Everything you wanted to know about sexuality but were too dumb to ask

[sqbr]

ithiliana made a locked post(*) asking her flist what GLBT people wish was better known by their peers at uni, and what straight people wish they'd known at uni. I found this a really interesting question, since by uni most people have gotten past the basic "Gay people exist and aren't evil" stage. EDIT: I haven't included stuff on non-monogamous relationships and other misunderstood aspects of sexuality like S&M etc since that wasn't part of the original post. Feel free to discuss them in the comments anyway :)

So, this is my answer, including stuff I've seen other people get consistently wrong:

1) On the whole GLBT people look and act just like straight people, there's no such thing as reliable "gaydar"(**). Don't freak out when a "normal" person turns out to be GLBT (especially T) or make assumptions about a "gay acting" person.
1a)Straight is not the default, don't just assume any "normal acting" person is interested in people of the opposite sex and not in those of the same sex (or that those distinctions even apply). No, not even if they have/had a partner of the opposite sex.
1b)Don't freak out if people don't assume you're straight. They're just covering all bases, not "accusing" you of being lesbian or gay.

2)Asexuals exist. They are not going to grow out of it. They are not secretly gay. They don't need to "try it and see".

3) Straight people do not get to "reclaim" "gay"/"fag" etc as insults/negative adjectives etc. Not even if the context has nothing to do with sexuality.

4) Intersex and trans* people exist and have feelings. It doesn't suddenly become ok to make fun of them if you use words like "hermaphrodite" and "shemale".

5) Sexuality and identity are complicated and a matter of personal choice. You don't get to say "She had a boyfriend, she's not a lesbian" or "He said that guy is cute, he's not an asexual".
5b) These things also change. Someone can be enthusiastically straight, and then become gay/lesbian, and then identify as a pansexual etc, and not be "lying".

6) GLBT doesn't begin to cover it. (I'm not 100% up on all the varieties of sexuality myself, I must admit)

7) (After reading comments on that post) Sexuality is not actually just about sex. As with straight people, it's all mixed up with love and companionship and all that stuff in a sometimes very complicated way.


So what do you guys think?
EDIT: I'm not going to correct this post since I'd be rewriting it forever and I think it acts an interesting snapshot into the brain of a well meaning but somewhat clueless straight person. But it's definitely flawed, and there's lots of important additions and discussion in the comments.

(*)to keep answers private, she said it was ok to mention it existed
(**)Well, not for straight people, anyway :)

Comments

[vegetus.livejournal.com]

Good list... I'd probably also include poly and nonmonogomy stuff. Also the fact that bi women do not exist for the fantasies of straight men. I saw that attitude alot and it still annoys me.

[alias_sqbr]

I decided not to include poly stuff etc since it wasn't part of the original post and I think if I'm going to post about it I'd want to consider it carefully on it's own rather than tacking it onto this one.

Also the fact that bi women do not exist for the fantasies of straight men. I saw that attitude alot and it still annoys me.

Eww. Not something I've had much personal experience with, though I have noticed the way men react differently to me mentioning having been very occasionally attracted to women than women do (especially men I am or have been involved with)

[black-samvara.livejournal.com]

I answered the following more than I wanted to back in the uni days...

1. No, me and my girl will not sleep with you
2. No, me and my girl won't take $ to have sex in front of you... or your mate.
3. No, you are not hot enough to 'cure' me
4. No, bi does not mean 'loose' or incapable of monogamy

[alias_sqbr]

Oh, wow, that's terrible. *is reminded that as annoying as being a straight girl is, there's lots of stuff my privilege protects me from*

No, bi does not mean 'loose' or incapable of monogamy

The most shocking example of this to me since I'd expect them to know better was a Savage Love article, where the gay male author was saying that all bisexuals will eventually dump any same sex partner for a traditional marriage.

[black-samvara.livejournal.com]

Weirdly it's not that sort of stuff that triggers my rage, largely I guess, because I have trouble identifying with any particular sexuality...

