After yesterday’s post, which talked about sexual orientation and BDSM, I did what I should have done right from the start and searched for other posts on the topic. That led me to this excellent one by Clarisse Thorn. I think she covered the complexity of the discussion rather well.
To this point I’ve tended to think of sexual orientation as being specifically about what gender someone is attracted to. Not because I believe that BDSM isn’t an intrinsic part of some peoples identity. Just that the common and accepted usage of sexual orientation is around gender, and I don’t like overloading terms unnecessarily. However, I did find one of the comments in Clarisse’s post particularly interesting. It quotes Charles Moser and lists the factors he believes makes up an orientation…
Lifelong – Difficult to Suppress
Prepubertal Recognition
Interest Despite Aging
Immutable, but Fluid
Emotional Price to Do or Not Do “It”
Lust – Specifically and Especially Sexually Arousing
Effect of Testosterone/Anti-AndrogensOne does not have to satisfy all 7, but they distinguish a “lesser” sexual interest from an orientation. It also means that not everyone who does a behavior (even repetitively) has an orientation. Also, an orientation can satisfy less than 7, but it is hard for me to imagine someone who satisfies all 7 not having an orientation.
I’m not quite sure what he means by the one on Testosterone, but when it comes to my BDSM interests, I’m batting 100% on all the rest. I think they make for an interesting checklist to consider.
Of course, if the complexity of the human condition is all too much for you, becoming a coffee table is always an option. I’m pretty certain they don’t have a sexual orientation.
I found this on the Undiscovered Limits tumblr.
I think the reason why orientation is such an issue is because it’s highly politicised. This is the case because many people (those of a reactionary disposition IMO) have a deeply unhealthy and prurient interest in what goes on in other people’s bedrooms.
You wrote, very wisely:
“Rather than arguing that particular groups are special, we should be arguing for a culture that has a strong bias to protect people’s rights to live their lives as they see fit.”
The problem is that ‘conservatives’ in many religions won’t wear it. They simply will not accept the idea of a secular society that guarantees freedom of worship to all, while preventing different religions/sects from cutting each others’ throats. Worse, they think they have a divine right to tell the rest of us how to live our lives, as if believers have a monopoly on morality.
If this sounds terribly political, well I’m afraid it is, because sexual politics is an important issue in a world in which authoritarian theocratic politics is on the march.
With reference to Moser’s Testosterone/Anti-Androgens factor, I think he’s referring to the transgendered, who will be treated with these hormones depending on which way they are transgendering. Presumably if one’s kink orientation doesn’t change during transgendering, then its the real thing.
I agree that orientation is highly politicized. But as I mentioned in the previous post, I think it’s a mistake to argue about it on those grounds. Bigotry doesn’t response well to logical argument. I think the good news is that the recent successes for gay marriage around the world shows how quickly opinions can be changed. In a few years it has gone from something completely outside the mainstream culture to a widely accepted norm. No doubt some bits of Europe and the south of the US will be 40 years behind, but it does give me hope for the rest.
-paltego