“Sexual orientation” is a funny thing
August 14th, 2007
Many children—gay or straight—seem to know early on what their “sexual orientation” is even before they have any sexual contact. They do not yet know what “feels good.” And, in fact, a lot of people do not even try both major genders of sexual partners before settling on which one they “prefer.” Unlike ice cream flavor preference, sexual preference appears to manifest itself before a “test drive.”
But if sexual/physical touch isn’t necessary to a decision about what gender one prefers and/or is attracted to, what is the basis for attraction? I think about some gay couples I’ve seen in which one person in the couple appears like a “guy” and the other appears like a “girl.” And when I say appears like I mean looks exactly like. What makes them gay, then? Did they actually have to physically consummate the relationship in order for that attraction to have meaning? Then I also think about pop culture references (which I’m sure also manifest themselves in real life) to men finding a “woman” attractive, whom they later find is biologically a man (Pharcyde’s “Oh Shit” or The Crying Game), or the classic Shakespearean gender benders that occur in Hollywood comedies (She’s the Man or Tootsie), in which straight characters find themselves attracted to what appear to be people of the same gender only to be relieved later to know that the real person underneath is of a different gender. This last type of narrative is the most heteronormative, as it presupposes an instinctual attraction to another gender that necessary cuts beyond surface appearance.
I’m one of those people who claims to be straight, and I’ve been that way my whole life, even though I was celibate for most of my life. Having no sexual experience, how can one claim to be straight (or gay, for that matter)? If I were attracted to manly-looking women, would I still be straight? On the flip side, would gay men who are attracted to womanly-looking men still be gay?
Sexual preference or orientation is a funny thing, because of the visual separation of public and private manifestations of gender. Gender, on the outside, is malleable or at least flexible. Barring surgery, sex—underneath the trappings of clothing and makeup—is immutable. But sex itself isn’t just about the connection of genitals, is it? Nor is sexual attraction. I think a lot of the pleasure that gays and lesbians in so-called butch-femme couplings is the idea of playing with what attraction is, of bending the idea of what it is to be a man or a woman or to be attracted to a man or to a woman. And in direct opposition to that play on attraction is a heteronormative culture that discourages any blurring of gender lines. Boys in skirts, no. Girls with facial hair, no. Boys doing ballet, no… unless they’re gay.
Interestingly enough, we do not feel the same need to exaggerate gender differences in animals. People will often mistake others’ pets as being male instead of female (or vice versa), because most humans can’t tell (without looking at the pets genitals) the difference between a male and female dog or cat. Nor do we feel the need to have our female pets grow their hair extra long, wear makeup, or walk daintily; or have our male pets grow “beards” or walk with more of a swagger.
I think the desire to exaggerate any existing sexual differences stems from homophobia, the fear that if genders blend too much, that there will be a lot more Crying Game incidents and a lot less She’s the Man incidents. With all the cultural gender forces at work, it’s hard to find where you really are. I often find myself swaying back and forth between being too masculine or too feminine, not knowing where I would “really” be if I didn’t feel the pressure to fit into a box… or completely bust out of it. It would be an interesting experiment to construct a society in which you didn’t teach children about gender roles (“No, no, honey. Girls don’t do that”) but just let them grow up and see what happens.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
I thought that was a really interesting philosophical post. The problem with understanding sex are all the taboos associated with it around the world, making it harder to get a clear picture because people are so well indoctrinated to certain sexual norms. Discussing sex within a specific setting (e.g. boys discussing sex with girls and vice versa) has become acceptable in the Western world, but discussing sex in all its shapes and colours has not.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
It is a very interesting topic. There have been some experiments sort of along the lines of what you mentioned at the end there. Obviously you can’t just isolate children from society for the sake of an experiment, but you leave boys along to play with dolls, and they bend them at the waist and pretend they’re guns. Give the girls toy guns, and they play house with them.
And of course, there are the stories of the children who were born with intersexed genitalia, where it’s unclear whether they are a male or female. Usually the parents would be asked to choose a gender for the baby, and usually it would be female because that’s easier to assign surgically. Those children who turned out to be genetically male, despite their confusing genitalia at birth, prove quite fascinating. You can find case studies of the ones who, despite their parents best efforts to treat them as girls, continuously display stereotypically male behavior, even going so far as to try to pee standing up. Some have even ended up having surgery when they get older to live their adult lives as males.
Let me qualify the following statement by saying I certainly have no problem with people breaking gender stereotypes, and I’m all for letting people be who they are and do what/who they want to do. That being said, it certainly seems that a large part of our gender identity is just “hard-wired” in.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Yeah, I’ve read all those studies, and I don’t think that conclusion can be drawn. The experiments are not fully controlled. In fact, I read in-depth about the Canadian twins, one of whom had his penis burnt off in a circumcision accident and was raised as a girl. He wasn’t really raised as a girl at all. He was forced to be a girl more than any girl would be (one incident the boy recalls where it was freezing cold at a birthday party–all the other girls were wearing jeans, and his parents forced him to wear a skirt). He also went to regular psychiatric sessions that traumatized him (the doctor who was working with them, Dr. Money, would ask the twins to simulate sexual positions with one another).
