Since the channels have been quiet for a while I thought I
would throw one out there with a queer thought about the idea of classifying
sexual orientation, which to me is a bit of an absurd idea. It’s like the
concept of gender. What even is that? Well obviously it’s a construction
created by the hegemonic forces for their own ends and means, but a lot of
people fail to realise this. So to me trying to classifying sexual orientation,
particularly because I find the concept of gender problematic, is pretty difficult.
Maybe it even goes further than that; I find it hard classifying relations with
other people in general. And I think in this sense I come across as a bit strange
because most people draw quite clear lines about this sort of thing, as in,
girls sleeping with girls are lesbians, for example. But the more I think about
this the more I fail to see how it is even a thing. What started this all off
was a conversation I had with a guy the other day who was totally pro
girl-on-girl (of course) but shuddered at the idea of two men going at it. That
was simply ‘gay’. To which I replied so was the meeting of vjayjays. But I only
meant this in a facetious way. And I think I have a vaguely feminist notion
that says to me that erecting these categories to define sexual orientation is
a means of belittling women and of denying their sexual agency, which is a
point I will come back to.
In actual fact, I don’t know that I understand what
homosexuality is. I am pretty sure that in the oldest times there was always an
orgy to be found somewhere which facilitated a whole array of sexual gluttony.
I mean, there was no TV or Facebook, what else would you do with your time? And
there was probably a bit of sword fighting going on as well as the apparently acceptable
female fraternisation and general penis-vagina stuff. And I don’t think that
was really a problem, nor that people were then categorised according to who they got off
on. But nowadays we seem quite keen on drawing a line under all of this and giving
everyone a set orientation. When speaking with someone about my curiosity and
willingness to engage in sexual activities with a girl, they asked me then if I
was bisexual. And my answer was no. But I also can’t then be straight based on
common interpretations either. But as far as I see it, there are people I am
attracted to, and people I am not. Further than that I can make no sense of it.
But this puts me outside the realm of what we can articulated – there is no word
for this kind of orientation –, which tends to make people uncomfortable.
Language is the channel we collect knowledge through, and when something can’t be
expressed nicely in a term, it becomes somehow incomprehensible. But that doesn’t
mean that all that which can’t be expressed isn’t valid or real. It’s just
undefined. And society doesn’t like having black boxes.
Coming to the feminist point, the classification of sexual
orientation is just another way of men exercising their dominance over women in
being those who give sex, and by creating the notion of homosexuality – that which
is not hetero – the overarching male dominance is reproduced. So to put this
into a more grounded context rather than vague theoretical conceptions of the (re)production
of norms, let’s take a heterosexual couple and imagine how we feel about them
having sex. We are probably pretty alright about it. Now think about two girls
together. Can lesbians actually have sex? This is an important question to
think about, and explains why I think the idea of homosexuality denies the
sexual agency of women. I think the answer is yes, lesbian sex is sex, but
there are many people who might say it’s not. Generally lesbian sex is seen as
something less than heterosexual sex – which is the standard benchmark of what
sex is. I mean, a hot dog with no sausage is just a roll right? So in the eyes
of society, this isn’t damaging, but lacking, and ultimately renders the woman
incapable of performing sex. A man has to do it. So that’s why I think defining
sexual orientation facilitates inequality between men and women and denies
women sexual agency. And I find it kind of tragic that we are all largely complacent in the reproduction of this idea.
But now come to the case of two men (remembering the example
of my friend calling this ‘gay’). There seems to be some sort of discomfort
with the idea, which I understand people feel, though I don’t myself. The idea
of a man giving anal, or receiving it, from another man disturbs the notion of
what sex is and who can do it. It is no longer something that a man gives a
women. So there is a sort of repulsion to this notion, but often men actively
want to do anal with a women, which (in seeing her only from behind and utilising
her rectal endowments) could be the same as having sex with a man. I think this
is where my friend had a problem, because sex stopped being about the dominance
of men. It put him into a space in which he was equal to the other party. In
fact, the man usurps the woman in recieving anal. And thus, if (in the eyes of society) if
homosexual sex is normalised, and just becomes sex without any categorisations
we run into two problems. Firstly, women are endowed with the power to have
sex, and therefore men are no longer dominant over them, or even needed. Women
can get their own sexual gratification without being given it. Secondly, by
normalising homosexual activities – in the case of two men – men become a group
that can receive sex, and as such they undermine their own sexual dominance.
And I can imagine this plays a role in why so many men think lesbians are hot,
but gay guys are wrong. Even if it is subconscious. They just don’t want to be
on the receiving end or have their power deminished.
While that turned out to be way more theoretical than I
intended it to be, and certainly very opinionated, I think it is still food for
thought. And maybe you might start to think differently about who has the
ability to have sex, and why and what the wider implications of this are. And
maybe, just maybe, we can stop calling people ‘gay’ and adopt a ‘70s-style free
love policy. She says, hopefully.
And on that note, here is what may potentially be one of my
favourite songs at the moment:
