises and vaginas work differently, but to me, it also seems that each individual set of genitals works differently, too. Add in the mental connections to the person who owns them, and individuation only multiplies. Or, to paraphrase one of my favorite biohistorians, intracategorical variation is greater than intercategorical variation (again, to me).
From another take on the same or similar angle, when it gets down to nuts and bolts, there's a large difference I've observed in getting physical with people at either end of the height spectrum (I'm sure this affects me more than others, being nearer one end than a lot of others); some thing just aren't possible, or possible the same way, across that difference. It's interesting to me that the categories of experience aren't named, though; there aren't 'shortosexuals' or 'tallosexuals', and 'bisexual' isn't constructed across the assumed polarity of height as a category. I feel pretty certain that this comes down to a lot of social contruction, particularly to the weighting of some categories and the dismissing of others as only individual variation.
In my ideal circumstance, I would call for an explosion of categorization, because everyone's individual preferences should, I think, be allowed equal weight where they are the subject. That this would almost certainly lead to a deemphasis of the currently privileged categories is just gravy*.
*Not intended as an appeal to potential gravysexuals, but if that's your thing, get on with your bad self.