This should make an interesting contrast to my last post, I suspect. Warning, no in-depth details, but discussion of kink, specifically my newly explored kinks.
I've known what kink and BDSM are from a fairly early age. I used to be an avid watcher of Law and Order: SVU and CSI (I think my parents only let me because they knew they wouldn't be able to change my actions anyway). And so a number of "deviant sexual behaviors" are explored as a matter of course throughout those shows. I wasn't interested or intrigued as a child, but I also wasn't put-off by the behavior.
I can't really remember when I first realized I was interested in kink, most especially as a sub. It might have been when I realized that I intended to enjoy rough sex, but maybe not. It's odd, because I think it was more realization than surprise for me. Like: "Oh, I'd enjoy having my control taken away (god knows I'll never let go of it otherwise), being tied up, and beaten. But in a consensual manner of course." And then I moved on with my life.
The thing is, up until now, I haven't had a partner who was interesting in being my Dom. In truth, I haven't really had a partner who was interested in kink. So a friend and I went to a local kink club. She enjoyed the atmosphere. I didn't. It wasn't the public aspect of it. It was, however, that I didn't know the people there apart from my friends. That's why munches are so important, meet people, get to know them, etc. But I'm not sure even that tact would have worked for me.
I've known this since I was nine. But I'm not attracted to people until I know them. It doesn't always have to be knowing them really well, but it tends to be. That's why I've sometimes known people for years and then suddenly find myself attracted to them. For a long time, I would rail against this inclination. I had no desire to ruin or alter my friendships because I'm suddenly attracted to a friend. But, I'm demisexual, which is the first time I've really used that word in reference to myself. I'm not necessarily huge on labels. But in this case, the label concisely expresses what I feel, so I'll use it for now.
So, being demisexual and kinky seems to be an unfortunate combination. Things tend to work out like this: I know you well enough to be attracted to you, but not so well that I know whether you're kinky. Turns out sexual preferences aren't a topic most people talk about with all their friends. And so, I tend to not pursue some of the opportunities I've had, because of timing or some other such thing.
Now, I think I've mentioned him at least once before, but I have a coworker. I've worked with him on and off for a year and a half now. And our interests have always aligned, much to my delight. He's poly, I'm poly. He's getting out of a long relationship, I'm getting out of a long term relationship (in case you hadn't guessed (I'll probably write about it eventually, but I'm not to that point yet)). Recently, we were working together again and I realized that we were flirting, and then discovered that I could flirt back on purpose (I'm not very good at this whole thing. I fully acknowledge that).
Our flirting escalated to the point where he threatened to put me over his knee after I had teasingly provoked him yet again. I immediately bit back the retort that: maybe that wouldn't be that effective a punishment because I'd actually enjoy it. I wasn't sure if I wanted to admit to that yet, and so I held my tongue. And the poor guy apologized to me after work, saying he hadn't wanted to make me uncomfortable. I assured him he hadn't.
I thought about that interaction the entire night and next day. And finally decided that I'd create the situation again and this time respond as I wanted to. So this time when I taunted him, I smirked, and asked him if he wasn't going to follow through on his threat. We stared at each other for a long time, me daring him, and him clearly torn. And then he spanked me. Once, but surprisingly hard. And at work of all places (in case you haven't gathered already, theatre's a weird place).
From there we fell into things. We talked, a lot. He bought me a drink after an especially hard day, told me he liked me (and I returned the sentiment), and he kissed me. We continued to flirt, unambiguously, he called it. He finally told me that he was into kink and was a Dom, and then asked me. I told him I was a sub, but had absolutely no experience, but was certainly interested. He followed me home at the end of that week (in the most exciting, non-weird, consensual way possible).
I've always learned fast, but this progression has been ridiculously so. It feels almost unsetting, how natural this has been. He out-talks me, by a fair amount, which is just delightfully novel to me. More delightfully, he pins me, throws me around, ties me up, and beats me. All at my request. I was nervous at first. But that nervousness evaporated probably within the first five minutes, when I realized I was getting exactly what I wanted. Our kinks happen to mesh perfectly. We couldn't have planned that portion better if we'd wanted to, it was just remarkably good luck.
We sorta fell into whatever this is, so easily. It's not dating, and I'm fine with that. I don't think either of us are really ready for that. But the other realization that I've had is: dating or not, I'm more satisfied than I've been in years of a relationship that was dating. It's wonderful to have someone take my control away, force me to relax. Relaxation is something I crave, and I seriously can't seem to accomplish by myself. I can take care of myself, so I do. But having someone forcing me to let go, to take care of me, to let me just relax, that's amazing. Things are still new, and I am determined to keep it casual for now (if I say it enough, it will happen), but it's fun. And I've already realized that I don't think I could go back to only vanilla sex. Or if I could, I certainly wouldn't want to.
Showing posts with label Sexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sexuality. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Monday, February 20, 2012
Two Spirit
My final quarter at college, I was required to write a dossier for my class on Native American playwrights. We were allowed to pick any topic and write about it. I remembered vaguely the character from Little Big Man who was, I thought at the time (though now I know better) trans, and was curious. My professor also mentioned some Native American tribes that had five, six, even nine genders and so the matter was settled for me. I did my paper on Native American non-binary genders. I did months worth of research and literally read thousands of pages in books. I went far beyond the scope of the original paper, but I checked with my professor and she didn't actually mind.
Below the break is the paper. It's extremely long (9 pages when single spaced), but it's that length because I had so much information to write about, not because I was bullshitting in order to hit the page requirement. I think at the end it gets a little bit...over-reachy in it's conclusion about plays about non-binary genders, because in truth, there wasn't a ton of material out there about it.
Why am I posting this? Because I learned an incredible amount and this isn't information they just teach you in schools, but it's so interesting and important. Hopefully this doesn't read like this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2525#comic
Below the break is the paper. It's extremely long (9 pages when single spaced), but it's that length because I had so much information to write about, not because I was bullshitting in order to hit the page requirement. I think at the end it gets a little bit...over-reachy in it's conclusion about plays about non-binary genders, because in truth, there wasn't a ton of material out there about it.
Why am I posting this? Because I learned an incredible amount and this isn't information they just teach you in schools, but it's so interesting and important. Hopefully this doesn't read like this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2525#comic
Friday, February 17, 2012
An Analogy (with Colors!)
I need to stop apologizing for not blogging. I've been so busy lately I haven't even had time to think, let alone blog. I will do my very best to blog as often as possible; as much as my job and schedule permit. That said, I have four or five post ideas and an entire week off. (I think I'm the only one who's actually worried about this, so I am saying it more for my own sake than anyone else's).
One of the most frustrating things for me personally is when I'm explaining things about sexuality to people and they say: "Why is there so much terminology? Why can't there just be: straight and gay...and maybe bisexual." And my answer is: "Because sexuality and gender are complicated."
And here is where the colors come in. Like straight, gay, bi, female, and male there are common colors that everyone knows: red, green, yellow, orange, blue. There are also colors that mean pretty much the same thing like purple and violet (violet is actually the proper name for purple, not an actual shade) just like straight is synonymous with heterosexual and het; gay is synonymous for homosexual and both overlap with lesbian.
There are also slightly obsolete/more obscure/less used/more formal colors: red-violet, red-orange, blue-green. Homosexual and heterosexual are terms the people will certainly know what they mean, but they aren't used in colloquial speech.
Then, beyond the common, universally-known colors and the uncommon, universally-known colors, then there are all the names for very specific shades of colors: maroon, vermilion, puce, periwinkle, lavender, seafoam green, cerulean, indigo, mustard, etc, etc, etc. I literally could probably go on for an entire page without even having to think about it that hard (I didn't even name all of the Kanto Pokemon towns yet). In parallel are sexuality and gender related terms that not everyone knows the meaning of: transgender, intersex, pansexual, queer, polyamory, asexual, cisgendered (to name a few).
In all honesty, I think that I'd run out of gender and sexuality vocabulary and terms a whole hell of a lot sooner than I'd run out of colors (maybe not, I might surprise myself, but I think I still might). Why do we have literally hundreds of names for colors and people don't complain (at least not seriously (generally)) but more than one handful of sexuality and gender terminology is just too much? Sexuality is an infinitely more complicated, more intimate, and more human subject than colors. It's complex and if we are to be totally honest with ourselves, sexuality is truly unique to each person. Yes, you can be heterosexual in essence, but even within that classification you might be more attracted to masculine people, feminine people, people with your own interests, people with opposite interests. And those varieties are going to be unique and thus it is impossible to have a word that describes every person's gender and sexuality; just like how you could never have a word for every color, every shade, every tint, every tone in existence.
Saying: "Only heterosexuality, homosexuality, female, and male are valid terms, everything else is superfluous" is just ludicrous. It's just like saying: "Only red, blue, yellow, and green are valid colors". Yes, it's true red, blue, and yellow (or green if you're talking about light) are the basic colors which everything else is based on, but calling purple, blue instead is just not calling the situation what it actually is. Just like calling a woman who likes men and is attracted to women occasionally gay is just incorrect. Just like calling a woman who likes men and is attracted to women occasionally bi, is not necessarily correct. The terms in common usage are limiting and archaic.
In the situation just described previously where my analogy breaks down is: if a woman likes men but is occasionally attracted to women and still identifies as heterosexual then that is her choice. A choice which should not be questioned because only you truly know yourself. It's entirely possible there are perfectly good reasons she still identifies as heterosexual. Unlike with colors where that can be some debate: is it pink or purple? In the end, it's still in that range on the spectrum, unlike (universally) in relation to sexuality and gender.
The other thing about gender and sexuality is most of the terminology is incredibly intuitive if you know anything about Latin (and Greek) roots, which, believe it or not, even the average person knows something about just by speaking the language. The "cis" in "cisgendered" isn't pulled from the middle of no where. The "a" in "asexual" is common in so many other words: apathetic, atypical, amoral. I don't understand why people complain when the language and terms are not conjured from thin air (like vermillion (a plant root) or cerulean (a dye pigment) seem to be). It is true that even some of the terms get confusing for me (what is the difference between omisexual and pansexual exactly? (this seems to depend on who you ask)), but it is still mostly understandable.
There is just a human tendency to simplify things. To shy away from anything becoming too complicated. To shun situations that aren't easy to grasp or deal with or comprehend. But people are the most complex things I have ever run into. I love just watching people because you can learn so much just about humanity and how people exist. I just desperately wish we could all appreciate the complexities of each other and our identities as much as we seem to appreciate naming colors.
