Everything you wanted to know about sexuality but were too dumb to ask

[alias_sqbr]

ithiliana made a locked post(*) asking her flist what GLBT people wish was better known by their peers at uni, and what straight people wish they'd known at uni. I found this a really interesting question, since by uni most people have gotten past the basic "Gay people exist and aren't evil" stage. EDIT: I haven't included stuff on non-monogamous relationships and other misunderstood aspects of sexuality like S&M etc since that wasn't part of the original post. Feel free to discuss them in the comments anyway :)

So, this is my answer, including stuff I've seen other people get consistently wrong:

1) On the whole GLBT people look and act just like straight people, there's no such thing as reliable "gaydar"(**). Don't freak out when a "normal" person turns out to be GLBT (especially T) or make assumptions about a "gay acting" person.
1a)Straight is not the default, don't just assume any "normal acting" person is interested in people of the opposite sex and not in those of the same sex (or that those distinctions even apply). No, not even if they have/had a partner of the opposite sex.
1b)Don't freak out if people don't assume you're straight. They're just covering all bases, not "accusing" you of being lesbian or gay.

2)Asexuals exist. They are not going to grow out of it. They are not secretly gay. They don't need to "try it and see".

3) Straight people do not get to "reclaim" "gay"/"fag" etc as insults/negative adjectives etc. Not even if the context has nothing to do with sexuality.

4) Intersex and trans* people exist and have feelings. It doesn't suddenly become ok to make fun of them if you use words like "hermaphrodite" and "shemale".

5) Sexuality and identity are complicated and a matter of personal choice. You don't get to say "She had a boyfriend, she's not a lesbian" or "He said that guy is cute, he's not an asexual".
5b) These things also change. Someone can be enthusiastically straight, and then become gay/lesbian, and then identify as a pansexual etc, and not be "lying".

6) GLBT doesn't begin to cover it. (I'm not 100% up on all the varieties of sexuality myself, I must admit)

7) (After reading comments on that post) Sexuality is not actually just about sex. As with straight people, it's all mixed up with love and companionship and all that stuff in a sometimes very complicated way.


So what do you guys think?
EDIT: I'm not going to correct this post since I'd be rewriting it forever and I think it acts an interesting snapshot into the brain of a well meaning but somewhat clueless straight person. But it's definitely flawed, and there's lots of important additions and discussion in the comments.

(*)to keep answers private, she said it was ok to mention it existed
(**)Well, not for straight people, anyway :)

Comments

[flyingblogspot.livejournal.com]

You are wonderful for including (2). Just because. *hugs you tight*

If I were making a similar list, I'd probably tend to include something about polyamory awareness / responsible & consensual non-monogamy, although that tends to cross more into the territory of love, companionship and relationships than some of the other things you've mentioned.

[alias_sqbr]

Hey! No touching!! :D (Our icons make an interesting contrast)

Yes, I thought about including polyamoury etc but in some ways that really is a separate topic, and it wasn't part of the original post. Also there's stuff like S&M etc, which people can more easily keep to themselves but still has a lot of stigma attached to it. (Something I've been thinking about while watching Bones, which on the whole is much less anti-sex than your average crime show but still can be a bit "OMG what freaks no wonder they're involved with murder!!")

I must admit I was well into uni (and almost out the other side) before I really started being open minded about that sort of thing (mainly because it wasn't until then I met anyone who had anything good to say about it), so I still have quite a bit of figuring out left.

[ariaflame.livejournal.com]

There are even different flavours of (2). Some aren't at all interested in the act. Others have indulged, and found it overall not too bad (though probably not in their favourite top ten things to do). It can sometimes be hard to work out which you are though since asexuals tend not to find other people sexually attractive, on a physical level at least. This tends to reduce the number of relationships they get involved in.

Still, on the plus side not having to deal with the limerance effect means never getting into a bad relationship just because someone was so cute.

[the-s-guy.livejournal.com]

When it comes to the real world, nothing is ever 100% anything. Especially when it comes to biology. Double especially when it comes to trying to figure people out.

[alias_sqbr]

Absolutely(*). But sometimes even when you're aware of the rule in principle you need to be hit on the head about specific instances :)

(*)Well, as much as any rule which says "nothing is absolute" can be absolute...

