| Ideas on androgyny, bisexuality, homosexuality and other garbage | 0 comments |
|
16 Jan 2007 @ 13:05, by Trent Crace
"I'm not a woman, I'm not a man. I am something that you'll never understand." --from I Would Die For You by Prince
* To opponents of homosexuality in general: To try and impose ultimately arbitrary restrictions upon another person is to expose oneself to the same possible oppression. Of course, a person who is propelling these restrictions does not see them as arbitrary and normally has a justification for them, i.e. "It's unnatural," or "The Bible tells us it's wrong." Could this be the source of every conflict? Person(s) A disallowing Person(s) B to freely determine the conditions of Person(s) B's life? It goes without saying that any person is only as free as everyone else, but as far as consenting, willing and able adults: anything should be acceptable.
* Homosexuality has become a haven for males who like/prefer/choose to behave in a feminine manner and for masculine females (Hence the shortage of what are referred to as "tops" amongst male homosexuals). However, homosexuality inherently has nothing to do with males being feminine or females being masculine. In fact, homosexuality is merely an "appearance," for two males may possess the same body type but to attract and thus interact with one another, one will be feminine, the other masculine. In other words, function is senior to form. In the same vein, heterosexuality also is simply an "appearance," heterosexual relationships usually involve an identification of form and function. This does not have to be the case: a male does not need to be masculine and a female does not need to be feminine in a heterosexual relationship. My contention here is that there is no difference between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual relationship; they both can be reduced to a mere "appearance," where the underlying essence of each lies in the interaction between the androgynous beings involved.
* It seems to me that bisexuality is less acceptable to people than homosexuality. Homosexuality is understand by people like this: a man, similar to a woman, is strictly attracted to men. It's easier for people to make this jump than to accept that a person can be attracted to both males and females.
* Heredity also plays a role in considering sexuality. People who accept homosexuality, including homosexuals themselves, believe that this is "just the way they are." This makes it easier for heterosexuals to accept homosexuality because it becomes this indirect way to reinforce their own sexuality, "Homosexuals are just the way they are...and I am just the way I am--heterosexual!" On the other hand, bisexuality becomes somewhat of a wrench in the spokes in this regard. A person can choose whether to be with a male or female? Rather than reinforcing the idea that one is born a particular way, or is built to strictly behave in a certain fashion, bisexuality says that one can choose, one has the freedom to be with either a male or female.
* There is a trend amongst those concerned with problems stemming from gender roles and sexual repression that there need not be a distinction between masculinity and feminity. They are attempting to reconceptualize gender as transcendent of this binary distinction (crazy, I know).
They are in error. The confusion can easily be solved by distinguishing between male/female and masculine/feminine. The former pair represent physical structures, which are ultimately irrelevent when it comes to whether a person chooses to behave in a masculine or feminine manner. The latter represent function.
Masculinity and feminity are abstractions that signify certain qualities. The two are not exactly divisible--there is a gray area. But transcending this binary distinction entails embracing them, understanding them, confronting the full reality of them both. This is where many go astray with these ideas. They believe that the solution lies in eradicating the distinction, and even perhaps eradicating the vocabulary. However, the confusion lies not in the terms or reality of the terms. It lies in people's lack of understanding, which ultimately translates as people's unwillingness and inability to fully express both sides of the coin.
Furthermore, there is a wonderful side-effect of embracing both functions: one realizes that one is truly neither masculine nor feminine but that these are simply ways in which one can relate to the world (one can certainly relate as neither male or female as well). Here, the result that the mis-guided philosophers have hoped to achieve is achieved, but by the opposite means compared to their recommendations: rushing towards the problem area rather than running away from it, embracing and permeating an area rather than escaping from it.
* One misconception about bisexuality is that it lends itself to over-sexualization, i.e. a bisexual is attracted to everyone. Here again people are introducing this hereditary idea of sexuality into the situation: a person cannot turn on or turn off sexual attraction. A friend once told me that to him, homosexuality was acceptable, but bisexuality represented what he called "total wanton behavior." That is, when a person possesses the desire to "fuck everything in sight."
|
|
Category: Articles
0 comments
Other entries in Articles
8 Jul 2008 @ 15:35: Kill the Middle Man
1 May 2008 @ 23:43: Impossibility and the Blood-Sick Kid
27 Mar 2008 @ 05:18: A Return to the Land of My Birth
28 Aug 2007 @ 16:21: "Yes, Sire": The Pursuit of Wholeness
9 Aug 2007 @ 14:44: Beautiful Lies, Ugly Truths and the Answer to an Age-Old Paradox
18 Apr 2007 @ 19:52: Blood for Oil: Clarifying a Half-Truth
14 Feb 2007 @ 01:16: Free Will in Drag
29 Nov 2006 @ 15:54: Passive-Aggression in the Workplace
22 Nov 2006 @ 17:25: Transcendence and Immanence
|