Yeah, I know: "Why can't we all just get along. Waahh. Waahh." But some times I really just wish people could be more accepting of deviation. Also, on an unrelated topic, I'm not generally very good with analogies but I'm really pleased with this one. Everything just seemed to sort of fall into place.
One of the most frustrating things for me personally is when I'm explaining things about sexuality to people and they say: "Why is there so much terminology? Why can't there just be: straight and gay...and maybe bisexual." And my answer is: "Because sexuality and gender are complicated."
And here is where the colors come in. Like straight, gay, bi, female, and male there are common colors that everyone knows: red, green, yellow, orange, blue. There are also colors that mean pretty much the same thing like purple and violet (violet is actually the proper name for purple, not an actual shade) just like straight is synonymous with heterosexual and het; gay is synonymous for homosexual and both overlap with lesbian.
There are also slightly obsolete/more obscure/less used/more formal colors: red-violet, red-orange, blue-green. Homosexual and heterosexual are terms the people will certainly know what they mean, but they aren't used in colloquial speech.
Then, beyond the common, universally-known colors and the uncommon, universally-known colors, then there are all the names for very specific shades of colors: maroon, vermilion, puce, periwinkle, lavender, seafoam green, cerulean, indigo, mustard, etc, etc, etc. I literally could probably go on for an entire page without even having to think about it that hard (I didn't even name all of the Kanto Pokemon towns yet). In parallel are sexuality and gender related terms that not everyone knows the meaning of: transgender, intersex, pansexual, queer, polyamory, asexual, cisgendered (to name a few).
In all honesty, I think that I'd run out of gender and sexuality vocabulary and terms a whole hell of a lot sooner than I'd run out of colors (maybe not, I might surprise myself, but I think I still might). Why do we have literally hundreds of names for colors and people don't complain (at least not seriously (generally)) but more than one handful of sexuality and gender terminology is just too much? Sexuality is an infinitely more complicated, more intimate, and more human subject than colors. It's complex and if we are to be totally honest with ourselves, sexuality is truly unique to each person. Yes, you can be heterosexual in essence, but even within that classification you might be more attracted to masculine people, feminine people, people with your own interests, people with opposite interests. And those varieties are going to be unique and thus it is impossible to have a word that describes every person's gender and sexuality; just like how you could never have a word for every color, every shade, every tint, every tone in existence.
Saying: "Only heterosexuality, homosexuality, female, and male are valid terms, everything else is superfluous" is just ludicrous. It's just like saying: "Only red, blue, yellow, and green are valid colors". Yes, it's true red, blue, and yellow (or green if you're talking about light) are the basic colors which everything else is based on, but calling purple, blue instead is just not calling the situation what it actually is. Just like calling a woman who likes men and is attracted to women occasionally gay is just incorrect. Just like calling a woman who likes men and is attracted to women occasionally bi, is not necessarily correct. The terms in common usage are limiting and archaic.
In the situation just described previously where my analogy breaks down is: if a woman likes men but is occasionally attracted to women and still identifies as heterosexual then that is her choice. A choice which should not be questioned because only you truly know yourself. It's entirely possible there are perfectly good reasons she still identifies as heterosexual. Unlike with colors where that can be some debate: is it pink or purple? In the end, it's still in that range on the spectrum, unlike (universally) in relation to sexuality and gender.
The other thing about gender and sexuality is most of the terminology is incredibly intuitive if you know anything about Latin (and Greek) roots, which, believe it or not, even the average person knows something about just by speaking the language. The "cis" in "cisgendered" isn't pulled from the middle of no where. The "a" in "asexual" is common in so many other words: apathetic, atypical, amoral. I don't understand why people complain when the language and terms are not conjured from thin air (like vermillion (a plant root) or cerulean (a dye pigment) seem to be). It is true that even some of the terms get confusing for me (what is the difference between omisexual and pansexual exactly? (this seems to depend on who you ask)), but it is still mostly understandable.
There is just a human tendency to simplify things. To shy away from anything becoming too complicated. To shun situations that aren't easy to grasp or deal with or comprehend. But people are the most complex things I have ever run into. I love just watching people because you can learn so much just about humanity and how people exist. I just desperately wish we could all appreciate the complexities of each other and our identities as much as we seem to appreciate naming colors.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Yeah, I know: "Why can't we all just get along. Waahh. Waahh." But some times I really just wish people could be more accepting of deviation. Also, on an unrelated topic, I'm not generally very good with analogies but I'm really pleased with this one. Everything just seemed to sort of fall into place.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Self Labeling
So, I made myself some chocolate milk that was more chocolate than milk and got some food since I hadn't eaten for hours, and I decided to try to tackle this post despite my headache.
When people say: "I don't use labels to describe myself" I respect them so much. I truly and honestly wish I could say as much. Labels are confining and don't leave room for growth or change. They can be applied falsely or not fully convey who you are (which incidentally is why I like the term queer). However, (possibly) the only logical way my brain works is when it comes to organizing things.
I think in words and emotions and pictures and shapes, and most importantly, lists. I am a compulsive list maker (speaking of which I need to change my list of random things I do during the show into an actual run list). Lists help me organize my life and in order to make lists, I need to have concise, but accurate words and descriptions. So when someone doesn't use a label to define themselves I respect them, but also know that I'm not sure I'll ever be able to do the same.
Words are limiting. I never really realized this until I started trying to talk about gender and sexuality and poly. There are so many different combinations/options/etc that a person can be that we could never possibly have words for all of them. So why bother with terminology at all? I enjoy learning terminology because it gives me a new, concise way to express a concept. It does mean that I might need to explain what the word/concept means when talking to someone, but I will only have to explain to that person once and then they will know what I am talking about.
Male and female are not adequate when talking about gender. Straight, gay/lesbian, and bi are really not adequate when talking about sexuality/orientation. And monogamy and polygamy are really not adequate when talking about plurality (or not) of relationship(s). And so I've learned about genderqueer people, and pansexual people, and polyfidelity, and asexuality, and nonmonogamy, and agender, and transgender, and, and, and. The list (Look! Another list! I didn't actually do that on purpose) just goes on and on because there can never be enough words to describe people. And that's why I respect people who don't use labels so much, but I just can't ever be one of them. Because I need to be able to think of myself in words (even if words are frequently inadequate). I am so word oriented, I'm just not sure I'll ever be able to think of myself in as a fluid, abstract concept and not in concrete, semi-tangible words.
When people say: "I don't use labels to describe myself" I respect them so much. I truly and honestly wish I could say as much. Labels are confining and don't leave room for growth or change. They can be applied falsely or not fully convey who you are (which incidentally is why I like the term queer). However, (possibly) the only logical way my brain works is when it comes to organizing things.
I think in words and emotions and pictures and shapes, and most importantly, lists. I am a compulsive list maker (speaking of which I need to change my list of random things I do during the show into an actual run list). Lists help me organize my life and in order to make lists, I need to have concise, but accurate words and descriptions. So when someone doesn't use a label to define themselves I respect them, but also know that I'm not sure I'll ever be able to do the same.
Words are limiting. I never really realized this until I started trying to talk about gender and sexuality and poly. There are so many different combinations/options/etc that a person can be that we could never possibly have words for all of them. So why bother with terminology at all? I enjoy learning terminology because it gives me a new, concise way to express a concept. It does mean that I might need to explain what the word/concept means when talking to someone, but I will only have to explain to that person once and then they will know what I am talking about.
Male and female are not adequate when talking about gender. Straight, gay/lesbian, and bi are really not adequate when talking about sexuality/orientation. And monogamy and polygamy are really not adequate when talking about plurality (or not) of relationship(s). And so I've learned about genderqueer people, and pansexual people, and polyfidelity, and asexuality, and nonmonogamy, and agender, and transgender, and, and, and. The list (Look! Another list! I didn't actually do that on purpose) just goes on and on because there can never be enough words to describe people. And that's why I respect people who don't use labels so much, but I just can't ever be one of them. Because I need to be able to think of myself in words (even if words are frequently inadequate). I am so word oriented, I'm just not sure I'll ever be able to think of myself in as a fluid, abstract concept and not in concrete, semi-tangible words.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Some Things I've Learned
- I hate -absolutely HATE- the butterfly nervous people I get before asking someone out. I have never liked it. I have plenty of friends who enjoy it sorta, but it makes me feel sick and the anticipation kills me.
- When you're dating two people, weird complications pop up that you wouldn't expect. Who do you sit next to in the car if one of you is driving? Who do you sit next to in the car when a friend is driving? You could all sit in the back but then the poor driver gets nervous.
- I dislike the idea of being judged more than actually being judged
- My mom still has a lot of influence over my life. She mentioned being nervous about me liking a girl because of other people's reactions once and now I just can't forget.
- I really (still) don't like being the absolute center of attention. It makes me nervous.
- I can split my attention less well than I thought I could.
- I feel compelled to tell everyone around me about the changes in my life, even though it is nervous-making, because if I feel like I'm lying if I don't tell them.
- I am more prone to panic attacks than I've ever realized. Hopefully they'll settle down soon.
- It really bothers me to say that I'm bisexual to people as a simplification for my sexuality, because I really am not bisexual.
- I have the best friends and family I could really ask for. They've been really accepting and have made this transition a lot easier for me.
- I have a moirail (spoilers for Homestuck, examine at your own peril (you may become addicted))
- I am really, really happy right now.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Out of the Closet?
"Kaylee, do you like girls?"
There's the question my mother has been dancing around for weeks. I think about the phrasing for a second. I don't like women. I don't like most women. I don't like some women. I like the very occasional woman.
"Umm...not really."
She's not happy with that answer at all.
"I don't like women very often, but I'm attracted to women very occasionally."
She's happier with this answer.
"Are you bi then?"
Again, a tricky question.
"I don't identify that way, no."
She's not going to be satisfied with that answer so I explained what being queer means.
"And Boyfriend is okay with this?"
This question is easy.
"Yes, he's completely okay with this. Why wouldn't he be?"
"I don't know, most people wouldn't be okay with this. So, he'd be okay with you asking out a girl?"
"Completely okay with it."
She just doesn't seem to understand that concept.
"So he's just not the jealous type."
As she completely misses the point.
"Not really I guess."
"Is he attracted to men then?"
"Not really."
I'm barely comfortable discussing my sexuality with her, let alone Boyfriend's. I shift uncomfortably, try to keep sewing, but have pretty much no success.
"Are you okay with this then?"