[vegetus.livejournal.com]

Good list... I'd probably also include poly and nonmonogomy stuff. Also the fact that bi women do not exist for the fantasies of straight men. I saw that attitude alot and it still annoys me.

[alias_sqbr]

I decided not to include poly stuff etc since it wasn't part of the original post and I think if I'm going to post about it I'd want to consider it carefully on it's own rather than tacking it onto this one.

Also the fact that bi women do not exist for the fantasies of straight men. I saw that attitude alot and it still annoys me.

Eww. Not something I've had much personal experience with, though I have noticed the way men react differently to me mentioning having been very occasionally attracted to women than women do (especially men I am or have been involved with)

[sanguinity]

Bi women don't exist for the fantasies of straight men. Lesbians don't exist for the fantasies of straight men. Bi women, especially poly bi women, don't exist to be the sexual accessories of straight couples. And on and fucking on.

Oh, and that "lesbian until graduation" thing? And all of its variations? Sends me over the fucking edge.

[maharetr.livejournal.com]

God, yes. Can I have 1a on a great big sign?

The "So, do you have a boyfriend?" question is not as simple or as casual as you think, peoples!

[alias_sqbr]

I must admit I still trip up on that one more than I'd like. And then of course if I'm careful not to I come up against 1b :/

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

I kind of feel I want to say something on behalf of the straight folk, along the lines of "ignorance isn't the same as hostility" - for better or worse, alternate sexuality stuff is new to a lot of young people, and can be a bit of a shock to the ol' worldview.

[alias_sqbr]

Oh, absolutely. Which is why I wish someone had told me these things when I was younger, then I wouldn't have been so accidentally offensive!

[melberon.livejournal.com]

Regarding straight being the default: given that over 90% of people are straight, it seems irrational to consider anything other than straight to be the 'default' sexuality. Given the attitudes to homosexuality in a large portion of society, it also seems to me that assuming that someone is striaght is much less likely to cause offence than assuming otherwise.

Asexuality is something that I've never really thought of much before. It's got me wondering about related concerns, like: Is there a corresponding term for people who experience (and act on) sexual attraction but don't form romantic relationships? (a quick skim of the wikipedia article on asexuality doesn't mention such a thing) Does "horribly repressed Englishman" count as a sexual orientation?

I'm also kind of imagining now a kind of multi-dimensional Kinsey scale as a projective plane, with asexuality being the "point at infinity" at which all lines intersect. Not claiming that this is a particularly good way of looking at it but for a mathematician, your livejournal doesn't contain anywhere near enough maths. :-p

[penchaft.livejournal.com]

Oh, that'd just be a player who can't commit until he finds the right girl, amirite?

Hmm. There's aromanticism, but I've only seen it in the context of asexuality (e.g. this sort of classification is in vogue at the moment - "{a/auto}sexual, {bi/homo/hetero/poly/a}romantic, {bi/homo/hetero/poly/a}aesthetic" - I thiiink aesthetic is the term? Basically it's "yes, I can find prettiness/attractiveness in this set of people" but it's not a sexual attraction).

Then there's the "graysexuals" who are not 100% asexual, but they seem to be sort of "I am romantically involved with this person, and because of our love for one another, sex is an okay, and sometimes an ejoyable thing".

(Then there's this (http://asexualunderground.blogspot.com/) creepy guy...)

[mothwentbad.livejournal.com]

It's sort of subjective, though. In what sense you regard straight as the default is an issue. For example, one could ask if they would act differently in some ways if they knew that there were gay people present. If you're saying things that would have you saying "sorry man, I didn't know you were gay", then you're doing straight as the default in a bad way. I think 1b especially, and in particular, how a straight person responds to being hit on by a same-sex person should roughly correspond to what they would find reasonable as a response to their unrequited attractions to anyone else. Well, that's the ideal anyway. The less OMGWTF whenever it does come up, the better.

[alias_sqbr]

Certainly it's reasonable to assume that any given person is probably straight. But at the same time you should keep in mind the possibility they're not, and if talking to a large group of people should work on the assumption that some of them probably aren't.

Perhaps "default" was the wrong way to put it.

Given the attitudes to homosexuality in a large portion of society, it also seems to me that assuming that someone is striaght is much less likely to cause offence than assuming otherwise.

Just because homophobia exists doesn't mean we have to pander to it.

I'm also kind of imagining now a kind of multi-dimensional Kinsey scale as a projective plane, with asexuality being the "point at infinity" at which all lines intersect

When I first encountered the term I was thinking something like that as well :) I don't know much about asexuality (beyond "it exists"), so have no idea about your questions.

for a mathematician, your livejournal doesn't contain anywhere near enough maths. :-p

HAPPY NOW?

[penchaft.livejournal.com]

Even though "okay so given that we know you're not sexually or romantically attracted to anyone, and given that we also know that you find certain women attractive (never mind that you also find certain men attractive)...! LOL YOU KNOW YOU'RE SECRETLY GAY RIGHT!" happened less often than "OH YOU JUST HAVE TO FIND THE RIGHT BOY LOL DON'T WORRY TRUE LOVE WILL MAKE YOU ONE OF US", I think I found it more annoying.

[ariaflame.livejournal.com]

I got a lot of the second. They really couldn't handle the concept that this wasn't actually something I wanted.

I don't on the whole find anyone particularly attractive. Though there are levels of unattractiveness I notice (though they have more to do with attitude and hygiene). Not on a physical level anyway.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

I think straight people may, on occasion, be able to reclaim "gay" in the sense of carefree and happy, if done with appropriate retro stylings and a little wit.

Using gay as a generic negative isn't 'reclaiming', it is just being offensive, even if it isn't offensive to the speaker.

[alias_sqbr]

Absolutely, which is why the "reclaim" is in quotation marks. But I have heard that argument and ones like it.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

It isn't really LGBT specific, so probably falls in the same category as poly, but-

- sharing a sexual orientation or some sexual compatibility does not constitute sexual consent or interest in any way. it doesn't matter if there are only two lesbians or gay men in your social group, no one should assume that means they are interested in each other.

- being a gay man and being camp are two completely different things, as are being a lesbian and being butch. Just because you are one does not mean you should be the other.

- being open to talking about your sexuality or sexual activity does not constitute sexual consent or interest in any way.

- being open talking about your sexuality or sexual activity does not constitute sluttiness or promiscuity.

- sluttiness or promiscuity does not imply a lack of ethics about sex, though it probably implies not sharing the ethical prohibitions against promiscuity espoused by certain religions and established social conventions.

- sluttiness in general does not constitute sexual consent or interest to you in particular in any way.

[alias_sqbr]

Something I have seen over and over lots of places is the fact that a lot of people (especially certain men(*)) are incapable of telling the difference between "Interested in sex" and "Interested in sex with that particular person".

Since my preferences happen to be so conventional and I'm not naturally flirtatious etc I tend to miss out on the sorts of things you're talking about, but I've seen them being used towards others and can imagine it's really hurtful. Closest I've come was in second year when people found out I had a lower-than-expected purity score and almost reacted as if I had been living a lie, like having a somewhat varied sex life was incompatible with being a shy, neurotic, sensible geek girl. God knows how people would have reacted if I was bisexual or something.

(*)But not your good self :)

[sanguinity]

1c) Just because you know an individual is interested in someone of the same sex, don't assume that said person is gay or lesbian.

Was there a 5a?

5c) These terms are, at best, approximations. Someone can identify themselves as "gay" in one conversation and "bisexual" in the next, and you don't get to accuse them of lying or inconsistency. Nor do you get to demand an explanation.

6a) Nor are those "categories" mutually exclusive. Some folk like to think of all these as nicely discrete segments of the population, and they are so very not.

[alias_sqbr]

1c) Just because you know an individual is interested in someone of the same sex, don't assume that said person is gay or lesbian.

Ooh, good point. In fact these are all very good points.

Was there a 5a?

Yes! It's invisible! *cough*

[sanguinity]

Oh, and I keep meaning to ask: is there a distinction between LGBT and GLBT in Australia? You consistently use the latter, and I keep wondering what I should or should not be reading into it.

[penchaft.livejournal.com]

GLBT looks more like a burger abbreviation?

[shineys-are-us.livejournal.com]

I like your answers. Something I might add to 5) is that bisexuals really do exist and they don't need to match *idiot'sname's* quota. There's a guy on heated debate that seems convinced that to be bisexual, a person needs to be exactly 50/50. To make it more difficult to meet his standards, anyone who actually gets close to this 50/50 isn't bisexual, they're just indifferent to who they sleep with *rollseyes* Actually, no one needs to match a quota and it's insulting as hell to tell them that because they don't match it, they're confused/lying about their sexuality. (Can you tell this is one of my pet hates?)

