![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sexuality (or not)
Aug. 25th, 2011 08:46 pmI have been trying to write this post for awhile but have been unable to decide what form it should take. I think I've more or less decided - this is my personal dictionary and lexicon for ... certain terms, anyway.
Homosexuality:
1) A situation in which someone shows a sexual preference for their own gender.
2) Nothing that requires any personal or moral judgement call on my part, because who someone sleeps with is none of my business.
Bisexuality:
1) A situation in which a person shows a sexual preference for either gender.
2) Nothing that requires any personal or moral judgement call on my part, because who someone sleeps with is none of my business.
Transsexual:
1) A person whose gender identity does not conform to the genitalia and chromosome pair with which they were born.
2) Nothing that requires any personal or moral judgement call on my part, because unless I have any intention of sleeping with them, what someone has in their undies is none of my business.
Polyamory:
1) A situation in which several people have a committed sexual and romantic relationship with multiple partners in an atmosphere of open communication and respect for all parties involved.
2) Nothing that requires any personal or moral judgement call on my part, because unless I am sleeping with them too, who someone sleeps with is none of my business.
I think that people should be aware of and respect all these states of being without fucking judging. Because it is not anyone's place to judge anybody just because of who they want to sleep with, or how they choose to identify themselves, or how they choose to conduct their intimate relationships, unless it is directly hurting the people doing the judging. So the question the world needs to ask itself is this: will giving people who do things differently than you do the rights and respect that you enjoy, expect and often take for granted actually hurt you? Because I think that the answer is 'no'; people just think that the world should be how they want it.
Of course, part of the problem is that everyone thinks that the world should be how they want it, including the people who are sick of being judged and ignored. People have to accept that there is nothing wrong with being gay or bi or trans or polyamorous, I agree. But I also believe that people have to accept that people who have no personal experience with LGBT shouldn't be writing about it because they almost always get it wrong. There's generations of crap portrayals of sexuality in general - homosexuality, bisexuality and even heterosexuality - that serve as some people's only experience. The only way that's going to change is if people who actually know how to do it properly start doing the writing in that regard. Maybe writers would be more inclusive if they were fairly sure that they weren't going to get dogpiled with UR DOIN IT RONG the moment they try. And personally, I like the ones in which it's no big deal, y'know? For example, the Doctor Who ep "A Good Man Goes To War", when Thin One and Fat One are talking and it's "We're the Thin Fat Gay Married Anglican Marines; why do we need names as well?" or in "Waters of Mars" when a secondary character just casually mentions his husband. I like how it's no big deal. Because it isn't a big deal, and it shouldn't be. How people choose to conduct their relationships should not be ignored any more than it should be condemned, but ... I guess moderation is the key in all things, including representation. Casual and natural mentions not only underlines that it is really that simple, but doesn't get accusations from manipulative, homophobic, narrow-minded jerkwads of 'those people rubbing our noses in it'. Normally I wouldn't advocate leniency to the point of view of bigots, but in this case I'm suggesting sneaking things past them until the next time they bitch about a gay main character, you can point out that they didn't complain about X, Y or Z show and that had gay characters... It might shut them up for ten minutes, at least.
Still, I get why people would campaign harshly for more representation in media. For years - years - I have been stressed out about my disinterest in and borderline antipathy towards sex despite my capability for strong romantic interest and enjoyment of, say, kissing. It never occurred to me that there might be a term like 'biromantic asexual' out there. Given that most of the planet seems to be so heavily invested in sex, I just thought that I was severely screwed up about it for some reason or other. It would have been so helpful to me to have a single asexual main character in some show or story or movie - it wouldn't even have had to be a big deal plotwise, but just to see it, somewhere, anywhere, being treated like it was normal and not just someone being frigid and needing a good seeing-to by the right man or something stupid... Maybe I wouldn't have played the part in the fuckery that has been my relationships up until now if I'd known about this a long time ago. So I get it, y'know? But I don't expect anyone to write it for me if it's not there for them, y'know? (Although I do think that Suzanne Collins missed a trick with Katniss Everdeen in terms of a potentially asexual MC. But that's by the by.) But like I love seeing casual references to gay married couples in fiction because it's clearly there and just as clearly a thing that's natural/right/normal/just-plain-there enough to not require a Very Special Episode, I'd love to see a mention of or quick reference to a committed asexual relationship that's more than 'just friends'. Of course, I also get that it's harder with asexuality than it is with the rest, because it's difficult to portray a negative - as in, it's hard to show not-sex in such a way that makes it's clear that it's 'not-sex' and not just ... well, you know what I mean. That it's not just 'picky person', 'frigid bitch' or 'loser who can't get laid so they pretend to not care'.
Which brings me to my last point. I'm not entirely sure about the 'proper' usage of the term 'queer', but what little understanding I have of it leads me to believe that it can be used as an umbrella term that embraces all expressions of sexual preference that differ from your 'standard' heteromonogamous collective. So I know a lot of people seem to think that heteroromantic or aromantic asexuals should not be calling themselves 'queer', but ... well, they can bite me. Because frankly, the status quo discriminates against or ignores those whose sexuality is 'none of the above' as much as it does those whose sexuality is 'all of the above'. We get called frigid, medically or otherwise. We are encouraged to seek medical advice about the issue, because it's assumed that decreased libido is due to, for example, depression. We are assumed to be the victims of sexual abuse. Maybe we don't get the disgust or the denial of rights, but we do get the judgement calls and there's a hell of a lot of pity. We sure as hell have a hard time finding out that there's not something wrong with us. When the world thinks that who you are in terms of your sexuality is the symptom of a psychological problem (not even the psychological problem itself, but just a symptom), how is that not 'queer' as it seems to be currently understood? It certainly isn't the norm in terms of sexuality...
