A Straight-Curious Take on Labels
I have a seriously conflicted take on labeling sexual orientation. I think for those who are 100 percent sure of what sex/es they prefer to have sex with, by all means, label away if you so choose. But many people fall somewhere in the middle — they are equally drawn to men and women, they prefer one but occasionally sleep with the other, or they sleep with one but don’t want to eliminate the other. I also know people who sleep exclusively with transgender people, both FTM and MTF, which might complicate labeling even further.
I think the problem occurs when others believe that some people are restricting their sexuality — for example, when a man sleeps with other men but calls himself straight, outraging some gay men. Or, when a woman who calls herself a lesbian sleeps with men, some lesbians don’t know what to do with that.
I consider myself a lesbian since I prefer to sleep with women. But when I don’t meet any that I’m interested in, I turn to men — it doesn’t get me off, but it’s fun, and it can tide me over until I find a cute girl. Plus I know I won’t get attached, which I can’t necessarily say for sleeping with random girls, so it makes more sense to me. So while everyone calls me bisexual, I resist the term since I’m not attracted to the men I sleep with. But if I sleep with men, I can’t very well call myself a lesbian, can I? I am currently going with “straight-curious,” since I am unfortunately finding it far easier to meet men these days than lesbians.
On the flip side, I have a lesbian friend who is now in a relationship with a man. She’s obviously attracted to him enough to date him, but she insists that she’s still a lesbian. If this is the case, then this relationship is doomed because she can’t admit that she likes men, and I can’t understand why she would waste her time. The same is true of girls who date other girls, but still insist that they’re straight.
So while I try to resist labels for myself, how can I insist that my friends conform to labels as well? My conclusion is that if we are sure about our sexuality and choose to label ourselves, go right ahead, but trying to impose labels on other people is divisive for the gay community, which faces enough problems without creating them for ourselves.
6 comments:
Ahhhh, THANK you! This post was a breath of fresh air.
I have often been frustrated when I hear someone use their own label to judge the behavior of others.
How about this - I can't expect every single person to fit into my shoes or pants. Sure, there'd a be a number of people that I could ask to wear my clothes because they'd fit nicely. But others wouldn't fit at all, the same way I wouldn't fit into theirs.
The human brain needs labels and compartments in order to make reason of our world (for ourselves) and not go completely insane. The danger comes when this human then makes sweeping judgements based on these labels, or, perhaps worse, when the human places a value on each label, essentially ranking them.
Yes yes! Thank you dear Ms. Cavanaugh.
It also seems like a distinction could be made between judging other's choices/labes in general, and feeling frustration over the choices of those you care about. Your concern for the lesbian who's dating a man seems less about whether that's an acceptable option for everyone and more about what you think is good and healthy for your friend.
I don't think anybody likes labels. It’s obvious that sexual identity isn't always connected with our base sexual preference, so being lumped into one or two groups seems limiting. No one wants to be put in a box or told how they are defined, but as Chris mentioned above, humans need them, otherwise, confusion reigns. While unfortunately people do use labels to attack others, I think it’s important to discuss how easily and irrationally people feel they are being attacked for their label.
As the reader of this comment may know, I recently posted an opinion about a label that was being defined by a group in a very specific way, and I commented about that group’s definition to the extent that I said “that isn’t working the way you say it’s working”, and I did so not as an attack on sexuality but as a challenge to intellectual dishonesty. Whether I was right or wrong in my opinion, for my trouble I was accused of attacking the diversity of sexual identity and denying the existence and worth of every identity that also uses that label, even though I wasn’t referencing any definition except the one originally stated.
Why is it that people are so nervous about their identity? If one is confident in it, is it necessary to guard its perimeter so anxiously?
I know that labels, like most things, are social constructions that we all agree on, thus they become “real”, but when you have so many definitions under one label, what’s really real? The label “bisexual” seems so packed with identities that it's the sexual equivalent of Babel. It’s to the point that we can’t even talk about labels without a flack jacket. If I poke and sniff too much around a label in order to find out what it’s made of, will it explode into dust and vanish? Seems to be defended as such. In the effort to accept people for who they are and not judge, should we not even talk about them? I’m all for people calling themselves whatever they want, but can we not agree upon a labeling standard by which we can know one another? Perhaps if there were we wouldn’t be so mistrustful of each other.
Ben, I think you crossed the line from challenging what you see as intellectual dishonesty to attacking sexuality at the point you said "I think male bisexuality is a crock of shit"
Also, if you believe "being lumped into one or two groups seems limiting" why do you try to do that to self-described bisexual men?
Ryan, thanks for your questions. I see your first point. I conflated the two. I should have chosen more precise language, as to avoid confusion. While I still would have recieved differing opinions, I can see where I failed to cover my ass. If I had a mulligan I would have wrote the entire piece differently. At very least, it gets people talking and thinking about the issue.
I'd think the assertion that I want to lump people in one or two groups is a misleading one, but I see how folks can interpret it that way. Agree or not, I make an argument for base inclinations only, but how people express those as an identity is an individual choice. Ms. Cavanaugh seems to be saying here that people should be able to label themselves in whatever way they choose, and I agree with her. Have a million labels for all I care, but know that if you define your label as one thing but your personal behavior doesn't match the label you've given yourself, expect someone to question your honesty. Being "straight curious" seems to work for Ms. Cavanaugh, and I have no reason to doubt her. Her label gives me a certain understanding of who she is, even if it is far from a complete understanding. However, If she called herself "straight curious" and defined it as she has here, then behaved in a way that did not correspond to her definition, I would ask her, "Ms. Cavanaugh, this sounds like bullshit. Who are you?" Of course, this won't happen, because Ms. Cavanaugh entertains no bullshit. Of course, this is also probably why she never talks to me (joke).
Right. I guess what I find so objectionable about your argument is the assertion that your narrow definition of bisexual is "the" definition and anyone who doesn't live up to it is being dishonest.
Above you say "know that if you define your label as one thing but your personal behavior doesn't match the label you've given yourself, expect someone to question your honesty." But actually what is happening is YOU are setting the limits of that definition and then judging other people's identites based on those boundaries. And the criteria you've used to define that identity are only factors you as an outsider can observe and measure. This denies bisexuals a lot of agency in self-definition and reduces identities to acts - a step backward in understanding queerness, in my book.
Post a Comment