I'm currently working on a narrative/identity paper for one of my classes. The class revolves around feminist, critical race, and queer theories. So I picked queer theories to revolve my paper around, with a little feminist theory thrown in there. Instead of just copying and pasting the second paragraph, which I think is the most important, I'll sort of paraphrase it and explain it in a different way. This will make it less jargony, less reliant on quotes from the readings I used, and more understandable to someone who hasn't studied these topics already.
The second paragraph comes in after I explain how I lack a proper "sexual orientation" label. Although I am thinking of going by pansexual, but in general I'm still not entirely sure what my feelings are and what I want from relationships. Not that it matters at this point anyways, haha. But what really struck me was this idea that heterosexuality is socially constructed. Under patriarchy, heterosexuality has been constructed as the dominant "identity". It's historically been used to tie women to men all their lives, to take their sexuality from them (their freedom to chose who they want to be with, romantically or sexually, etc) and to force it on them (arranged marriages, rape, pressured into non-arranged marriages, etc). So, heterosexuality has become the dominant "identity". Even people who are completely accepting of LGB(P)(A) people believe it's the dominant identity, most people are heterosexual. Or are they really? Hasn't heterosexuality as a norm been passed down through generations? So how do we know that it truly is the norm outside of a patriarchal, heterosexist society? We don't. To expand on this, the very measurement of "sexual orientation" has been constructed as the primary way to distinguish which gender someone is predisposed to fall in love with or chose to be with. But sexual orientation truly is only about sexual attraction, not romantic attraction or emotional attraction. Though many people have chosen to use it to describe all of them, there are still people who end up being "panromantic heterosexual". Isn't our view of how important sexual attraction is socially constructed and cultural? After all, romantic attraction can develop into sexual attraction as well, the panromantic heterosexual may easily end up sexually attracted to the same-sex romantic partner they chose. How would that person's identity predict that?
But really what I found most important is this idea that since heterosexuality as a dominant identity has been socially constructed, then the subsequent other identities are also constructed. Do we need these terms? If we didn't have patriarchy and heterosexism, and if people didn't assume people were heterosexual, would we have to distinguish people into groups? Could people just be people? Could I just continue with my life, not having to think about what my sexual orientation is as if it defines me? But for now I can't not think about it, because right now I have to communicate with people about such things or they assume I'm straight. If I inform them that I am not straight then they assume I'm bisexual. If I tell them I am not bisexual, then I'm gay. But I'm not gay (for right now) so what does that leave them with? Sure, I can say I'm pansexual, but am I really? Or did I just decide to use it as a label, which really says nothing more about me than the fact I may be sexually attracted to men and to women, and to androgynous people and transgender/transsexual people as well. Maybe. I think it's more likely to say that I'm "other, non-straight" as if it's important to know. It says nothing else, really. Maybe instead of picking a label I should ask other people why they are living their lives by the label they chose. Yes, "chose".
No comments:
Post a Comment