Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Fluttershys Cottage. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Human Sexuality; ...Is pretty crazy, right?
Topic Started: Jun 24 2012, 04:24 PM (596 Views)
Yanmato
Member Avatar
I'll flip you. I'll flip you for real.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
One of the more insidious aspects of heteronormativity is the mindset that heterosexuality is the "default" orientation. It's the "normal" sexuality. When one examines deviations from this established baseline, the subject is seen as having a particular trait. "Is attracted to own gender" is a trait, where "Is not" is the normal non-trait. The problem being that this sets heteronormative thinkers up for some strongly-built misconceptions. Whether it's judged as negative, positive, or neutral, "I am attracted to gender X" becomes an abnormal trait. The state of being attracted to that gender becomes a quality that defines that person. The thinker becomes aware of every member of that gender the subject knows. "They're attracted to those people," muses the thinker.

This is what leads to the guy who feels uncomfortable sitting next to the gay man when a het woman provokes no response. This is what leads to the thought that gay bars are perpetual alcohol-fueled orgies because what's a lesbian going to do but have sex with other women? That's what they do, right? Heterosexuality gets no such confusion because it's not a trait at all. It's the default, normal state. In some ways, a heterosexual is seen as not even having an "orientation." And this divide between states that have no real fundamental differences among them means that while one sexuality is seen as nothing more than a quality the person possesses- one that defines little other than who they sleep with on the off-chance that they sleep with someone- another is seen as something akin to a fetish or a fixation. "You have a trait that is sexual in nature. You are a sex freak." This doesn't carry over the the heterosexual, of course. Remember, the heterosexual has no trait.

In reality these traits mean little other than that a person is capable of being attracted to members of a certain group. If one is "attracted to women," this doesn't automatically mean one is filled with lust at the sight of any female that comes into their field of vision- that's the case whether the individual is a het man or is themselves a woman, no difference. And of course one understands this is true for normative sexuality. But normative sexuality is effectively invisible, so heteronormative thinkers generally don't think of truths of their own orientation and apply them to others. The terminology is somewhat misleading in this idea as well. "One is attracted to such-and-such" isn't quite as accurate as "One possesses the capacity to be attracted to such-and-such."

Along with this I was thinking of Stalks's suggestion quite a while ago, that bisexuality is the human default and that restrictions (biological, psychological, and social) are pasted over that basic sexuality. And I have a new model by which to look at human sexuality. One that hopefully solves these issues or at least blunts them.

To begin with, under this model heterosexuality is not the "default" from which one examines others. There's going to be a "default" from which all other things are seen as deviations- from which all differences are seen as "traits" while adherences are "non-traits-" that's just human nature. So consider pansexuality the default. I certainly don't think it's the most common state for humans to find themselves in, but it seems like a reasonable zero-line. "Attracted to anything" "Possesses the capacity to be attracted to anything" seems like a good objective place to set as the center of the graph. This also means one's orientation including any given group is never going to be the trait. NOT including that group would be the trait. This makes the issue of traits-as-freakish-deformities just a little easier to work with. You can imagine what it's like to not be attracted to a given group. Whether for you it's a certain gender, a child, other species, or just a lamp, you can personally identify with that feeling. "I do not automatically find you repulsive in any way. But nothing you or anyone can do will ever make you sexually appealing to me, solely because you have such-and-such quality". Hard to turn that abnormal trait into a fixation, at least not in a way that justifies throwing rocks at them or accusing them of serial rape. (This is the reason pansexuality is set as the "normal" state rather than asexuality.)

Rather than naming someone's orientation by category, one possesses each of these traits, each of these sexual out-groups. And one would define oneself by acknowledging each of their traits separately. Each group one is not attracted to would be referred to by having a 'barrier' against that group. As in, "Thanks bro, but I have a barrier against other dudes."

"Heterosexual" sounds like a package deal. All the not-attracteds that come with it must go together, or so the old model would have you believe. But that's just not the case. And it encourages heteronormative thinkers to lump everything not falling into that category together. Under the new model the originally "normative" individual now has several traits rather than a single un-trait. A barrier against their own sex. A barrier against minors. A barrier against animals. A barrier against relatives. Each of these traits is a separate quality that colors the individual's sexuality independently and none of them have anything to do with one another. Take one away and the rest don't suddenly evaporate. Under the old model, some people still believe otherwise. Every category of orientation under the old model is really a whole cocktail of separate unrelated traits. A better model should recognize each trait separately to more accurately measure and understand orientation.

In addition, these barriers would exist on multiple levels. There's the guy who just isn't attracted to men and the guy who just won't ever say out loud that he's attracted to men. These are different from one another and both are different from the openly gay guy. I imagine three levels of barrier, any one of which could apply to any given group:
Level 1: The individual cannot feel attracted to anyone in the given group.
Level 2: The individual cannot acknowledge any feeling of attraction to anyone in the given group.
Level 3: The individual will not act on any feeling of attraction to anyone in the given group.
Only one of these three levels of barrier can exist for a certain group at a time. If one has a level 2 barrier, for example, that can only be because one doesn't have a level 1 barrier against the same group, and the notion of a level 3 barrier is moot. There's not much one can do about one's own level 1 barriers and having or not having any given one isn't inherently good or bad. And level 3 barriers aren't automatically harmful. In fact, maintaining certain level 3 barriers is seen as a good thing, and failing to build them can put you in jail for certain groups. Arguably with good reason, depending. But I suspect all level 2 barriers are inherently unhealthy.

One can have barriers against certain activities as well as certain groups. Everyone has a few kinks they just do not want to ever try. I'd also put attraction toward things not capable of returning affection on their own (like the previously mentioned lamp, or in a more common but probably squickier case, corpses) in the act category rather than the group category. People in groups interact with one another; it's a two-way street between you and the person you do or do not have a barrier against. Acts are something one individual does or two or more people do together. You can have barriers around the act but the act can't have barriers back; that's the key difference between the two categories. And barriers against acts can live on any of the three levels, just like barriers against groups.

So under this model, possessing the capacity to feel attracted to someone or something is not the trait. It's the "default." This means others thinking under the model are less likely to automatically view it as a fixation. But while that's probably true, humans are still able to fixate. One can possess a fixation just like one can possess a barrier. And that fixation can be toward a group or an act. It can vary in intensity. It just can't be toward the same thing one has a barrier toward- at least not a level 1 or 2 barrier. Fixations, just like barriers, are variations from the default, where having no barriers OR fixations is the "normal" condition.

So does this make sense? Does it sound good? What are the flaws in this way of thinking? Does your own orientation look different under this model of measurement than the original categorical model? Does it feel more or less accurate?

TL;DR: The opt-in model of measuring sexuality is dumb. Use an opt-out model instead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Celery Stalks
Member Avatar
Just watch, I'm going to make Bell my wife!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
From birth and pre-birth are different though.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nameless
Member Avatar
Our Great and Humble Zombie Overlord
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Is sexuality determined in the womb, or shortly after?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Celery Stalks
Member Avatar
Just watch, I'm going to make Bell my wife!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm saying that genetically the potential to have offspring of varying sexualities seems like something that exists in all humans, not something that is specific to certain people. I don't think you can determine someone's sexuality from their DNA. It is probably a combination of chemical experience and environmental experience that results in a person's sexuality.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nameless
Member Avatar
Our Great and Humble Zombie Overlord
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Celery Stalks
Jun 29 2012, 09:25 AM
I'm saying that genetically the potential to have offspring of varying sexualities seems like something that exists in all humans, not something that is specific to certain people.
That's why I said homosexuality could be the result of a genetic mutation.

Mutations in genetic code can happen to anyone, and are unexpected. If a homosexual person reproduced, it would not be surprising if their offspring were straight; nor would it be surprising if a straight person's offspring were homosexual under this theory.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Celery Stalks
Member Avatar
Just watch, I'm going to make Bell my wife!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Yes, it is normal for certain genetic mutations (or at least genetic activations) to happen over the course of a human life. But sexuality (at least in humans) is not just a few simple choices, the experiences one has effects their preferences to a large extent I believe. Attraction to the sexes might be more simple, but sexuality as a whole is complex, and I think it is probably just determined by brain development.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yanmato
Member Avatar
I'll flip you. I'll flip you for real.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
There are several genes that are being linked with predisposition for and against certain sexualities.
There's also evidence that the elaborate chemical cocktail that sustains a fetus in the womb can have an impact on sexuality depending on how the host body reacts to the foreign creature in it.
Some people even say (with evidence to back it up) that a baby's diet in the first year or so of their life can permanently affect their orientation later.
There's kind of a lot going on in a human brain.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Celery Stalks
Member Avatar
Just watch, I'm going to make Bell my wife!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
So I have strawberry cheesecake baby food to blame...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply