Sexuality/identity

[hmpf]

What we really need is not for society to accept new labels, new groups (homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality... various fetishes... polyamory) but to do away with the need for labels and groups completely. It's too complex, contradictory and fluid a thing, on every scale (and there are at least two different, intersecting scales here - strength of drive and type of attraction - and possibly more) to be categorised. And, while it's true that we always have to generalise because otherwise communication is impossible (reality is always more complex than the words that try to capture it, but we do need to talk about it nevertheless), I'm not sure that having more opportunity to differentiate really helps much, in this particular area of human experience. Having a whole *bunch* of minorities I could identify as does not help me.

Perhaps this is one area of life where we should just try to learn to live with the fact that... life just doesn't always *fit* all those neat little boxes we make up in our minds? That sometimes it really is amorphous, ever-changing, and possibly even weird beyond description... (and also, that this is a feature and not a bug. Repeat after me, society: DEVIANCE DOES NOT EQUAL ILLNESS.)

Cultural identity would be another such area.

We need fewer boundaries, fewer mental demarcation lines.

Oh, and I'd also like world peace, please.

Comments

DEVIANCE DOES NOT EQUAL ILLNESS

[mikes-grrl.livejournal.com]

Preach it!

But, alas, you'll get world peace first. People rely on labels for social interaction, identity, etc. I've heard people, friends, beg so often "don't label me! I refuse to accept labels!" but then they are nothing. Not literally, but in context, they have no identity, no way of interacting with those around them. And whether they accept labels or not does nothing to stop others from labeling them.

I don't think doing away with labels or tribalism is the answer. For one thing, given the structure of our brains, it's impossible. We are linguistically wired to categorize. But more importantly, it is unnecessary. The key is in your call to arms, "DEVIANCE DOES NOT EQUAL ILLNESS." It is the JUDGEMENTAL values people place on labels that damn us all.

Fewer boundaries and demarcation lines leads to chaos, which I simply do not think the human brain is evolved enough (yet) to deal with rationally (for the most part -- some people can, but most people cannot). What we need is less judgemental assigning of values to those labels.

I think the acceptance of fluidity -- of gender, sexuality, identity -- would be much easier if people were not so desperate to make something 'good' or 'bad', 'us' and 'them'. Labels are simply tools in the social construct; the judgemental valuing of labels is the divisive and destructive aspect of our interactions.

...and oh yeah, I'd like a pony. ;-)

[calime]

Can I get in line behind you, plz?
Also, reason #1 for coveting immortality - time to read all those books.Reason #2 - to see whether the world would change for the better.
Reason #1 for not to want immortality - to refrain from seeing how it does not.
On a different note - I re-read 68 Wives today, to my great enjoyment. I think what I like most about it is the rythm and the makeup of the piece. It fits the theme and it's kind of hypnotic, almost like a prose poem. One thing I'm curious about - when writing all those wives, did you 'see' them in your mind and just pick the most defining thing about them, or was it like it might be for Methos - that in most cases, what you wrote was all you 'knew' about them?

But even with a benevolent approach to the labels...

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

... and to the groups they are used on, there is still an expectation that people will *fit* into one or several of these groups. It's not heteronormativity anymore, but it *is* a form of normativity that can still be harmful, because people are expected to base a significant part of their identity on it. Now, that may be fine for all the people who find a label that fits them (although I think that even with those, things are probably too complicated to *really* make the label appropriate, in many cases), but you'll always get people who don't. And I suspect that the only reason we don't get a visible *majority* of people who don't 'fit into boxes' is that fitting yourself into them is still the dominant expectation.

Granted, a 'heterosexual' who, maybe twice in a lifetime, feels the slightest bit of homosexual attraction, or a 'homosexual' who twice in a lifetime feels some heterosexual attraction will probably be fairly happy with their respective categories. But I suspect that a great number of people are really not on the extreme ends of the scale; I think it's probably a bell curve, with a *lot* of people nearer the middle than nearer the extremes.

And the 'hetero-/homosexual attraction' thing is just an example. The same case could be made for strength of sexual interest - in some, few people it's going to be nil, in some it's *very* strong, and then there's all the many different states in between. (And then there's other types of sexual attraction that go beyond the simple gender distinction. Again, bell curves. I think.) And all of these intersect, to make things even more difficult.