I have to ask her. If I didn't I would have just wondered forever.
"Well. It's not my favorite..."
Oh great.
"I just don't understand. I could never be attracted to another woman, so I just don't understand completely...It's just. Your life is going to be so difficult."
Sigh. Mother.
"I already have so many friends who are gay or bi. I stand up for them already. I get in the middle of people gay bashing already. I can handle myself."
I realize personal discrimination is a lot different than just defending your friends or people you know, but...I don't know.
"But what about your schools. Weren't people mean and abusive?"
"No, not really."
I don't know why. My schools were always, if not accepting, then extremely indifferent.
"Did you think that we were going to kick you out or something?"
"What?"
"Well, why didn't you tell us sooner?"
Sooner? I'm still barely in the process of understanding this myself. I was going to tell them in a couple weeks. When I was ready and prepped to do so. I wasn't ready for this conversation.
"This is a really recent thing, so I'm not sure what you mean."
"Well, we always knew that you'd done things with girls?"
"You mean beyond a kiss in a game like Truth or Dare? No, not really."
In retrospect this isn't strictly this complete and utter truth, but at the time I wasn't really thinking.
"Well, we thought you'd gone on a date or something."
"No."
"Oh."
Parents. I've told you everything. I don't know why you think I'm haven't told you things. My mom walked away after this, went in the kitchen and did the dishes.
Glad we had this little talk Mom. Not really at all. It wasn't something I wanted to do. It mostly ruined my entire day. I wasn't prepped. I wasn't in a mental space where I was ready to do that talk. At least I didn't get kicked out or something I guess.
I can't even imagine poor people whose parents yell and scream and actually kick them out. I have it lucky. Really lucky. But that doesn't mean that conversation was one I really wanted to have.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Sister Time
On Sunday I told my parents about being poly, okay, I used the term open relationship, so they would both know what I was talking about. As far as it goes, it good have gone much worse. They weren't horribly judgmental (at least to my face or anywhere I've been able to hear them) and I wasn't disowned or something, so good news in general.
Today I went shopping with Shea, the younger of my two little sisters (she's about to turn 18 and is a senior in high school). I needed more fabric for Christmas gifts and then we both ran some various other Christmas related errands. As far as my sisters go, generally Shea is the one I actually tell much about my life. Carla's mind tends to explode at disruptions to patterns in my normal life. I've been meaning to talk to her about my open relationship with Boyfriend for awhile, but this is the first chance I've gotten.
Below is the conversation I had with my sister. I tend to get a little teach-y in situations like that and my sister is still new in her education about sexuality and gender, so pardon us both.
Me: Do you know what an open relationship is?
Shea: Umm. No. Wait, maybe.
Me: What do you think it is?
Shea: Isn't that where you're seeing one person but you can also mess around with other people...so you're not really dating?
Me: Sorta. An open relationship does mean that you can see other people, but it doesn't mean that you aren't dating. Do you know what polyamory is?
Shea: No.
Me: Polyamory is essentially a non-monogamous relationship. It means that you are dating or fucking multiple people. It's similar to what you know as the Mormon practice of polygamy, but in a healthy polyamorous relationship everyone has equal power. Open relationships and polyamory have a lot in common, but open relationships tend to be the better known, more socially acceptable term.
Shea: Oh. So you can date more than one person at once?
Me: Yes. Polyamory and open relationships operate on the principal that love is not a finite quality. When you love one person romantically, all of your love isn't used up, like popular culture would have us believe. That's why you can have a crush on more than one person at once. Love isn't a feeling that can all be used up.
Shea: Oh. That actually makes sense.
Me: I think so......Boyfriend and I are actually in an open relationship.
Shea: You are?
Me: Yeah. We decided to try it. There are other people besides Boyfriend I'm interested in and likewise for Boyfriend.
Shea: Oh, okay. And you guys are both fine with this?
Me: We're both completely okay with this. I'm really happy with my relationship right now, but sometimes your partner just can't fulfill absolutely everything you need. Society would tell you to break up, but expecting a person to fulfill your every possible need is just unrealistic.
Shea: So if you and boyfriend both wanted to date the same person?
Me: Then we would talk to that third person and see if they were interested and we could have a three person relationship, which is generally more difficult than having two separate, two people relationships because it has more complicated, less predictable dynamics. I'm sorry if this is weirding you out.
Shea: I'm not weirded out, I'm interested.
Me: I'm glad. But just imagine what it would be like so that if you liked someone else you could just tell your partner and ask them if it was okay you pursued a relationship with them. Cheating wouldn't be as much of an issue.
Shea: I was actually just thinking about that this morning.
Me: That's awesome. But you can have cheating in an open or polyamorous relationships.
Shea: You can?
Me: Yep. In a monogamous relationship, you have the unspoken boundary of if you decide to date or fuck someone else, that's cheating. But in an open relationship, you set the boundaries by talking about them. So you talk to your partner and say: "It's okay if you see anyone else, but you just have to tell me about it." Or, "I'm okay with casual hookups, but I don't want you actually dating anyone else." Then if either of you break the boundaries you set up in your relationship, that's cheating.
Shea: Oh, so cheating is more open ended sorta?
Me: Exactly. Cheating is a betrayal of trust (sorry, I know I just wrote about this last post, but my sister doesn't read this blog, thank god) in regard to the boundaries of your relationship. Poly people need to set up boundaries in every single relationship they have. But, a polyamorous relationship is not necessarily an open relationship, which is where polyamory and open relationships differ. Six people who are dating each other...
Shea: That's a lot of people.
Me: It is a lot of people, I don't think I could handle that many relationships at once. But six people who are dating each other and agree not to see anyone other than their five partners are in a closed relationship and trying to date or fuck- sorry, I'm not sure you're comfortable with that word, but it's just part of my vocabulary- someone else would be cheating.
Shea: No, I use that word sometimes. When I'm really angry at someone...so...would you ever ask out a girl?
Me: Yes, I would.
Shea: So...you're bisexual?
Me: I don't really identify that way.
Shea: So...you're lesbian?
Me: No, otherwise I wouldn't be seeing Boyfriend. I identify as queer. Do you know what queer means?
Shea: Isn't that offensive like using the word "faggot"***?
Me: It used to be, but it's largely been successfully reclaimed.
Shea: Then what does it mean now?
Me: Queer is an umbrella term for non-heterosexual.
Shea: But what does that mean?
Me: When you say that you're queer, that generally comes with some sort of explanation. So: I'm queer but like semi-masculine presenting men and beyond that it's a case by case basis.
Shea: What does that mean?
Me: Semi-masculine?
Shea: Yeah.
Me: So, you know that Boyfriend likes to tinker with thinks and fix broken things and that's generally considered a masculine trait?
Shea: Yeah.
Me: But he's not heavily into sports or aggressive, etc, etc. That's what I mean when I say semi-masculine presenting. And every guy I've ever been attracted to has had that type of gender presentation. But move beyond that and it various what I'm specifically attracted to, particularly in women.
Shea: Oh, did you tell Mom and Dad this?
Me: Not yet, I figured telling them I was poly was a good enough first step.
Shea: This kinda makes my head whirl. It's so much to take in.
Me: If it helps, I felt like that when I was first learning too.
Shea: I'm glad we had this talk though. It's cool. Thanks for telling me.
*We promptly got out of the car and proceeded to Victoria Secret's for a free pair of underwear*
***I apologize for possibly triggering or offensive language, I'm just trying to be faithful to the conversation we had.
Why have I told my family you ask (or maybe you don't, but I've gotten this question enough that I would like to answer it). I've told them for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I thought that they could handle it without judging me too harshly, which I appreciated. Secondly, if I do start dating/fucking/etc someone besides Boyfriend, I don't want to have to hide it from my family. And thirdly, they're my family and I still like to try to keep them updated on things that are relevant to my life.
Note: Imaging Shea calling Boyfriend by my silly pseudonyms as opposed to his actual name is actually incredibly amusing for me.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Confessions
So, I've posted about my family, about going to try an open relationship, and about coming to terms with my sexuality, so I might as well finish the last of my secrets off and put it out on the internet (this is clearly the logical choice...clearly). I would say trigger warning, but it's really not a trigger warning, it's more a possibly offensive warning, but all sorts of the things a say are possibly offensive. So. I guess this just might be more offensive than usual?
Anyway, I discovered masturbation when I was very young. I remember knowing what it was (though not the name of it, I wouldn't learn that till much later) at the age of five, so I must have discovered earlier than that. When I was six, I made a male friend in my grade and we hung out all the time together. It was fun, he didn't talk about frilly "girly" things, which at that time in my life, I despised. We were friends from the first grade through about third grade (when I changed schools to get more of a challenge out of my education).
We were kids and we played. We played all sorts of things: knights, we played dragons, we played various board games and video games, but we also played "torture". We had both discovered the tickling sensation that masturbation caused and we shared that with each other and we played around with that. It wasn't all the time, but it did happen occasionally. We didn't come close to anything even remotely resembling penis-in-vagina sex, but we did sorta touch on oral sex. It's all very strange to look back on frankly, and when I got into junior high and high school, I looked back and realized that we had discovered on our own, what we were later to be taught (of course we didn't know anything remotely resembling safe practices, etc >.< ).
I don't think of it as exploitative or abusive, we were both the same age and had a fun time together. I do recall all the shame I've felt over the years, but I was a kid, I hadn't been taught anything and I was just having fun. I'm not sure it possibly could have gone any differently. I don't know how normal this is, but if you look at the internet, at least some people (they can't possibly all be trolls) have had similar experiences. I'm not really sure how it's affected my life today.
It's also fascinating because it was purely platonic, if that can even be possible. We tried the whole, cutesy, elementary "dating" thing (a few years later) for a few days and it was just awkward.
Anyway, that's my story. Sorry for offending anyone (possibly) and bearing my skeletons to the entire internet, which I still feel kinda weird about.
Anyway, I discovered masturbation when I was very young. I remember knowing what it was (though not the name of it, I wouldn't learn that till much later) at the age of five, so I must have discovered earlier than that. When I was six, I made a male friend in my grade and we hung out all the time together. It was fun, he didn't talk about frilly "girly" things, which at that time in my life, I despised. We were friends from the first grade through about third grade (when I changed schools to get more of a challenge out of my education).
We were kids and we played. We played all sorts of things: knights, we played dragons, we played various board games and video games, but we also played "torture". We had both discovered the tickling sensation that masturbation caused and we shared that with each other and we played around with that. It wasn't all the time, but it did happen occasionally. We didn't come close to anything even remotely resembling penis-in-vagina sex, but we did sorta touch on oral sex. It's all very strange to look back on frankly, and when I got into junior high and high school, I looked back and realized that we had discovered on our own, what we were later to be taught (of course we didn't know anything remotely resembling safe practices, etc >.< ).
I don't think of it as exploitative or abusive, we were both the same age and had a fun time together. I do recall all the shame I've felt over the years, but I was a kid, I hadn't been taught anything and I was just having fun. I'm not sure it possibly could have gone any differently. I don't know how normal this is, but if you look at the internet, at least some people (they can't possibly all be trolls) have had similar experiences. I'm not really sure how it's affected my life today.
It's also fascinating because it was purely platonic, if that can even be possible. We tried the whole, cutesy, elementary "dating" thing (a few years later) for a few days and it was just awkward.
Anyway, that's my story. Sorry for offending anyone (possibly) and bearing my skeletons to the entire internet, which I still feel kinda weird about.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Open
I'm not sure I want to be blogging about this subject. I have permission from Boyfriend, who is involved with what I want to discuss, but I don't want to get judged. I've never been afraid of being judged, not even when I was a little kid, so this is very strange for me. The hardest thing for me? Not telling the entire internet, but telling the people I know in person who I know read my blog.
So now that I've built it up to be this huge deal, I suppose I should actually talk about what I'm thinking about. Boyfriend and I are currently living in different cities (far enough away that it's not easy to visit him necessarily). And I've had a couple people tell me it would be good for our relationship, which I only sort of agree with. But one thing living away from him has done is give me more free time.
I read a lot more blogs on feminism, gender, sexuality, and political issues in general now. I've learned more that I could possibly quantify over the past few months and what I've learned has changed my world view quite a lot. Couple that with the fact that I'm dealing with my anger management issues now and I feel like a fairly different person. One who is distinctly me in many ways, but one whose view of the world is profoundly different.
Senior year of high school (which is when I consider my life really starting to change) I believe that monogamous relationships are the only valid ones. And that for me, the only relationship I wanted was a heterosexual one. And even now, I will still admit that primarily am attracted to men. I will give this to my past self, I didn't say: "I'm not attracted to women", but I did say: "I haven't been attracted to a women in my experience." Years later, I have been attracted to women, so that's one part of the equation that's changed.
So, if one part of my romance equation wasn't true, it probably stands to reason the other wasn't. Even a few months ago, I talk about how polyamory wasn't for me. And the more time that has passed, the more I realized I hadn't really ever legitimately considered the option. For quite awhile, I was hesitant to even talk to Boyfriend about what I was thinking about. I finally got to mentioning it occasionally and we had a few brief chats.
A few days ago I finally talked with Boyfriend about the possibility of pursuing an open relationship. I felt so much dread I was shaking and there was just no reason because he agreed that it was something that he would like to try. The thing is, I don't want to go out an have casual sex with strangers. That really wasn't the point. But a friends with benefits situation or even another relationship with another person interests me and is something that I would like to have as an option.
I haven't told very many people about this but I've already been forced to justify myself. Yes I love Boyfriend. Yes, our relationship is actually wonderful right now. No, the reason isn't: "He's not enough for me." What brought this on? The belief that I honestly am not convinced that people are designed to be monogamous. Do Boyfriend and I have limits/boundaries/ground rules about it? Yes, we've agreed to talk to each other about any relationship we may or may not start. (Note: Some of these were totally legitimate questions asked out of curiosity and not out of judgement. But I find myself being very defensive, overly defensive even).
I don't like be judged. I really don't. But this is something that I would like to explore.
So now that I've built it up to be this huge deal, I suppose I should actually talk about what I'm thinking about. Boyfriend and I are currently living in different cities (far enough away that it's not easy to visit him necessarily). And I've had a couple people tell me it would be good for our relationship, which I only sort of agree with. But one thing living away from him has done is give me more free time.
I read a lot more blogs on feminism, gender, sexuality, and political issues in general now. I've learned more that I could possibly quantify over the past few months and what I've learned has changed my world view quite a lot. Couple that with the fact that I'm dealing with my anger management issues now and I feel like a fairly different person. One who is distinctly me in many ways, but one whose view of the world is profoundly different.
Senior year of high school (which is when I consider my life really starting to change) I believe that monogamous relationships are the only valid ones. And that for me, the only relationship I wanted was a heterosexual one. And even now, I will still admit that primarily am attracted to men. I will give this to my past self, I didn't say: "I'm not attracted to women", but I did say: "I haven't been attracted to a women in my experience." Years later, I have been attracted to women, so that's one part of the equation that's changed.
So, if one part of my romance equation wasn't true, it probably stands to reason the other wasn't. Even a few months ago, I talk about how polyamory wasn't for me. And the more time that has passed, the more I realized I hadn't really ever legitimately considered the option. For quite awhile, I was hesitant to even talk to Boyfriend about what I was thinking about. I finally got to mentioning it occasionally and we had a few brief chats.
A few days ago I finally talked with Boyfriend about the possibility of pursuing an open relationship. I felt so much dread I was shaking and there was just no reason because he agreed that it was something that he would like to try. The thing is, I don't want to go out an have casual sex with strangers. That really wasn't the point. But a friends with benefits situation or even another relationship with another person interests me and is something that I would like to have as an option.
I haven't told very many people about this but I've already been forced to justify myself. Yes I love Boyfriend. Yes, our relationship is actually wonderful right now. No, the reason isn't: "He's not enough for me." What brought this on? The belief that I honestly am not convinced that people are designed to be monogamous. Do Boyfriend and I have limits/boundaries/ground rules about it? Yes, we've agreed to talk to each other about any relationship we may or may not start. (Note: Some of these were totally legitimate questions asked out of curiosity and not out of judgement. But I find myself being very defensive, overly defensive even).
I don't like be judged. I really don't. But this is something that I would like to explore.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Torchwood
Firstly, this post contains major spoilers for Torchwood, particularly Children of Earth (but not Miracle Day). It also contains very minor spoilers about Joss Whedon's works and Doctor Who. The rest of the post is after the breal.
Note: If you are going to give spoilers in any comments you make, please do so with an easy to see spoiler tag at the beginning of your comment. Also, if you are reading using "View Post" as opposed to "View Blog" their will not be a jump break, so beware (stupid Blogger).
Note: If you are going to give spoilers in any comments you make, please do so with an easy to see spoiler tag at the beginning of your comment. Also, if you are reading using "View Post" as opposed to "View Blog" their will not be a jump break, so beware (stupid Blogger).
*~*~*~*~*~*
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Sex Ed
An exploration of my sexual education in private, public, catholic, small, large, Protestant, and Catholic schools (I switched schools a fair deal).
My first large, public school I attended from ages 5-7. Unsurprisingly, I was told exactly nothing about sex or even about reproduction. I can remember my parents talking about it briefly, but not much was said in general. The biggest thing I remember being told is that even though my parents lived together before they were married that generally was considered bad and not desirable.
From ages 8-11, I attended a small, Protestant, private school. There was no sex education my first two years there, but when I was 10 and 11, I remember them having an optional class to be attended with parents. I naturally skipped this, because I was embarrassed that I would have to attend with my mom and/or dad. I remember hearing stories from friends about how they just talked about anatomy and how sex was just for reproduction.
In junior high, I was still at a small (though slightly larger), Protestant, private school. And this was I think the most sexual education I got throughout my schooling. We spent three days both years entirely devoted to sex ed. The entire school stopped and we attended various classes on various subjects, and for the most part, we got to pick what topics we attended (though some were required).
I remember the one on STDs fairly vividly because we did the glitter exercise (the one where a few people get glitter on their hands and then go out and shake everyone's hand and the glitter transfers). We also saw fairly horrifying pictures (as seems to be standard in sex ed). However, and I honestly had forgotten this until I set out to write this post, we did talk about condoms. This was the only time that sex was spoken of as something that you would want to have and they very specifically told us to always use condoms: even if we didn't want to, even if it didn't feel as good, we were always supposed to use condoms. This was all very well and good, but they never actually explained what a condom was or how it was used, which I why I forgot I had even learned about them. I will note though that they never mentioned any other form of protection.
Some of the other classes were actually fairly interesting. The one on relationships was really actually helpful and surprisingly said: dating (they weren't willing to go as far as saying sleeping) around is fine and a valid choice and we should not judge people who did it. That was the only time I was ever told that advice. However some of the classes, like the one on nutrition specifically for women, was mostly bullshit enforcing media's view of women. Overall though, the classes on eating disorders, all the classes on relationships, and the ones about puberty were genuinely useful and addressed many common myths (though the one on puberty was less than useful since I started puberty at 8 and got my period at 9, and was essentially done with it by the time I got to junior high).
Both years, the whole segment culminated in a school wide assembly about abstinence. For extremely conservative people I am actually retrospectively impressed with a lot of the things they told us, but it was really unsurprising that it ended in preaching abstinence only. And then they publicly asked us to raise our hands if we were going to commit to no sex before marriage (I mean our eyes were supposed to be closed, but still). I raised my hand, oh how naive I was.
Really quickly before moving on, at that school we were also required to take quarter long classes in Media and Relationships, which were absolutely fascinating, because they looked into media and relationship stereotypes and looked pretty deeply into teen/non-married relationships and the conclusions we came to (such as, it's okay to date around) were fairly impressive for such an incredibly conservative school.
My freshman and sophomore years of high school, I went to a medium sized, private, Catholic prep school. It was a very interesting atmosphere, one I hated very thoroughly because their goal was to make me question everything I thought, which frustrated me severely. Again, in retrospect, I'm really glad that they did teach me this, otherwise I wouldn't have learned till much later. But, anyway, in regard to sex ed, the only thing we had was a segment in health class sophomore year. They did the standard anatomy, STDs, and made us watch a live birth and then called it a day.
After sophomore year, I transferred to a large, public high school for my junior and senior years. We did a small (very small) unit on sex ed in Homeroom. Junior year, we learning how to put a condom on a banana. And as silly as the lesson was (there was lots of joking), it was the first time I had even actually seen a condom (okay...I guess the used ones we had to clean up after football games probably count...probably). Our senior year, we did a very stupid, horribly outdated, and incorrect small unit on STIs (it was the first time I had heard them called STIs and at the time was such a joke that I still call them STDs). That unit was literally the joke of the school for a week afterwards.
