recursiveparadox | The twisted warrens of sexuality

Current Mood: contemplative

Entry tags:

The twisted warrens of sexuality

Sexuality can be a bit of a bitch sometimes.

It's a twisty labyrinth of confusion and difficulty, often with nasty little dead ends, circular paths and irritating pitfalls.

I'm not going to get into the topic of identity because that's going to need an entire post all its own, a post that will likely cause some horrible maelstrom of angry death in the form of enraged people, because identity is always a bitchy topic. So no. I'm not talking identity here. I am talking plain old, red blooded, fire in the loins arousal. Who makes me hot. The kind of form I find sexy. That is the concern I am dealing with.

I'm using the terms in just that context for this post only, not in the context of identity, not in the context of anything but "who makes you hot and who doesn't". If this bothers you, well that sucks, but I need to articulate my situation without postmodernist interference in the meaning of words. So, I guess, "get over it" is in order? Yes. Get over it.

Onward!

Sexuality gets worse when you throw transfolk into the mix. You hear all this stuff about hormones changing sexuality which the scientist in me says, "bullshit" to, primarily because there's nothing but poorly documented and poorly verified anecdotal evidence in favor of it. In opposition to the pretty consistent lack of sexuality changes in the folks the scientists are actually watching over. But that's also not the subject of this post and before the shitstorm descends, allow me to point out that I will be blogging on this exact subject at a later date. So save your enraged comments for me then when they won't be wasted on me not caring about off topic stuff right now.

Right, me, stop digressing.

The fact is, there have been a few folks I've talked to who have noticed a change in who they're turned on by and they've all theorized that it has something to do with dysphoria. Because as the dysphoria faded so did their revulsion for guy bodies. And with the fading of that revulsion, came the appearance of sexual attraction. Which means to me that there's some sort of mental block involved. After all, if your dysphoria is nasty enough to make you utterly hate penis simply because its on you, well then that would make it a bit rough to feel attracted to guys wouldn't it?

So let's cut to the chase, shall we? I'd much rather be bisexual then homosexual or heterosexual. I've joked that I regard bisexuality as a superpower, the ability to be attracted to both the primary sexes (pansexuality would actually be a better superpower since it includes the wonderful nonbinary folk, but baby steps first!)

This isn't entirely an issue of wanting a larger dating field (especially since bisexuals get screwed over by both the gay and straight communities so really, the field doesn't get much bigger.) This is more of an issue of me being polyamorous *GASP* and disliking the idea that a partner can't bring a guy into a closed circle relationship without sexuality issues.

This is also an issue of one of my partners being transmasculine *DOUBLE GASP* (okay that one isn't so unusual). You see, I know for a fact I'm omniromantic, in that I can love any compatible (emotionally and such) person romantically, guy, girl, nonbinary, whatever. I just can't seem to muster a sexual attraction to anyone who isn't female bodied. This transmasculine boyfriend of mine (he goes by the guy pronouns, has a pretty androgynous name and seems to be more agendered then anything) nevertheless still may transition down the guy path at some point, if only to get closer to the middle. This faces me with a rough situation. I'm attracted to his female body. I know this, he knows this. We met before he or I even planned to transition or we really understood the whole trans thing. Love happened and so now, we are together. He doesn't have a problem with it. As long as I don't make it obvious and trigger dysphoria, he's good. Same way I'd be if someone liked my penis. Just don't remind me its there during the fun bed time and I'm golden.

Anyways. I dislike the idea that there's a possibility I could lose some of my sexual intimacy with one of the people I love. So now, I'm seeing if there's some sort of dysphoria caused mental block and I actually have pansexuality or bisexuality right away so I can stop stressing about this and have the fairy tale happy ending. (This mayhaps is a bit of a silly venture of mine, but humor me. Self discovery is important for a lot of reasons and mine aren't bad as far as reasons go.)

To be completely thorough, a huge reason will always be this: I want to know myself. And I can really just leave it at that can't I? *grin* But I like giving people an idea of what my crazy life is like, so oh well. Long post means I love you more!

So on this sexuality topic, I'm attempting to figure out the best way to test this. Unfortunately my boy isn't the best option because he's very much un-transitioned.

So far I've looked at a variety of erotic pictures, animated to real, mostly het (as I am a young woman after all), all reasonably lowkey and semi realistic. Some pictures from guy friends online who were glad to help me discover myself etc etc (apparently I'm in hot demand or something. o_O) None of the erotica has really done anything for me. Even the ridiculously girly guys don't really turn me on. I find them aesthetically pretty but... no action in the arousal zone.

So I've eliminated bisexuality as a possibility. It's pretty clear that I find female bodies in general arousing and male bodies in general boring (or hilarious, hehehe penis). So now, I'm attempting to test for the possibility of an odd form of pansexuality, wherein I have the general attraction to women but for men, only a visibly expressed sexual interest in me and a compatible personality (+trust and caring) will actually fire up my interest in their body.