I've spent some time today on the AVEN website (http://www.asexuality.org/home/) again, as part of my ongoing quest to determine whether or not I am asexual, and mostly, I think I'm not - but partly that is because I'm not sure the word even makes sense. I'm certainly asexual according to most *definitions*, and am, in fact, near the more extreme end of the asexuality scale. Still, I clearly have sexual thoughts and feelings, even though strangely rerouted ones. And most definitions of asexuality take those into account - they say, for example, that you can be asexual yet still fantasise about and have crushes on people. There are, apparently (according to definitions) different types of asexuals - some who have absolutely no interest in sex whatsoever, and no sexual feelings whatsoever, and some who will go as far as fantasising but are not interested in any actual acts, and some who will even masturbate and just aren't interested in doing 'it' with another person. Now, to me this sounds very much like people trying to draw a fairly random line to separate the lower end of the 'sex drive' bell curve from the rest.

On the one hand, I'm thrilled that they're doing this, because at least it's opening the public consciousness to the idea that having a low interest in sex can actually be *natural* and does not equal psychological dysfunction. But on the other hand, I'm annoyed at the randomness of the line drawn. And, even though I fit even the stricter definitions of the term, I hesitate to label myself as asexual, because strange and outside the box though it is, my sexuality is an important presence in my life. Just because it doesn't have a name doesn't mean it's not real.

I hesitate to call myself heterosexual, too, although 90% of my 'attraction experiences' have been heterosexual, and the few same-sex attractions I've felt were weaker than most of those I've felt towards men. Yet I also don't usually call myself bisexual, because there seems to be a fairly strong expectation that bisexuality means a fairly equal amount of attraction to both sexes - not to mention, both in the case of heterosexuality and of bisexuality, that interest in/experience with sexual acts is also usually expected. If pushed, I guess I could call myself a bi-curious heterosexual asexual, if there is such a thing. Or a bi-curious asexual heterosexual. (And that wouldn't even begin to take some of the stranger parts of my sexuality into account.)

Maybe I should f-lock this. *g*

Whoo, sorry for the teal deer I produced there.

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

You're of course right that assigning positive or neutral values instead of negative ones to the more 'outré' mental boxes would help to take some of the pressure off.

But, speaking as someone who doesn't assign negative values to any of those boxes, I still find it difficult to quite simply *fit* into them - and I do feel that society expects me to.

This expectation is not a huge, crippling kind of pressure. I don't think any of the major problems in my life are due to it. But it is a frequent to permanent, low-level source of annoyance.

Immortality?

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

I'm confused now.

Though, totally with you on coveting immortality so as to be able to read more. God, yes.

Re: Wives. Heh. Glad you liked the rhythm - I'm very 'rhythm-conscious' when I write (see also the discussion about English, a couple posts back *g*), so I'm glad if the result 'works' for people. I've recently found myself drifting into poetry - all my Life on Mars fic incorporates poetry sections. Perhaps it's a natural progression. Though I do hope to get back to prose now, because really, I do want to tell *stories*! *g*

The wives came to me pretty much in one big burst of inspiration, in the middle of one night in January 2006 - about forty of them were conceived on the spot. They mostly came in the shape of one sentence/one piece of information, but some had some backstory. (#67's backstory is actually part of the backstory of my very oldest, unfinished fic).

Re: But even with a benevolent approach to the labels...

[mikes-grrl.livejournal.com]

Yes, but...

The thing is, when you start carving down labels to their basic elements, NO ONE fits them perfectly. That's why I call them tools of the social construct, because they help people understand other people in a framework that does not lead to mass confusion and dispair. (yes, dispair; people get very angsty and worried when they get confused). But that's their limit: as tools to assist understanding. The error comes from people believing that the label IS the understanding, and then slapping a value on it.

I totally identify as bisexual because I have a level of attraction for both sexes. There are about 4,000 different definitions of 'bisexual' and probably not a single one really fits my sexuality, but I accept that limitation. If someone really wants to know specifics, they'll ask, and if they don't, then they are happy with the generalization and nothing I say or do will convince them that the generalization doesn't apply to me. That isn't the problem, anyway. The problem is someone going, "ooooo, bisexuals are disgusting and unnatural!" Then it doesn't even matter what 'flavor' of bisexual I am or how accurate the label is, I've been tarred. I'm not going to drop the label 'bisexual' because someone, somewhere might not like me for it or might misunderstand my particular take on bisexuality. It's close enough to keep the conversation going, to let people know where in the general spectrum of things I stand.