This post is already quite long, but I briefly want to touch on the Psychology of Gender class I took with Boyfriend in college. I'm not a fan of how psychology is applied to many different situations and I believe that the field is years, possibly decades, behind in the areas of gender and disorders. But, my grudge (because I will admit it is exactly that) against psychology can wait for a different post. What my biggest problem with the class was that every single thing was taught as fact. We were taught g-spot/vaginal orgasms don't exist, and thus women don't really enjoy penetration. Excuse me? I could you give you directions to find my g-spot. It's really not that hard, and while penetration is not actually my favorite part of sex, it still feels good. And no, maybe it doesn't for everyone, and a lot of women's g-spots aren't at all sensitive or even make them uncomfortable or in pain, that very thoroughly doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We were also taught for weeks and weeks about Freud, who has mostly been disproved in regards to his sexual theories. It was possibly the most frustrating class I've ever been in.
My first large, public school I attended from ages 5-7. Unsurprisingly, I was told exactly nothing about sex or even about reproduction. I can remember my parents talking about it briefly, but not much was said in general. The biggest thing I remember being told is that even though my parents lived together before they were married that generally was considered bad and not desirable.
From ages 8-11, I attended a small, Protestant, private school. There was no sex education my first two years there, but when I was 10 and 11, I remember them having an optional class to be attended with parents. I naturally skipped this, because I was embarrassed that I would have to attend with my mom and/or dad. I remember hearing stories from friends about how they just talked about anatomy and how sex was just for reproduction.
In junior high, I was still at a small (though slightly larger), Protestant, private school. And this was I think the most sexual education I got throughout my schooling. We spent three days both years entirely devoted to sex ed. The entire school stopped and we attended various classes on various subjects, and for the most part, we got to pick what topics we attended (though some were required).
I remember the one on STDs fairly vividly because we did the glitter exercise (the one where a few people get glitter on their hands and then go out and shake everyone's hand and the glitter transfers). We also saw fairly horrifying pictures (as seems to be standard in sex ed). However, and I honestly had forgotten this until I set out to write this post, we did talk about condoms. This was the only time that sex was spoken of as something that you would want to have and they very specifically told us to always use condoms: even if we didn't want to, even if it didn't feel as good, we were always supposed to use condoms. This was all very well and good, but they never actually explained what a condom was or how it was used, which I why I forgot I had even learned about them. I will note though that they never mentioned any other form of protection.
Some of the other classes were actually fairly interesting. The one on relationships was really actually helpful and surprisingly said: dating (they weren't willing to go as far as saying sleeping) around is fine and a valid choice and we should not judge people who did it. That was the only time I was ever told that advice. However some of the classes, like the one on nutrition specifically for women, was mostly bullshit enforcing media's view of women. Overall though, the classes on eating disorders, all the classes on relationships, and the ones about puberty were genuinely useful and addressed many common myths (though the one on puberty was less than useful since I started puberty at 8 and got my period at 9, and was essentially done with it by the time I got to junior high).
Both years, the whole segment culminated in a school wide assembly about abstinence. For extremely conservative people I am actually retrospectively impressed with a lot of the things they told us, but it was really unsurprising that it ended in preaching abstinence only. And then they publicly asked us to raise our hands if we were going to commit to no sex before marriage (I mean our eyes were supposed to be closed, but still). I raised my hand, oh how naive I was.
Really quickly before moving on, at that school we were also required to take quarter long classes in Media and Relationships, which were absolutely fascinating, because they looked into media and relationship stereotypes and looked pretty deeply into teen/non-married relationships and the conclusions we came to (such as, it's okay to date around) were fairly impressive for such an incredibly conservative school.
My freshman and sophomore years of high school, I went to a medium sized, private, Catholic prep school. It was a very interesting atmosphere, one I hated very thoroughly because their goal was to make me question everything I thought, which frustrated me severely. Again, in retrospect, I'm really glad that they did teach me this, otherwise I wouldn't have learned till much later. But, anyway, in regard to sex ed, the only thing we had was a segment in health class sophomore year. They did the standard anatomy, STDs, and made us watch a live birth and then called it a day.
After sophomore year, I transferred to a large, public high school for my junior and senior years. We did a small (very small) unit on sex ed in Homeroom. Junior year, we learning how to put a condom on a banana. And as silly as the lesson was (there was lots of joking), it was the first time I had even actually seen a condom (okay...I guess the used ones we had to clean up after football games probably count...probably). Our senior year, we did a very stupid, horribly outdated, and incorrect small unit on STIs (it was the first time I had heard them called STIs and at the time was such a joke that I still call them STDs). That unit was literally the joke of the school for a week afterwards.
This post is already quite long, but I briefly want to touch on the Psychology of Gender class I took with Boyfriend in college. I'm not a fan of how psychology is applied to many different situations and I believe that the field is years, possibly decades, behind in the areas of gender and disorders. But, my grudge (because I will admit it is exactly that) against psychology can wait for a different post. What my biggest problem with the class was that every single thing was taught as fact. We were taught g-spot/vaginal orgasms don't exist, and thus women don't really enjoy penetration. Excuse me? I could you give you directions to find my g-spot. It's really not that hard, and while penetration is not actually my favorite part of sex, it still feels good. And no, maybe it doesn't for everyone, and a lot of women's g-spots aren't at all sensitive or even make them uncomfortable or in pain, that very thoroughly doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We were also taught for weeks and weeks about Freud, who has mostly been disproved in regards to his sexual theories. It was possibly the most frustrating class I've ever been in.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Story Time
This post has to do with a few things that are relevant to my interests, but mainly it's just a story of something that happened to a friend.
Back in May of this year I was working my last show in college. It was a spectacular show (aimed at the entire family (which is a rare thing in college)) and I think it was still one of my favorite shows to work. It had a cast of 35 and I was assistant stage manager.
(Side note: having already stage managed a show earlier in the year, everyone was fairly shocked that I was only asming this show under Liz, stage manager that many people considered less experienced. Generally it was predicted that I would explode at Liz and have an extremely hard time working under her. In reality, I kept her grounded and we made a great team and despite all our troubles: a giant cast, switching directors a week before tech week, a technically difficult show, and lots of injuries; I had a great time and the show came off superbly.)
One of my (I used this term loosely, see this post) actresses was a woman, Raena, who I had worked with on six shows before and someone I worked with on the student theatre board. Over the course of our interactions together, we had become friends. Unfortunately, she was a member of the ensemble, and by nature (ie they were in rehearsals less often) I interacted with her less than the lead roles.
Two weeks before our show was set to open, I heard some actors talking about Raena in the theatre lounge, which was the theatre department's space for everyone to just relax and hang out. I was sitting in the theatre lounge with them and they were talking rather openly.
Man: Did you here about what happened in Kathy's advanced playwriting class?
Woman: A little bit, do you know any more details?
Man: Well, Raena wrote a play about a gay guy and a lesbian and they were discussing their relationship issues. It was an extremely frustrating situation and at the end of the play they both kissed.
Woman: And Kathy flipped out?
Man: Yeah, she said that if Raena was going to write plays like this then she needed to do her research and how serious feminist would be offended by what she wrote.
Woman: ...But...Raena is a lesbian.
Man: I know. But Raena was shocked and didn't really know what to say.
Woman: Did anyone else say anything?
Man: No, they didn't want to publicly out Raena, especially since that class isn't completely theatre majors. (Side Note: I honestly believe if the class had just been theatre majors that someone would have spoken up). But after class Raena went up and talked to Kathy and explained that she was a lesbian and that she didn't find it was an offensive situation.
Woman: Did Kathy apologize?
Man: No, she didn't.
I apologize for using Man and Woman, but for the life of me, I cannot remember which two actors were talking about that, and, even if I could, I use pseudonyms anyway.
The conversation devolved into discussing what a bitch (their words, not mine) Kathy had been. Now, Raena was someone I considered a friend and she was also in my show, so I honestly did need to know if she was okay. I had a student theatre board meeting with her next and resolved to ask her about it afterward.
After the meeting, I hung back to talk to Raena and we sorta fell in walking with each other.
Me: So, how are classes going?
Raena: They're going okay. I have a pretty hard schedule.
Me: Yeah, I know. I'm impressed. It's way more difficult than mine this quarter.
Raena: It's weird because I like most of my classes but I am so done with one of them.
Me: Which one?
Raena: Advanced Playwriting with Kathy.
Me: Oh, I'm sorry. (hesitantly) I had kinda heard about that.
Raena (resigned): Yeah, I figured. Everyone in the department's heard about it.
Me: I really am sorry. Are you okay? What happened?
*Raena explained the premise of her play and Kathy's reaction*
Raena: Afterwards I had a class with Joe and you know how Joe is, he spotted that I was upset and talked to me about it after class. I told him what happened and he told me that he'd talk to Kathy about it. I told him he didn't have to and that I would talk to her after I felt better, but he said, as a gay man, that it was something he wanted to do.
Me: That could have ended badly.
Raena: No, Joe talked to Kathy and of course Kathy immediately went to Barb (the department chair). Then, that night at the dance show, Barb came up and talked to me about how inappropriate telling Joe had been and that I was making Kathy and her look bad.
Me: Oh god, she didn't.
Raena: It was so inappropriate! And Joe is my advisor! If I can't talk to him then who can I talk to?
Me: You should be able to talk to Joe. Barb's just being completely unfair.
Raena: Of course the next day I had Joe's class again and he could tell that I was upset again, so I talked to him and he said he's talk to Barb and explain the misunderstanding. I said that I would go talk to Kathy and I dropped by her office and told her that I needed to talk to her today about things that had been happening, and if it wasn't today that it needed to be soon.
Me: Wow. I am so sorry. I can't even believe all of that. You just got completely caught up in professor politics.
Raena: I know and I'm just sick of it!
Me: I'm glad you went and told Kathy you need to talk about this. I really hope that it works out for you.
Raena: Me too, because I can't take much more of this.
*We had reached the student union building at this point and I looked at my watch, realizing I had a meeting to get to*
Me: Feel better and let me know how it turns out.
Raena: Thanks so much Kaylee! *she hugged me* I really appreciate it and I will let you know how it turns out.
Looking back at the conversation that we had, I said very little and I actually feel bad about leading Raena on in the beginning instead of just cutting to the chase and making sure she was alright. Really, I said so little of any substance at all, but Raena was so grateful to me for just asking if she was okay. And I have to admit that I'm really glad I asked; not only because as a stage manager I needed to know anything that would affect her in rehearsals and the show, but also because she was my friend and needed someone to talk to.
