Please note-

*Please note- Your browser preferences must be set to 'allow 3rd party cookies' in order to comment in our diaries.

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Sexual Orientation: Isn't everyone simply sexual or asexual? by Jo LeGall

I have never related to the term hetero sexual as I am not sexual which led me to briefly contemplate that I might be homo sexual or bi sexual. I did not fit either as I still am not sexual. The terms seem woefully outdated as the suffix means "sex with" and the prefix specifies the "gender".

I know folks within all communities. Straight, gay, bi and trans who are not overly sexual and still struggle to find an adjective that best describes how they feel. They have a sex drive yet prefer sexual acts other than anal/vaginal sex. When conveying these feelings society says "well maybe you are not hetero or homo sexual, maybe you are bi sexual?". Yet, that is not it. They are attracted to the sex they say they are attracted to, they simply are not overly sexual. The same characteristics of a romantic/asexual, whether homo/hetero/bi romantic, yet they have a desire to have sex.

I formerly moderated a forum for gay men and every day there was someone questioning whether he was gay or not because every gay man he met was extremely sexual and he was not. They would complain that they love sexual contact but the constant demand to be extremely sexual was leading them to question if sex is all there is to being gay and if so maybe they were not. I have seen this with hetero/bi/gay women also. One partner is extremely sexual while the other is less so.

On the other end of the spectrum are those who are extremely sexual and have no desire for any relationship. Sex is satisfying enough and any romantic entanglement is found to be irritating. Confirmed bachelors, or bachelorettes, whom society feels obligated to nag into disastrous marriages. For the sake of society of course.

Then there's what I call sexual identity. Whether you are dominant/submissive/switch. Even this seems to lead to sexuals questioning their sexuality since being "submissive" is always used in reference to women and gay men. I've talked to men who were attracted to women yet were submissive who actually wondered if they were gay simply because they needed to be the submissive partner during sex. Or men who questioned if they were straight simply because they had an urge to only be the penetrative/dominant partner during sex with their male partner. I'm straying off topic here.

So what I'm saying is this, as they are different types of asexuals, whether romantic/aromantic, hetero/bi/homo romantic etc. The same can be said for sexuals. The terms homo, hetero and bi sexual do not adequately describe sexuality as every one is either sexual or asexual regardless of which gender they find sexually/aesthetically/romantically pleasing.

If orientation was all about "gender" then all sexuals would have sex with everyone who falls into their "gender" of choice regardless of physical/intellectual/aesthetic attraction. Which is why I feel sexual orientation is outdated and essentially seems to spread confusion and infighting amongst sexuals.

There are different types of sexuals, not simply due to "gender of choice" but due to their individual approach to sexuality (i.e. sexual acts, romantic attraction, sexual identity) and the sexual boundaries they eventually negotiate with/during each individual sexual/romantic relationship .

How we are, the way we act, the sexual, romantic, parenting boundaries we negotiate during one relationship is re-negotiated as we grow emotionally within the partnership and must be initially negotiated with every new relationship.

I have an orientation all right; sexual it is not.

No comments:

Post a Comment