Friday, August 26, 2011

30 before 30: Sex vs. Love

WARNING: I talk about sexin'. No personal details or how-to's, just general opinions. So if you don't feel comfortable discussing sexy times, then move along, pardner.

Today on Twitter, Jess Fink (fabulous cartoonist behind the VERY hot and VERY NSFW Chester 5000) posted a link to a study that bisexual men do, indeed, exist. Apparently, this study was in response to a previous one last decade that claimed that men were NOT bisexual.

Now, a lot of bisexual men did not care for the last study because they were, in fact, bisexual and men and did, in fact, exist DESPITE this study. I would also be upset, I figured, but ultimately I found the study to be very "Duh-DOI".

Modern society seems to balk at the idea of "the middle" when it comes to most moral issues. It's too hard to think in shades of grey, so most people default to a clear black or white, and don't budge. I get it. The middle is hard. The middle is confusing. Grey is a murky, unclear color.

Sexuality seems to be a place where this "color theory" is especially true. For whatever reason (I'm not here to assign blame), our American society has adopted this whole "You're one or the other" attitude. (Maybe other societies outside of the US as well, but I can't speak to those 'cuz I don't live in them.) You either like boys or you like girls. And if you like one, you can't like the other. You picked your team (or were biologically drafted to that team), NOW YOU STICK WITH IT.

To be honest, I find that personally frustrating. I can't change society, though, so I'm not trying to write some political diatribe about what's wrong with this world. It's pointless. I choose instead to figure out how I can work within society's dictations, what I can ignore, and make my peace as I go. That includes sexuality and love.

My "color" for sex is quite different than my color for "love", but again, they're shades of grey. Without going into TOO much detail, my sexual history would read to the outside observer as "straight". I mean, if it was strictly facts and numbers, that's what I would "measure" as. Maybe "bi-curious" at the most diverse, but that's usually dismissed anyway. My actual romantic relationships would also read as "straight". I've only been romantically involved with males, and 95% of my sexual experiences (kissing to the full act) have been with men.

My history is misleading, though, at least when it comes to sexuality. I find men very attractive sexually, but I also find a fair amount of women very attractive as well. I'd say it's at least 65/35 minimum. If I'd been ballsier and more aware of it back when I was still single, I would've hoped to explore this attraction more. However, I met my husband while young, and he's not exactly open to me sleeping with other people, male or female. (I wonder why! ;D) Since I want to keep my husband, I never got to explore this area of my sexuality. God forbid, if I ever end up single again, I don't even know how I would purse exploring it! But it's there. Yet since I never really got the chance to explore being with women, I don't feel comfortable calling myself "bisexual"; but I'm not straight, either! See how these absolutes frustrate me?

As for love, well, I identify myself as "straight". While I like women as sexual objects, I'm not that interested in them from a romantic standpoint. I don't even get along that great with girls as friends - I have more guy friends than girl friends, haha. I've had crushes on girls when I was younger, but again, wussed out or they weren't lesbians/bi, anyway. I prefer the company of men.

So here's the point of all this personal revelation: Sex and love are mutually exclusive, yet we insist on homogenizing them into one easy label. I know men who are married to women that have told me the guys (famous and otherwise) that they think are hot and want to do sexy things with. I know men who identify as "gay" that have made out with more girls than I've made out with boys, and lesbians with crushes on boys. What turns us on doesn't always identify who we want to have relationships. So WHY do we expect our sexual preferences to dictate who we find romantically attractive?

There's also the whole fact that I personally don't believe that ANYONE is 100% hetero or 100% homo, but that's my personal opinion and there are people who will deny it to the day they die. Rooster Tails did a much better and more thorough explanation of this theory, so I'll just direct you there. But, again, it's another "SEE?" I can point to as to why sexuality can't be 100% related to love relationship preference.

I have no solution, other than to determine better terminology. I want to banish the word "bisexual" - not because I don't believe it exists, but because it's still too limiting. I'm fine with "omnisexual" or just plain "sexual" - I am a sexual being, and I have my own particular tastes. As long as my tastes are exercised in a way that doesn't hurt other people (at least not without their permission ;D), the label doesn't - and shouldn't - matter.  In other words, we're all allowed to wave your freak flag high, IMHO, regardless if you prefer to to mainly kiss boys or girls - there's always an exception to the rule.

No comments:

Post a Comment


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...