I do feel a little weird about it though since, while Raena was my friend, we weren't super close and we didn't hang out much, but she opened up to me nearly instantly. And, she wasn't the only actor who has poured there heart out to me just because I asked questions that needed to be asked.
Later that day, before rehearsals, I saw Kathy talking to Raena and it looked like everything was going all right. Right before rehearsals that day, Raena came bouncing up to me and told me: "Kaylee, everything's going to be okay. She didn't really apologize completely, but she did say she was sorry that I had gotten caught up in department politics and that it wouldn't happen again. She also said she was sorry that I got offended, but she was trying to give me a critique like I would get in the real world." I told her I was glad for her and I really was.
But, the thing was, this really was the best Raena was going to get. This professor who claimed to be opened minded and feminist put this strict set of prescriptivist beliefs on Raena. Bcause she was offended, she made the assumption that Raena couldn't possibly know what she was talking about and, by doing so, invalidated Raena's entire sexual orientation. I honestly think feminism is a good thing, but I have seen first hand, how, otherwise reasonable, people can harm someone by putting "feminist" rules on sexuality and gender.
Back in May of this year I was working my last show in college. It was a spectacular show (aimed at the entire family (which is a rare thing in college)) and I think it was still one of my favorite shows to work. It had a cast of 35 and I was assistant stage manager.
(Side note: having already stage managed a show earlier in the year, everyone was fairly shocked that I was only asming this show under Liz, stage manager that many people considered less experienced. Generally it was predicted that I would explode at Liz and have an extremely hard time working under her. In reality, I kept her grounded and we made a great team and despite all our troubles: a giant cast, switching directors a week before tech week, a technically difficult show, and lots of injuries; I had a great time and the show came off superbly.)
One of my (I used this term loosely, see this post) actresses was a woman, Raena, who I had worked with on six shows before and someone I worked with on the student theatre board. Over the course of our interactions together, we had become friends. Unfortunately, she was a member of the ensemble, and by nature (ie they were in rehearsals less often) I interacted with her less than the lead roles.
Two weeks before our show was set to open, I heard some actors talking about Raena in the theatre lounge, which was the theatre department's space for everyone to just relax and hang out. I was sitting in the theatre lounge with them and they were talking rather openly.
Man: Did you here about what happened in Kathy's advanced playwriting class?
Woman: A little bit, do you know any more details?
Man: Well, Raena wrote a play about a gay guy and a lesbian and they were discussing their relationship issues. It was an extremely frustrating situation and at the end of the play they both kissed.
Woman: And Kathy flipped out?
Man: Yeah, she said that if Raena was going to write plays like this then she needed to do her research and how serious feminist would be offended by what she wrote.
Woman: ...But...Raena is a lesbian.
Man: I know. But Raena was shocked and didn't really know what to say.
Woman: Did anyone else say anything?
Man: No, they didn't want to publicly out Raena, especially since that class isn't completely theatre majors. (Side Note: I honestly believe if the class had just been theatre majors that someone would have spoken up). But after class Raena went up and talked to Kathy and explained that she was a lesbian and that she didn't find it was an offensive situation.
Woman: Did Kathy apologize?
Man: No, she didn't.
I apologize for using Man and Woman, but for the life of me, I cannot remember which two actors were talking about that, and, even if I could, I use pseudonyms anyway.
The conversation devolved into discussing what a bitch (their words, not mine) Kathy had been. Now, Raena was someone I considered a friend and she was also in my show, so I honestly did need to know if she was okay. I had a student theatre board meeting with her next and resolved to ask her about it afterward.
After the meeting, I hung back to talk to Raena and we sorta fell in walking with each other.
Me: So, how are classes going?
Raena: They're going okay. I have a pretty hard schedule.
Me: Yeah, I know. I'm impressed. It's way more difficult than mine this quarter.
Raena: It's weird because I like most of my classes but I am so done with one of them.
Me: Which one?
Raena: Advanced Playwriting with Kathy.
Me: Oh, I'm sorry. (hesitantly) I had kinda heard about that.
Raena (resigned): Yeah, I figured. Everyone in the department's heard about it.
Me: I really am sorry. Are you okay? What happened?
*Raena explained the premise of her play and Kathy's reaction*
Raena: Afterwards I had a class with Joe and you know how Joe is, he spotted that I was upset and talked to me about it after class. I told him what happened and he told me that he'd talk to Kathy about it. I told him he didn't have to and that I would talk to her after I felt better, but he said, as a gay man, that it was something he wanted to do.
Me: That could have ended badly.
Raena: No, Joe talked to Kathy and of course Kathy immediately went to Barb (the department chair). Then, that night at the dance show, Barb came up and talked to me about how inappropriate telling Joe had been and that I was making Kathy and her look bad.
Me: Oh god, she didn't.
Raena: It was so inappropriate! And Joe is my advisor! If I can't talk to him then who can I talk to?
Me: You should be able to talk to Joe. Barb's just being completely unfair.
Raena: Of course the next day I had Joe's class again and he could tell that I was upset again, so I talked to him and he said he's talk to Barb and explain the misunderstanding. I said that I would go talk to Kathy and I dropped by her office and told her that I needed to talk to her today about things that had been happening, and if it wasn't today that it needed to be soon.
Me: Wow. I am so sorry. I can't even believe all of that. You just got completely caught up in professor politics.
Raena: I know and I'm just sick of it!
Me: I'm glad you went and told Kathy you need to talk about this. I really hope that it works out for you.
Raena: Me too, because I can't take much more of this.
*We had reached the student union building at this point and I looked at my watch, realizing I had a meeting to get to*
Me: Feel better and let me know how it turns out.
Raena: Thanks so much Kaylee! *she hugged me* I really appreciate it and I will let you know how it turns out.
Looking back at the conversation that we had, I said very little and I actually feel bad about leading Raena on in the beginning instead of just cutting to the chase and making sure she was alright. Really, I said so little of any substance at all, but Raena was so grateful to me for just asking if she was okay. And I have to admit that I'm really glad I asked; not only because as a stage manager I needed to know anything that would affect her in rehearsals and the show, but also because she was my friend and needed someone to talk to.
I do feel a little weird about it though since, while Raena was my friend, we weren't super close and we didn't hang out much, but she opened up to me nearly instantly. And, she wasn't the only actor who has poured there heart out to me just because I asked questions that needed to be asked.
Later that day, before rehearsals, I saw Kathy talking to Raena and it looked like everything was going all right. Right before rehearsals that day, Raena came bouncing up to me and told me: "Kaylee, everything's going to be okay. She didn't really apologize completely, but she did say she was sorry that I had gotten caught up in department politics and that it wouldn't happen again. She also said she was sorry that I got offended, but she was trying to give me a critique like I would get in the real world." I told her I was glad for her and I really was.
But, the thing was, this really was the best Raena was going to get. This professor who claimed to be opened minded and feminist put this strict set of prescriptivist beliefs on Raena. Bcause she was offended, she made the assumption that Raena couldn't possibly know what she was talking about and, by doing so, invalidated Raena's entire sexual orientation. I honestly think feminism is a good thing, but I have seen first hand, how, otherwise reasonable, people can harm someone by putting "feminist" rules on sexuality and gender.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Terminology
One of my biggest frustrations with blogs and articles about or concerning sexuality and gender is that they generally make the assumption that everyone knows the terminology and jargon that you're using. Looking the terms up isn' that hard, but I want to try to provide a basic guide to sexuality and gender terms.
Despite these first few terms being basic and core terms in regard to sexuality and gender, I honestly don't believe I knew what gender actually was until senior year of high school, maybe junior year. And I think that's a huge fault with the educational system.
Sex: In this context I am not referring to sexual intercourse, but biological characteristics that every person displays. These biological characteristics generally refer to both chromosomes and genitalia.
Gender: This is a more complex term and in a Western society there are generally believed to be two genders: male and female. Gender is a societal construct, meaning that the definition of what roles and traits exactly define a gender do vary from culture to culture. It encompasses many different aspects which include identifying pronouns, gender roles (based on society and not on any inherent trait), and gender identity. Children are assigned genders at birth, which correspond to their biological sex. Once self-aware, a person's gender may or may not correspond to their biological sex.
Sexual Orientation (sexuality): This is a term that most people know. It refers to a person's preference for partners. Again, in Western societies the three sexual orientations that are commonly known are heterosexual (preference for the same sex and gender), homosexual (preference for the opposite sex and opposite gender), and bisexual (preference for both sexes/genders). In Western civilization sexual orientations carry with them an implicit understanding that sex and gender will always match. Before moving on, it is extremely important to note that sexual orientation is not the same thing or in an standard relation to gender.
Gender Expression: This refers to how a person chooses to express their gender. This is highly personalized and can include piercings, how a person dresses, tattoos, the hobbies a person enjoys, etc.
Gender Roles: Gender roles is where the societal construct of gender really comes to light. This is what Wikipedia has to say, "Gender roles refer to the set of social and behavioral norms that are considered to be socially appropriate for individuals of a specific sex in the context of a specific culture." This includes employment, clothing worn, hobbies, etc. Being an engineer is consider masculine and being a stay-at-home parent is considered feminine. Wearing a tie is considered masculine and wearing a dress is considered feminine. Playing sports is considered masculine and sewing is considered feminine. Gender roles are constructed by society and if you're saying: "But I enjoy masculine things and I'm a woman, is that weird?" The answer is: no. As I said, gender roles are constructed and only natural if you believe in them.
Estrogen (oestrogen): A female sex hormone that aids in female reproductive development. Transsexual women will often take estrogen (as part of hormone replacement therapy) to trigger feminine changes in her body such as developing breasts.
Testosterone: A male sex hormone that helps with male reproductive development. A transsexual man will often begin taking testosterone to start triggering changes in his body (ie: to make his voice break, be able to grow facial hair, etc).
Genitalia: This is a term most everyone will know, a biological man has a penis (and all other parts associated with it) and a biological woman has a vagina (and all other parts associated with it). But I would like to note that genitalia can be ambiguous.
Intersex: I have mentioned this once before in a previous post, but intersex is a term that has replaced hermaphrodite in commonly vocabulary. Intersex refers to ambiguous genitals at the time of birth, which make it difficult to determine a biological sex. Typically doctors push to parents to make an immediate decision about their child's sex and then have the child undergo reconstructive surgery.