Well. That was longer than I meant it to be. To summarise the summary: I wish people would stop judging other people's lives.
Homosexuality:
1) A situation in which someone shows a sexual preference for their own gender.
2) Nothing that requires any personal or moral judgement call on my part, because who someone sleeps with is none of my business.
Bisexuality:
1) A situation in which a person shows a sexual preference for either gender.
2) Nothing that requires any personal or moral judgement call on my part, because who someone sleeps with is none of my business.
Transsexual:
1) A person whose gender identity does not conform to the genitalia and chromosome pair with which they were born.
2) Nothing that requires any personal or moral judgement call on my part, because unless I have any intention of sleeping with them, what someone has in their undies is none of my business.
Polyamory:
1) A situation in which several people have a committed sexual and romantic relationship with multiple partners in an atmosphere of open communication and respect for all parties involved.
2) Nothing that requires any personal or moral judgement call on my part, because unless I am sleeping with them too, who someone sleeps with is none of my business.
I think that people should be aware of and respect all these states of being without fucking judging. Because it is not anyone's place to judge anybody just because of who they want to sleep with, or how they choose to identify themselves, or how they choose to conduct their intimate relationships, unless it is directly hurting the people doing the judging. So the question the world needs to ask itself is this: will giving people who do things differently than you do the rights and respect that you enjoy, expect and often take for granted actually hurt you? Because I think that the answer is 'no'; people just think that the world should be how they want it.
Of course, part of the problem is that everyone thinks that the world should be how they want it, including the people who are sick of being judged and ignored. People have to accept that there is nothing wrong with being gay or bi or trans or polyamorous, I agree. But I also believe that people have to accept that people who have no personal experience with LGBT shouldn't be writing about it because they almost always get it wrong. There's generations of crap portrayals of sexuality in general - homosexuality, bisexuality and even heterosexuality - that serve as some people's only experience. The only way that's going to change is if people who actually know how to do it properly start doing the writing in that regard. Maybe writers would be more inclusive if they were fairly sure that they weren't going to get dogpiled with UR DOIN IT RONG the moment they try. And personally, I like the ones in which it's no big deal, y'know? For example, the Doctor Who ep "A Good Man Goes To War", when Thin One and Fat One are talking and it's "We're the Thin Fat Gay Married Anglican Marines; why do we need names as well?" or in "Waters of Mars" when a secondary character just casually mentions his husband. I like how it's no big deal. Because it isn't a big deal, and it shouldn't be. How people choose to conduct their relationships should not be ignored any more than it should be condemned, but ... I guess moderation is the key in all things, including representation. Casual and natural mentions not only underlines that it is really that simple, but doesn't get accusations from manipulative, homophobic, narrow-minded jerkwads of 'those people rubbing our noses in it'. Normally I wouldn't advocate leniency to the point of view of bigots, but in this case I'm suggesting sneaking things past them until the next time they bitch about a gay main character, you can point out that they didn't complain about X, Y or Z show and that had gay characters... It might shut them up for ten minutes, at least.
Still, I get why people would campaign harshly for more representation in media. For years - years - I have been stressed out about my disinterest in and borderline antipathy towards sex despite my capability for strong romantic interest and enjoyment of, say, kissing. It never occurred to me that there might be a term like 'biromantic asexual' out there. Given that most of the planet seems to be so heavily invested in sex, I just thought that I was severely screwed up about it for some reason or other. It would have been so helpful to me to have a single asexual main character in some show or story or movie - it wouldn't even have had to be a big deal plotwise, but just to see it, somewhere, anywhere, being treated like it was normal and not just someone being frigid and needing a good seeing-to by the right man or something stupid... Maybe I wouldn't have played the part in the fuckery that has been my relationships up until now if I'd known about this a long time ago. So I get it, y'know? But I don't expect anyone to write it for me if it's not there for them, y'know? (Although I do think that Suzanne Collins missed a trick with Katniss Everdeen in terms of a potentially asexual MC. But that's by the by.) But like I love seeing casual references to gay married couples in fiction because it's clearly there and just as clearly a thing that's natural/right/normal/just-plain-there enough to not require a Very Special Episode, I'd love to see a mention of or quick reference to a committed asexual relationship that's more than 'just friends'. Of course, I also get that it's harder with asexuality than it is with the rest, because it's difficult to portray a negative - as in, it's hard to show not-sex in such a way that makes it's clear that it's 'not-sex' and not just ... well, you know what I mean. That it's not just 'picky person', 'frigid bitch' or 'loser who can't get laid so they pretend to not care'.
Which brings me to my last point. I'm not entirely sure about the 'proper' usage of the term 'queer', but what little understanding I have of it leads me to believe that it can be used as an umbrella term that embraces all expressions of sexual preference that differ from your 'standard' heteromonogamous collective. So I know a lot of people seem to think that heteroromantic or aromantic asexuals should not be calling themselves 'queer', but ... well, they can bite me. Because frankly, the status quo discriminates against or ignores those whose sexuality is 'none of the above' as much as it does those whose sexuality is 'all of the above'. We get called frigid, medically or otherwise. We are encouraged to seek medical advice about the issue, because it's assumed that decreased libido is due to, for example, depression. We are assumed to be the victims of sexual abuse. Maybe we don't get the disgust or the denial of rights, but we do get the judgement calls and there's a hell of a lot of pity. We sure as hell have a hard time finding out that there's not something wrong with us. When the world thinks that who you are in terms of your sexuality is the symptom of a psychological problem (not even the psychological problem itself, but just a symptom), how is that not 'queer' as it seems to be currently understood? It certainly isn't the norm in terms of sexuality...
Well. That was longer than I meant it to be. To summarise the summary: I wish people would stop judging other people's lives.