The truth is that right now there isn’t really an sociologically untainted environment where people can be raised “naturally” without reinforcing gender roles or exaggerating them. If gender roles were really hard-wired, there would be no need to teach boys how to be male or to teach girls how to be female. They’d all “naturally” gravitate toward those behaviors and preferences.
The fact that gender role adherence is so strictly enforced in society leads me to believe it is not hard-wired.
Would a boy who had never seen a gun on TV or a fake one during play time still turn a doll into a gun? Did they do that before guns were invented, too? There are always outside influences. None of those experiments are or can be scientifically controlled. There is no cultural vacuum.
All I’m saying, practically speaking, is that we should, as much as we can, let people be who they are. You cannot tell me I must be a certain way because I have a clitoris or a penis. We will necessarily be subject to cultural forces, but there’s no need to reinforce what may or may not be pre-existing masculine or feminine gender roles.
August 15th, 2007 at 8:35 am
> you leave boys along to play with dolls, and they bend them at the waist and pretend they’re guns
Actually, I made my guns out of Lego and K’NEX. My dolls (Cindy, Action Man, My Little Ponies, Lego mini-figures) were dressed-up and role-played with.
My favourite experiment was the one where they dressed babies of various sexes up in blue and pink baby-grows and left them with some adults, and observed the adults’ comments. Something along the lines of “Wow, you’re big… you’ll be a footballer when you grow up.” for the babies in blue, and equally stereotypical (but less memorable) comments for the babies in pink. And I think there was more bouncing on knees and such for the babies in blue.
Gender was always my favourite subject in psychology.
August 15th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Well, I think we certainly reinforce the hell out of those gender roles, and go crazy in inventing new ones (wearing makeup, shaving off body hair in different places, long hair for girls, short for boys, etc.) but I don’t think that means nothing exists there. There are obviously physical difference between males and females, including chemical and hormonal differences caused by those. I don’t think it’s such a crazy huge leap to think there could be some mental/behavioral differences inherent as well. I think the real question is what they are and how strong they are on their own, before cultural conditioning takes over and reinforces/extends it. And just as men are usually taller, but a woman can be taller than most men, there are certainly also exceptions to those behavioral differences.
It’s also pretty damn fascinating seeing how gender conditioning changes. It wasn’t too long ago that you’d never see a man wearing earrings, but it’s pretty damn commonplace now. I certainly wouldn’t bat an eye at seeing that. And it was normal for men to have long hair for a long time, and then they were supposed to have short hair, and then those damn dirty hippies started growing their hair long in the ’60s and ’70s, there was a ton of resistance to that, but now that’s mostly passed and it’s pretty commonplace. Certainly no one is getting harassed for having hair like the Beatles did on Ed Sullivan. We don’t stigmatize women as a society for wanting to work, or for making it all the way to the ripe old age of 30 without getting married. We can debate this forever and not get anywhere because it is impossible to test ethically, but damned if it isn’t fascinating anyway.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:56 pm
“It would be an interesting experiment to construct a society in which you didn’t teach children about gender roles (”No, no, honey. Girls don’t do that”) but just let them grow up and see what happens.”
I read a short story in my high school Psychology class like that! It was called “Baby X” or something like that. (Googles….) Ah, here it is: “X: A Fabulous Child’s Story — by Lois Gould © 1972″ http://www.trans-man.org/baby_x.html
September 12th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
My one contention with the post is that you have had sexual experience/contact, even if your a virgin. Part of sex is inherently visual, so if you’ve ever seen someone you’re attracted to, you’ve had the “sampling” you alude to with ice cream.
HAving said that, I think it’s quite normal for members of one gender to be attracted to some member of their own gender, just as they are only attracked to some members of the opposite gender. I think attraction and sexuality have more to do with visual, emotional and personality attraction than gender.
February 8th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
It appears that some younger people are taking a more realistic attitude toward sexual identity. I was assigned – and begrudgingly accepted – a gay identity during the fifties. As this identity gained greater acceptance during the sixties and seventies, stereotypes became more rigidly enforced. Gays developed codes of behavior that were imposed on all “members of the gay community,” and were as restrictive and oppressive as the artificial “rules of normalcy” imposed on nominally straight people. This led to the extreme of the formation of self-segregated gay communities. Hard-wiring undoubtedly plays some role in sexuality, and, to a lesser degree affects preferences. A preference, however, is not a mandate. A preference for chocolate does not preclude a fondness for lamb chops.
I would speculate that sexually-developing youngsters not pressured by artificial social “norms” would engage in sexual activity with any available person in any convenient situation – without concern for gender. Boy Scout camps and prisons prove to me that gender preferences are secondary concerns to one in pursuit of sexual gratification.