I think the important thing to remember is that a label is (again) a useful tool for interacting with people, but useless in defining yourself. You are who you are and your sexuality is what it is, as it is for every human being on earth. To try to label precisely every flavor of sexuality that exists, we'd need a label for every person alive. No two are the same. Labels are, by necessity, generalizations. Anyone who DOESN'T know that need not be discussing your sexuality with you anyway! lol!

But why are bothering worrying about where you 'fit'? Call yourself bisexual or asexual or ubisexual (I made that up...) and let people do what they want with those labels (they will anyway). If someone cares/is curious/wants to know more, they'll ask, right? And if you care, you'll tell them. Otherwise a generalization is all that is needed or useful, and only becomes a problem when someone decides you're 'sick' or 'abnormal' because of it, at which point accuracy of the label is moot.

♥

[jazzymegster.livejournal.com]

I have nothing of import to add, but just wanted to say I agree.

I *was* speaking about a utopia there.

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

I mean, why *do* we need categories in that area of our life so badly that we just seem to be able to make up new ones, instead of, maybe, tearing them down instead, now that we're finally beginning to notice that they don't work all that well? Everybody would look at you really strangely if you were to suggest that, say, there should be social categories for people who are shorter than 1.55 m and for people who are taller than 1.95 m, to pick a suitably random example of something else that is largely beyond individual control and can be more or less described by a bell curve.

I agree that generally speaking we can't do without labels and generalisations, for the purpose of communication which makes it possible for us to build a society etc. (and also for the purpose of individual thought). But I think that labels and generalisations are... more harmful if applied in areas that are closely related to individual identity, and sexuality tends to be, so this is why I'm particularly wary of them there, I think.

And I'm probably particularly interested in this because I have a fairly long history of people breaking out the kitchen sink psychology tools to find out what was wrong with me when they noticed I didn't fit in this or that box. And I haven't always had the confidence to say (or even think) "there's nothing wrong with me, I'm just different".

I kind of hope...

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

that the 'more labels, more groups, more boxes' thing is a phase that we need to go through on the way towards a utopian state in which sexuality will just simply be sexuality - just as height is simply height.

We currently probably still need the labels because some of those groups are still disadvantaged in various ways, and having a name for the group helps to make them visible, and to deal with all the issues of rights and normativity and whatnot. In the Perfect Society of the Future (ha ha), where it *really* does not matter anymore whether you're shagging a man, a woman, a man and a woman, two men, two women, a plastic doll, a yucca palm, or nobody/nothing, and whether you start doing that at 16, at 35, at 78, or not at all, labels won't matter anymore, either.

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

I suppose from the outside, I look terribly undeviant, getting married at 24 to the boy I was dating since I was 18, but hey, I also have an entirely inappropriate crush on a certain middle-aged female president from space-land, so I'm inclined to agree with you about the stupidity of absolute categories. I found someone I was in love with; he happened to be a guy, he happened to be my age; it could have been otherwise.

As you say, it's about bell curves not train cars. But humans self-identify and feel safest in groups, with labels, with others like us.

And on top of that, sex is not something very many people (including me) feel all that comfortable talking about. Research suggests that there are all kinds of people who don't have as high a sex drive, or who (especially women) don't get an awful lot out of penetrative intercourse, but are happy to fool around in other ways, but no one's about to admit that because of social stigma. It's harder to have a conversation about sexual classifications than cultural ones.

That's probably the reason why the internet is the first place these new categories show up.

But as you say, sometimes, categories aren't helpful.

For what it's worth, I support you calling yourself whatever you like. I think your comfort with your identification is more important than society's. But I'm sure you know that. :)

*uses an icon of one of the few men on TV that make her heart go pitter-pat*

Re: Immortality?

[calime]

Sorry, the immortality tangent brought to you courtesy of my brain that in the late evenings tends to present the end product straight up and forget to show all the work leading up to it :) *attempts to clarify*
Basically, my brain was all WORD! when reading 'Repeat after me, society: DEVIANCE DOES NOT EQUAL ILLNESS.', and then the scepticism worm slithered by and hissed: 'fat chanssse' *grins*.