This one is... tough to test, unfortunately. For one, I need to find a guy who I trust, like, and am compatible with (emotionally and intellectually), who also trusts, likes me back and is sexually attracted to me. This includes being okay with me being trans. And this guy needs to be okay with a relationship not arising out of this based on logistics and he has to be able to stop having sex with me immediately if I need him to stop (in case the lack of interest remains and the sexual attention becomes unwanted or violating).

I'm trying to work within the bounds of my aesthetic preferences, so girly guys basically, because I figure, that's the best chance I've got to track an attraction.

So that's my quest of self discovery and experimentation. There's a prospective guy who seems to like me a lot (he's not terribly femmy though, unfortunately) but I still need to tell him I'm trans and then find out if he's even interested in having sex with me or at the very least, acting sexually interested towards me. This is sort of a tough and sensitive road to walk because I'm not sure if anything will come of this and a lot of guys see this kind of thing as cock teasing in disguise. x_x

I will keep my loyal readership (all 5~7 of you XD) in the know as I look around and figure this out.

And coming up, my shitstorm inducing posts of doom about identity and about sexuality changes in transfolk! Drama will likely descend on me like a storm of very perturbed mutant zombie hornets in these next two bloggages, so try to wear some hazmat gear and bring some first aid kits. No matter what you view you have in those two topics you are going to piss off at least 20% of the population, so I have steeled myself for the worst.

(I did my best to explain the words in base concepts that I used, in case people not well versed in GLBT issues read this. If any of the terminology in there is confusing, even with the additional explanation, please leave a comment asking for a definition. I do not mind it at all and I'm always pleased to help folks out with understanding a bit better.)

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

This is obviously really personal, so I'll ask first: Do you mind if I voice some issues with it, or should I leave it alone?

I'm not really sure if this goes with what you are saying, but I love the examining of what exactly attraction is and what not. I say I'm pretty much boringly straight, but that's not exactly true -- I've been romantically attracted to women before (my first high school crush.) and continue to be so.

But I think looking at that list earlier really solidified the attraction part. I like butch and genderqueer yada yada yada, when I am looking outside of my straightness. I don't know if I'd call myself bi, because it's not always sexual.

Also, between that list and this post, I now have new terms to look up. I'd never heard of transmasculine before. And now I have new things to research. Please forgive me in the meantime if I mess up on my terms. Correct gently please. :)

Don't worry about messing up terminology. Considering how often my bio teachers would yell at me for screwing up terms, I wouldn't be so hypocritical as to get stuffy with people for a few mistakes. :)

Voice away. If I'm handling this in a stupidly dangerous way... well, it's prolly good to warn me, right? *nodnod*

Don't worry too much, most of it is just language issues.

Transmasculine: This word is really a misnomer, and some people find it really offensive actually. The problem with it is two-fold. First of all, it puts all so-called "transmasculine" people on the same spectrum. When most people use the word "transmasculine," they're referring to trans men, butch lesbians, female-assigned-at-birth genderqueer people... See a problem here? It's lumping people together, not by what they are or how they identify, but by the gender marker they were assigned at birth, and for many "transmasculine" people, that gender marker is wrong.

There's also the fact that masculine refers to a way of expressing oneself. It's the label you and other people apply to your actions. You can be a trans man and be more feminine than me; "masculine" wouldn't apply at all.

The dichotomy between "bisexuality" and "pansexuality" is similar. It's said over and over again that the word "bisexual" reinforces the gender binary, that if you're interested in genderqueer, genderfluid, agender (etc.) people, then the word doesn't apply, that you're "pansexual". (I've said this myself, honestly.) I've come to a point where I feel like a lot of that discourse is born out of both biphobia and transphobia. No one wants to be known as bi, cuz there's all that bullshit that bi people get from not just straight communities, but lesbian and gay ones as well. Also, in my experience, "pansexual" is largely used by people who just refuse to accept their trans partners identities. You see this a lot in lesbian communities; women who can't accept that they're partners are men, and they are, by definition, not in lesbian relationships with them.

There's another comment coming, sorry for rambling so much.

Re-reading your post, I know you said you didn't want any "postmodernist discussions of language," but... I dunno, I feel really strongly about language, because language is the only thing we have for communicating our thoughts, to the point that it can shape those thoughts for us in ways we don't even realize.

Okay, back to my way-too-long comment.

I don't know how your partner refers to his body, but I know I winced when my eyes passed over "female-bodied". If that's cool with him, then cool, but in more general use (cuz I know there are cis folk who read this), it really isn't. His body is whatever he defines it as; it's female if he says it's female, it's male if he says so, it's genderless if he says so. Whatever it might say on my birth certificate, I don't have a "male" body, I never have. It's my body, and I most certainly am not "male".