Asexual: Most people know in theory what being asexual means. It is generally defined as a lack of attraction or lack of interest in sex. I mention it because it is perfectly natural. Not everyone has to be bonded to a person/people for life or even bonded short term. I know someone who I believe is asexual, though he has not personally identified as such to me, and he has never shown the slightest attraction to anyone in the time that I've known him, and he is perfectly happy that way.
Pansexual (omnisexual): This is an exciting term because unlike heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual it makes several assumptions that Western society does not traditionally accept. Firstly, it makes the assumption that not every person's sex will be matched to their gender (ie a biological male identifies as a woman). Secondly, it does not make the assumption that there are only two genders (which I will cover momentarily).
Queer: This is an interesting term and probably one I'm not going to do much justice in my attempt to explain. Queer to some extent is what you personally make of it. It generally does not refer to people who identify as heterosexual. It also generally comes with an explanation. Example: "I'm queer, who likes primarily women and femininely presenting men." It is an extremely useful umbrella term for people who don't believe that any term correctly defines their sexuality.
Androphilia (androsexual): This is a term that I only learned very recently, but it refers to attraction to masculinity or men. Unlike heterosexuality or homosexuality, it doesn't make an assumption about your own sex and gender, it only refers to being attracted to men (regardless of your sex and gender)
Gynephilia (gynosexual): This is the related term to androphilia and it refers to attraction to femininity or women (regardless of your own sex and gender).
Gender Binary: Is the belief in only two genders: male and female. It is prevalent throughout much of the modern world and is an incredibly pervasive and incorrect belief (I always feel like an ass saying a belief is just incorrect, but if so much as one person in the entire world doesn't identify as male or female, then this belief is inherently incorrect).
Heteronormative: I've used this word in my blog already, so I feel extremely compelled to explain it. This is a belief that relates to the gender binary. It refers to society's belief that heterosexuality is the default orientation and thus marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Thus, heteronormativity consequentially has a world view that everyone's sexuality, gender, and biological sex should align (ie biological female, who identifies as a woman, who is attracted to men).
Open Relationships: A relationship can be either open or closed. A closed relationship is the one most people will think of and it means that the people within a relationship are only exclusive with each other. This can even apply to a group of seven people who are exclusive only to each other and no one else. An open relationship refers to people within the confines of a relationship being allowed, with full consent of the other partner(s) to seek out other intimate relationships beyond the ones they already have. It is extremely important to set boundaries in open relationships, because it is easy to venture into something your partner might not be comfortable with you doing.
Polyamory: The practice of having multiple partners, with everyone involved's consent. This includes devoted triads (or more), open relationships, one primary and multiple secondary relationships, and much more. Being polyamorous is often associated with Mormons, but in healthy polyamory every person involve has an equal amount of power and say. When I first learned about polyamory I thought that it meant that polyamorous people didn't have any long term relationships, but polyamory does not necessarily exclude long term relationships, it just also includes the possibility of having more than one short or long term relationship.
Polyfidelity: This is a group of polyamorous people (more than two) who agree to be mutually exclusive with each other, generally for reasons of minimizing diseases, but also for other reasons. Polyfidelity would be defined as a closed relationship.
Genderqueer (non-binary gender): This general term refers to a person whose gender identity does not fall within strictly male or strictly female. It includes people who identify as both (bigendered, pangendered), people who identify as neither (agender, nongender), people whose gender identity is fluid, and those who are other-gendered.
Transgender: This is a broader term that refers to individuals whose biological sex does not always (or never) matches their gender or societal gender roles. Transgendered is an umbrella term that includes transexuals, transvestites, drag queens and kings, and gender queer individuals.
Transsexual: This is a person whose biological sex does not match the gender that was assigned to them at birth. Many people who are trans will opt to start taking the hormones of the sex that they feel congruous with and also opt for gender reassignment surgery, but people who do not take hormones or undergo surgery to alter their body does not mean they are not transsexual. It is also important to not that well it is a choice for a person to take hormones and opt for surgery, but choice does not enter into a person's incongruous feelings with their birth assigned gender. I would also like to emphasize that sexual orientation and gender expression are separate from gender. So a person who was assigned a female gender at birth could transition to become a feminine, gay man, and this would be just as valid a transition as someone transitioning to become a masculine, heterosexual man.
Transvestite: An individual who practice cross-dressing. The reasons people cross-dress are varied, but the term refers merely to the act.
Cisgendered: This is how the majority of Western society views themselves, which is that their biological sex matches their gender which was assigned at birth. This is the "default" of most people and many people do not even realize that there could be anything other than this reality.
Feminism: A movement (or movements) that is focused on obtaining equality for women. First wave feminism refers to the women's suffrage movement. Second wave feminism refers to the push for women's rights that occurred during the 1960's. Third wave feminism refers to the continued push for women's rights after the 60's. There is a lot of baggage that is associated with feminism, but in essence feminism just wants to bring about equality for women, which I feel like shouldn't be objectionable. I do consider myself a feminist.
Misogyny: Technically defined, misogyny is a hatred of women. It is sexism applied to a women specifically in essence. This is what feminism fights against.
Misandry: This term is the related term to misogyny and it refers to a hatred of men. Some feminists are accused (and for extremely radical feminists this is even true occasionally) of misandry by taking feminism too far.
I know this list is far from complete, so if you have something to add, please do so in the comments. Thank you to Liam for helping me put this list together.
Despite these first few terms being basic and core terms in regard to sexuality and gender, I honestly don't believe I knew what gender actually was until senior year of high school, maybe junior year. And I think that's a huge fault with the educational system.
Sex: In this context I am not referring to sexual intercourse, but biological characteristics that every person displays. These biological characteristics generally refer to both chromosomes and genitalia.
Gender: This is a more complex term and in a Western society there are generally believed to be two genders: male and female. Gender is a societal construct, meaning that the definition of what roles and traits exactly define a gender do vary from culture to culture. It encompasses many different aspects which include identifying pronouns, gender roles (based on society and not on any inherent trait), and gender identity. Children are assigned genders at birth, which correspond to their biological sex. Once self-aware, a person's gender may or may not correspond to their biological sex.
Sexual Orientation (sexuality): This is a term that most people know. It refers to a person's preference for partners. Again, in Western societies the three sexual orientations that are commonly known are heterosexual (preference for the same sex and gender), homosexual (preference for the opposite sex and opposite gender), and bisexual (preference for both sexes/genders). In Western civilization sexual orientations carry with them an implicit understanding that sex and gender will always match. Before moving on, it is extremely important to note that sexual orientation is not the same thing or in an standard relation to gender.
Gender Expression: This refers to how a person chooses to express their gender. This is highly personalized and can include piercings, how a person dresses, tattoos, the hobbies a person enjoys, etc.
Gender Roles: Gender roles is where the societal construct of gender really comes to light. This is what Wikipedia has to say, "Gender roles refer to the set of social and behavioral norms that are considered to be socially appropriate for individuals of a specific sex in the context of a specific culture." This includes employment, clothing worn, hobbies, etc. Being an engineer is consider masculine and being a stay-at-home parent is considered feminine. Wearing a tie is considered masculine and wearing a dress is considered feminine. Playing sports is considered masculine and sewing is considered feminine. Gender roles are constructed by society and if you're saying: "But I enjoy masculine things and I'm a woman, is that weird?" The answer is: no. As I said, gender roles are constructed and only natural if you believe in them.
Estrogen (oestrogen): A female sex hormone that aids in female reproductive development. Transsexual women will often take estrogen (as part of hormone replacement therapy) to trigger feminine changes in her body such as developing breasts.
Testosterone: A male sex hormone that helps with male reproductive development. A transsexual man will often begin taking testosterone to start triggering changes in his body (ie: to make his voice break, be able to grow facial hair, etc).
Genitalia: This is a term most everyone will know, a biological man has a penis (and all other parts associated with it) and a biological woman has a vagina (and all other parts associated with it). But I would like to note that genitalia can be ambiguous.
Intersex: I have mentioned this once before in a previous post, but intersex is a term that has replaced hermaphrodite in commonly vocabulary. Intersex refers to ambiguous genitals at the time of birth, which make it difficult to determine a biological sex. Typically doctors push to parents to make an immediate decision about their child's sex and then have the child undergo reconstructive surgery.
Asexual: Most people know in theory what being asexual means. It is generally defined as a lack of attraction or lack of interest in sex. I mention it because it is perfectly natural. Not everyone has to be bonded to a person/people for life or even bonded short term. I know someone who I believe is asexual, though he has not personally identified as such to me, and he has never shown the slightest attraction to anyone in the time that I've known him, and he is perfectly happy that way.
Pansexual (omnisexual): This is an exciting term because unlike heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual it makes several assumptions that Western society does not traditionally accept. Firstly, it makes the assumption that not every person's sex will be matched to their gender (ie a biological male identifies as a woman). Secondly, it does not make the assumption that there are only two genders (which I will cover momentarily).
Queer: This is an interesting term and probably one I'm not going to do much justice in my attempt to explain. Queer to some extent is what you personally make of it. It generally does not refer to people who identify as heterosexual. It also generally comes with an explanation. Example: "I'm queer, who likes primarily women and femininely presenting men." It is an extremely useful umbrella term for people who don't believe that any term correctly defines their sexuality.
Androphilia (androsexual): This is a term that I only learned very recently, but it refers to attraction to masculinity or men. Unlike heterosexuality or homosexuality, it doesn't make an assumption about your own sex and gender, it only refers to being attracted to men (regardless of your sex and gender)
Gynephilia (gynosexual): This is the related term to androphilia and it refers to attraction to femininity or women (regardless of your own sex and gender).
Gender Binary: Is the belief in only two genders: male and female. It is prevalent throughout much of the modern world and is an incredibly pervasive and incorrect belief (I always feel like an ass saying a belief is just incorrect, but if so much as one person in the entire world doesn't identify as male or female, then this belief is inherently incorrect).
Heteronormative: I've used this word in my blog already, so I feel extremely compelled to explain it. This is a belief that relates to the gender binary. It refers to society's belief that heterosexuality is the default orientation and thus marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Thus, heteronormativity consequentially has a world view that everyone's sexuality, gender, and biological sex should align (ie biological female, who identifies as a woman, who is attracted to men).
Open Relationships: A relationship can be either open or closed. A closed relationship is the one most people will think of and it means that the people within a relationship are only exclusive with each other. This can even apply to a group of seven people who are exclusive only to each other and no one else. An open relationship refers to people within the confines of a relationship being allowed, with full consent of the other partner(s) to seek out other intimate relationships beyond the ones they already have. It is extremely important to set boundaries in open relationships, because it is easy to venture into something your partner might not be comfortable with you doing.
Polyamory: The practice of having multiple partners, with everyone involved's consent. This includes devoted triads (or more), open relationships, one primary and multiple secondary relationships, and much more. Being polyamorous is often associated with Mormons, but in healthy polyamory every person involve has an equal amount of power and say. When I first learned about polyamory I thought that it meant that polyamorous people didn't have any long term relationships, but polyamory does not necessarily exclude long term relationships, it just also includes the possibility of having more than one short or long term relationship.
Polyfidelity: This is a group of polyamorous people (more than two) who agree to be mutually exclusive with each other, generally for reasons of minimizing diseases, but also for other reasons. Polyfidelity would be defined as a closed relationship.
Genderqueer (non-binary gender): This general term refers to a person whose gender identity does not fall within strictly male or strictly female. It includes people who identify as both (bigendered, pangendered), people who identify as neither (agender, nongender), people whose gender identity is fluid, and those who are other-gendered.
Transgender: This is a broader term that refers to individuals whose biological sex does not always (or never) matches their gender or societal gender roles. Transgendered is an umbrella term that includes transexuals, transvestites, drag queens and kings, and gender queer individuals.
Transsexual: This is a person whose biological sex does not match the gender that was assigned to them at birth. Many people who are trans will opt to start taking the hormones of the sex that they feel congruous with and also opt for gender reassignment surgery, but people who do not take hormones or undergo surgery to alter their body does not mean they are not transsexual. It is also important to not that well it is a choice for a person to take hormones and opt for surgery, but choice does not enter into a person's incongruous feelings with their birth assigned gender. I would also like to emphasize that sexual orientation and gender expression are separate from gender. So a person who was assigned a female gender at birth could transition to become a feminine, gay man, and this would be just as valid a transition as someone transitioning to become a masculine, heterosexual man.
Transvestite: An individual who practice cross-dressing. The reasons people cross-dress are varied, but the term refers merely to the act.
Cisgendered: This is how the majority of Western society views themselves, which is that their biological sex matches their gender which was assigned at birth. This is the "default" of most people and many people do not even realize that there could be anything other than this reality.
Feminism: A movement (or movements) that is focused on obtaining equality for women. First wave feminism refers to the women's suffrage movement. Second wave feminism refers to the push for women's rights that occurred during the 1960's. Third wave feminism refers to the continued push for women's rights after the 60's. There is a lot of baggage that is associated with feminism, but in essence feminism just wants to bring about equality for women, which I feel like shouldn't be objectionable. I do consider myself a feminist.
Misogyny: Technically defined, misogyny is a hatred of women. It is sexism applied to a women specifically in essence. This is what feminism fights against.
Misandry: This term is the related term to misogyny and it refers to a hatred of men. Some feminists are accused (and for extremely radical feminists this is even true occasionally) of misandry by taking feminism too far.
I know this list is far from complete, so if you have something to add, please do so in the comments. Thank you to Liam for helping me put this list together.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Sexuality Labels
It's sorta fascinating. I had all these post ideas that I plan out and then one just pops into my head while driving and I just can't resist writing it about it.
I call myself heterosexual. It is how I identify, but when I say it I feel like I'm not being completely truthful. I recently realized the problem is terminology.
When I say I'm heterosexual I mean that the vast majority of the I am attracted to men. I can look at women and saw: "Wow, she's gorgeous" and mean it, but never ever be attracted to her. I think that people who identify as neither gender can be attractive aesthetically (like women) yet I'm still not attracted to said person romantically/sexually.
Maybe I'm just weird. Because there are women and gender queer people who I would consider dating, but it is such a rare occurrence for me. It's just men attract me more frequently aesthetically, romantically, and sexually. So, when I say that I'm heterosexual I mean that most often I am attracted to men.
Maybe it is a reluctance to call myself bisexual, but not for the reasons you think. If I were to call myself bisexual I feel like it would insult people I know who actually like both men and women about equally. I could say I'm bisexual with heterosexual preference, but I still feel like I am attracted to women so infrequently that even that seems like a lie.
Note: The other problem I have with the term bisexual is that it plays into the heteronormative belief that there are only two genders.
Similarly, I think of myself as monogamous because a) polyamory just never interested me and b) the relationship I have (and have had for almost four years) currently is monogamous and neither Boyfriend and I have ever been interested in our relationship being otherwise. (I do also feel like it would be weird to add another person to our relationship since we have been together as long as we have, but I could be crazy).
Labels are stupid and restrictive, but when talking to other people that are just ever so convenient.
I call myself heterosexual. It is how I identify, but when I say it I feel like I'm not being completely truthful. I recently realized the problem is terminology.
When I say I'm heterosexual I mean that the vast majority of the I am attracted to men. I can look at women and saw: "Wow, she's gorgeous" and mean it, but never ever be attracted to her. I think that people who identify as neither gender can be attractive aesthetically (like women) yet I'm still not attracted to said person romantically/sexually.
Maybe I'm just weird. Because there are women and gender queer people who I would consider dating, but it is such a rare occurrence for me. It's just men attract me more frequently aesthetically, romantically, and sexually. So, when I say that I'm heterosexual I mean that most often I am attracted to men.
Maybe it is a reluctance to call myself bisexual, but not for the reasons you think. If I were to call myself bisexual I feel like it would insult people I know who actually like both men and women about equally. I could say I'm bisexual with heterosexual preference, but I still feel like I am attracted to women so infrequently that even that seems like a lie.
Note: The other problem I have with the term bisexual is that it plays into the heteronormative belief that there are only two genders.
Similarly, I think of myself as monogamous because a) polyamory just never interested me and b) the relationship I have (and have had for almost four years) currently is monogamous and neither Boyfriend and I have ever been interested in our relationship being otherwise. (I do also feel like it would be weird to add another person to our relationship since we have been together as long as we have, but I could be crazy).
Labels are stupid and restrictive, but when talking to other people that are just ever so convenient.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Caprica
First of all, this is not a post detailing why Caprica is awesome. I firmly believe it is/was and that it shouldn't have been cancelled, but it isn't really something I want to debate. What I would like to discuss is Caprica's view of sexuality.
Inside the world of Caprica there seem to be no laws dictating that x person cannot marry x person. There are heterosexual marriages, homosexual marriages, group marriages and all of this is not treated as novel or exciting but simply matter-of-fact. Within the Caprica universe any adult consenting person can marry whoever they wish.
I was discussing this with a friend a while back and we decided that well sexuality was handled quite well, gender was hardly addressed at all. And, I think I still stand mostly behind this opinion, but I was thinking about it more and realized that gender is addressed in at least small subtle ways. Firstly, within the work force, women are fairly likely to be in any position (simple employee to management). I would say that their workforce is still leaning toward androcentric, but I think it's more balanced than our own society. Secondly, gender roles do not seem to exist. Children are raised (what seems to be) equally by both/all parents, both/all parents generally work, and the person who cooks in a family appears not to be gender based. So, even though Caprican society is still largely heteronormative, there are little improvements that made me happy.
Finally, what interested me most about Caprica (which I mentioned earlier) were the group marriages. This is a topic that is not addressed by any (that I can think of) media source. Within the show it was a fascinating dynamic. Within the group marriage everyone had (relatively) equal standing and everyone was expected to pitch in with chores and raising the children.
Group marriage interests me because it addresses a question I have always wondered about: what would it be like to raise a child with more than two parents. The traditional statement is: children should be raised by one monogamous, heterosexual couple. But, a homosexual couple is just as likely (some statistics point to more likely) to raise a child well than a heterosexual couple. That raises the question, why would one monogamous couple raise a child any better than four polyamorous people or two monogamous-to-each-other couples. Traditionally throughout history, children have been raised in a group setting. When raised by only two people, a child gets only those two (generally just one) perspectives. However, if you were raising a child in a group setting then you would have so many more opinions and I honestly believe this would help teach a child open-mindedness and flexibility.
Certainly there would be some issues when raising a child in a group setting. You would have to set out strict guidelines between all members involved in the raising before having a child. If not, you would be fairly likely to get the: "no, she's my biological child so my opinion should have more sway" or I have more children, so my opinion should have more sway". You would likely still get these issues even with agreed upon rules. However, I do think it would be a fascinating and possibly positive way to raise a child.
Inside the world of Caprica there seem to be no laws dictating that x person cannot marry x person. There are heterosexual marriages, homosexual marriages, group marriages and all of this is not treated as novel or exciting but simply matter-of-fact. Within the Caprica universe any adult consenting person can marry whoever they wish.
I was discussing this with a friend a while back and we decided that well sexuality was handled quite well, gender was hardly addressed at all. And, I think I still stand mostly behind this opinion, but I was thinking about it more and realized that gender is addressed in at least small subtle ways. Firstly, within the work force, women are fairly likely to be in any position (simple employee to management). I would say that their workforce is still leaning toward androcentric, but I think it's more balanced than our own society. Secondly, gender roles do not seem to exist. Children are raised (what seems to be) equally by both/all parents, both/all parents generally work, and the person who cooks in a family appears not to be gender based. So, even though Caprican society is still largely heteronormative, there are little improvements that made me happy.
Finally, what interested me most about Caprica (which I mentioned earlier) were the group marriages. This is a topic that is not addressed by any (that I can think of) media source. Within the show it was a fascinating dynamic. Within the group marriage everyone had (relatively) equal standing and everyone was expected to pitch in with chores and raising the children.
Group marriage interests me because it addresses a question I have always wondered about: what would it be like to raise a child with more than two parents. The traditional statement is: children should be raised by one monogamous, heterosexual couple. But, a homosexual couple is just as likely (some statistics point to more likely) to raise a child well than a heterosexual couple. That raises the question, why would one monogamous couple raise a child any better than four polyamorous people or two monogamous-to-each-other couples. Traditionally throughout history, children have been raised in a group setting. When raised by only two people, a child gets only those two (generally just one) perspectives. However, if you were raising a child in a group setting then you would have so many more opinions and I honestly believe this would help teach a child open-mindedness and flexibility.
Certainly there would be some issues when raising a child in a group setting. You would have to set out strict guidelines between all members involved in the raising before having a child. If not, you would be fairly likely to get the: "no, she's my biological child so my opinion should have more sway" or I have more children, so my opinion should have more sway". You would likely still get these issues even with agreed upon rules. However, I do think it would be a fascinating and possibly positive way to raise a child.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)