I'm pretty happy that you put 2 in. To that one I'd add that just like any other sexuality, people come in different flavours. Some asexuals are also aromantic, while some will go into relationships. Some will have sex because their partner(s) are sexual.

Cool post overall. You've got a typo in 5b, 'panexual'. I assume you meant pansexual.

[alias_sqbr]

Oh yes, I've encountered the "Anything but a perfect 3 on the Kinsey scale is either straight or lesbian/gay" argument before. And then there's the less common "If you're not a perfect 0 you're bi/lesbian/gay" argument, which I had applied to me once (being briefly attracted to, at that time, one girl once does not a bisexual make)

[grahame.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's a bit out there, but you could read your list of things and get from it "let's just chuck categories of sexuality". Or at least, use them only as self-determined. Seems sensible to me.

[sanguinity]

If it was the categories that was the problem, sure. But it's heteronormativity, gendernormativity, and their related privileges that are the problem -- the injustices, after all, do pre-date the categories (let alone the construction of orientation as identities). These categories serve as a kludgy but useful tool for discussing and opposing those norms and privileges; if you throw the categories out, we're back to where we were in the thirties with the crap still happening, but without language for calling out the crap. That privileged people tend to screw things up when they haven't been educated is hardly a reason to throw it all out; the categories were instituted because privileged people tend to screw things up when they haven't been educated, and the categories provides a tool for (among other things) doing the education.

[infamyanonymous.livejournal.com]

Everyone's said very sensible and grown up things here. I guess I just don't care what sexuality someone is. Not in a nasty way, more in a I don't care if you're left handed, or a Scorpio or from South of the River way. So my assumptions are kind of a Err4 reading than 0-6, but if someone states that they have a same-sex partner, I am surprised very very briefly. Wait, I'm also the same amount of surprised when someone says they have a partner of the opposite sex, so I just wasted my time typing that.

I do object to people (often, but not always of the GLBT community) assuming I am sexist or homophobic or GLBT-ist. Not just me, there was a great moment when two mutual friends met, and one started ranting at the other about straight men being homophobic, laying into him for representing the world's evils. Yeah, that's right, he was gay. It was hilarious (for me.)

Oh, and 1b) and strangedave's comment ...as are being a lesbian and being butch YES. I don't know the frequency of this sort of thing, but it shits me to tears that I am so often assumed to be gay. I know of at least three guys who have gone under the misaprehention that I am a lesbian, for different reasons.
I know that not all lesbians are butch, and the world seems to be getting better at that idea, but not every girl who doesn't wear makeup, dresses, skirts, make-out with strange boys is gay. I've actually invented a previous boyfriend backstory to drop into conversation when people are getting nosey.
I had to sit my mum down one day and explain to her that I liked boys, it's that bad.

(Also, yes, I get the irony here. "Poor me, shoved into the wrong category, how hard it is to be straight." The only two times in my life I have ever been hit on, were by chicks. Not offended, just annoyed at the statistics :P)

[alias_sqbr]

one started ranting at the other about straight men being homophobic, laying into him for representing the world's evils

At random, or had he said something which (to the listener) came across as sexist/homophobic? It is an unfortunate fact that sometimes one is the straw that broke the camel's back, the whole situation not being very fair for the straw or the camel. (This is one reason I try to get my feminist/anti-racist etc rage out on my lj, lets me be calmer when facing this stuff in person)

People assume you're lesbian? You don't strike me as any more butch than I am! (Not that it would be a fair assumption even if you were)

Have you seen "But I'm a cheerleader"? It's a cute if slight movie about a girl who's sent to "un-gay-ification" camp and she's all "But I can't be a lesbian! I like pink! And cheerleading!" while another (straight) girl was sent there just for playing softball :) Then again, if you admit to watching it people may assume even more...

I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with complaining about the ways in which heterosexism make life difficult for straight people as long as we don't try to dominate the conversation or argue that we have it worse. Puts us all on the same side, same way as I like to see men complain about the way sexism (actual sexism, not imaginary "women run the world" sexism against men) hurts men.

[sanguinity]

Just dropping this in as a terminology resource for people (includes some info about what ideas are obnoxious, as well): GLAAD media reference guide (pdf)

[alias_sqbr]

Cool, thanks. *reads*