Again, I don't know what conversations you've had with your partner, but, speaking personally, if I were ever with someone that said "I'm attracted to her male body" that would be the end of it. You say you're not attracted to guys in that way, but what you're (potentially) ignoring is that you already are attracted to at least one guy (I'm assuming "guy" is okay, since you used "he" above; my apologize if that's wrong). If he's a guy (again, I don't know the intimacies of his identity), then you're already attracted to someone with a guy's body.

Also something to keep in mind: looking at porn probably isn't going to help. The vast majority of porn is designed to titillate men, it's shot by men or drawn by men to appeal to the things that they find appealing.

I do have more to say (sorry for taking up so much space here!) but I have to run to work. Eep!

Okay, so I totally forgot what I was gonna say in the half-hour it took me to get to work and the two hours I spent in meetings since then, but I'm sure it was beautiful.

Plus, I've already rambled enough. <3

Oh. I thought transmasculine was a nonbinary term used to cover those who edge towards male but not entirely. He uses male pronouns but he very much wants a gender neutral body. *nodnod*

So I thought the term was viable. Oops?

I'd always been confused on pansexuality as a term so I'll just drop that one entirely x_x

The way me and my one partner operate is very... well science-y I guess? He's looking into psychology as a field. I'm already going into biology. For us (due to these backgrounds in science) the terms male and female have pretty specific objective definitions and pretty specific objective usages.

I don't enforce this usage on others and my issues with identity labeling is something that didn't really influence the way this post was written (I was just writing it using the terms the way I'm used to them, to get across a point about my sexuality in the way I see my sexuality) so I won't go into those issues until that upcoming post.

So for him and I, he's still female bodied (but gender neutral for his ideal form and a guy identity) and I'm mixed bodied (between male and female and a woman identity wise). That's the context I wrote this in and it's also how I regard my sexuality. I find breasts, a vagina and a certain set of body shapes physically attractive on people I love. For people I love that lack those traits, the sexual attraction is lacking. And as aware as I am of how different this is then how a lot of people label their own sexuality, I have no better way to articulate this other than "sexuality" or sexual orientation.

So, what I am testing is whether I can have an attraction to more boxy body shapes, penises, flat chests and maybe more body hair if I love the individual and the individual shows sexual interest in me.

That's the quest here, and while it means that I'm using the terms slightly differently than a chunk of the community does, I don't really have another choice. There's no real way to articulate this otherwise without making a massive wall of text even bigger. x_x

That's why I said I didn't want a terminology debate. I know some people will disagree with my usage if applied to all. But I never said I was applying my usage to all. I'm just applying it to me x_x

Pansexual... Like, I think it could have been an awesome word (I even used it myself for quite a while), it just has this history that, to me at least, makes it feel... I dunno, less cool.

Well there's always the option of reclaiming it.

Meh. I don't care that much. :P

Queer and bi work fine for me.

On the topic of "transmasculine," my friend

transprose has a really great post that, while not directly addressing the word, hits on a lot of the points associated with it.

Ugh, I think you might be confusing layman culture's twisting of science to enforce cissexist practices and assumptions with biological science's term system itself.

Science is just a system for describing things. Scientists use it to discover, classify and comprehend. Often it goes into implementation to give us technologies that we can use to make our world more receptive to our needs. Quick biology lesson about terminology structure:

Sex is split into three contextual categories,

1: Genetic: The genes associated with and acting as triggers for the anatomical development path for the anatomical context of sex. Genetic stops being important after you stop being a fetus. I would also call it socially irrelevant for the simple fact that we don't live in GATTACA and no one sees your genes.

2: Anatomical: The structure of one's body. Usually based on a majority of traits being within one developmental path or another. There's the male developmental path, the female developmental path and the intersexed developmental path (which includes a lot of variation in it). Generally being part of the female or male categories isn't impacted by a lack of an organ or a few. And generally it requires a few organs being present from that path. That's why, in the biological sciences, trans women who have adjusted their body structure with HRT and SRS and XY AIS women are referred to as anatomically female.

3:Hormonal: hormone levels. Also pretty irrelevant socially but very relevant medically.

Science doesn't enforce cissexual assumptions. The terms existing as they are is part of the reason we have a medical option to transition at all. If we were included into the female label in the sciences before transition, how would one articulate that we need to transition? And how do scientists articulate what changes have been made in us physically so they can show the benefits those changes have created in research? If I was already female, then what did I just do to my body? You see how it gets a little unreasonable?

Folks try to use biology (the science) against us, but that's because they really don't understand how biology works, not because biology is built to screw us, intentionally or unintentionally. Using the terms in such a way that destroys their objective definitions to counter this just makes it harder to correct bigots who misuse the terms themselves and makes it harder to articulate what we need in discussions with medical personnel and such.

...okay, I need to stop, because I'd rather save this for the upcoming blog post on identity and objective definitions and language. But yeah, it isn't science, it's bigots who don't get how science works.

I'll go check it out.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

The twisted warrens of sexuality

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject