Quote:
Originally Posted by Redway
So you think everyone’s at least a little bit bisexual?
|
Not necessarily, but not necessarily not either. It’s largely here nor there
My point is more that there are a multitude of different sexual interests that separate humans. What you and I are interested in sexually will probably be different, as will what Cal and Withano and Kim Woodburn and Bernie Sanders, and literally most humans on the planet...with the obvious exception of asexuals.
But we don’t base our identities around a preference for certain sexual acts, certain locations, even ethnicities or body shapes or age, despite the fact that such differences occur. So why do we do the same for gender? It only appears to be “natural” and “obvious” because that’s how we’ve shaped our social world, but as I alluded to, and there’s further reading to be done on this in the books I mentioned, the idea of having a “sexual orientation” is a largely “modern” (at least post-Victorians) construction. That’s not to say being attracted to one gender over another (or more) isn’t “natural” - it’s important not to confuse that - but more that having an “orientation”, it becoming an identity if you like, is not at all natural. It isn’t tangible, it hasn’t always been that way, and it’s something that modern, often western, human societies have created. People can debate the merits of it (and there are definitely positives, especially where LGB rights have been concerned), but that’s my point. And thus, if these categories of gender-orientation have been “invented”, it really doesn’t matter that much if other ones are invented too. Because they’re
all invented. So who cares?