[alias_sqbr]

There's enough rage-triggers in the world that we can't all be set off by all of them :)

[sanguinity]

Bi women don't exist for the fantasies of straight men. Lesbians don't exist for the fantasies of straight men. Bi women, especially poly bi women, don't exist to be the sexual accessories of straight couples. And on and fucking on.

Oh, and that "lesbian until graduation" thing? And all of its variations? Sends me over the fucking edge.

[greteldragon.livejournal.com]

The trouble is there are girls that only make out with girls to get the attention of guys. And now I think identifying as bi has too many close associations in peoples minds with that kind of attention seeking behaviour, as those girls will often insist they are actually bi.

:(

[sanguinity]

As little as I like the female behavior you're talking about -- and believe me, it can grate -- I'd rather focus the criticism on the men in that scenario. After all, the problem doesn't arise because some women sometimes role-play a girl-on-girl scenario to arouse a man; the problem arises from men who use these male-centric instances of female bisexual behavior to falsely conclude that all most-to-all female bisexuality is of course for or about men.

To provide contrast, straight men in the poly community have (mostly) gotten the memo about "hot bi babes," and do a pretty good job educating and policing newcomers that bi women's sexualities should never be assumed as being about or for men. And this despite there being plenty of bi women in polydom who are happy to use their bisexuality to turn on a man.

[greteldragon.livejournal.com]

I'd rather focus the criticism on the men in that scenario. After all, the problem doesn't arise because some women sometimes role-play a girl-on-girl scenario to arouse a man; the problem arises from men who use these male-centric instances of female bisexual behavior to falsely conclude that all most-to-all female bisexuality is of course for or about men.

I'm sorry I find that a bloody offensive statement. The 'problem' is not men enjoying watching girls fooling around in the senarios I'm thinking of (particularly when they don't provoke it in any way) its the girls knowing its a shortcut to getting attention and enough abusing that thusly to give impression that it is a valid away of being 'bi'. I'm not going to heap blame on a guy for not thinking too hard about it, or looking at interests past himself, if that's all the girls are doing too. Why does he have to have the education to reach the right conclusions past his immediate experiences, when you're saying the girls doing the provoking don't have any responsibility in the situation for giving the guy the wrong idea?

I think wait I'm trying to say in my rather sleep deprived state (sorry about that, but this was bugging me) is you really can't blame one party more than the other. You can however, find one party in this rather more irritating then the other, but I'm not sure rationalising criticism based on that is sensible. :P

[alias_sqbr]

To follow on (possibly tangentially :)) from sanguinity's point: those girls are wrong to say they're bisexual. But they are a tiny minority compared to all the actual bisexuals in the world, so anyone who acts like they're representative is an idiot. And in the end it's those idiots who do more harm, by being prats to real bisexual women.

(men who enjoy watching fake bisexuals but realise they're fake are, imo, not so much an issue, though it might be nice if they said "Hey, you don't have to pretend to be bi for you making out to be hot")

[sanguinity]

Thanks, Sophie, for following up (and sorry I didn't follow-up sooner).

First, I'm not getting on the guys' cases for watching "bi" women who have invited them to watch. I'm getting on guys' cases for thinking that having once been invited to watch, that all bi women's sexuality is for/about men. I don't see that as too much to ask of men, because that's a pretty simple extension of the idea that women's sexualities, in general, aren't for/about men, which is something guys are supposed to figure out anyway. Additionally, I think I would be doing men a disservice to believe that they're not capable of making that connection.

Second, I am NOT in the business of policing who's "really" bi. There's a lot of harm down that road, and I don't think it's a good idea to go there.

Third, I consider most kinds of sexual role-play to be acceptable, and "pretending we're bi" seems like a kind of role-playing. Again, I really REALLY don't want to be in the business of policing who gets to role-play which games.

So, women goofing around in a bar, kissing each other, sexually performing for men? I do know bi women who do that, and thus see a lot of hazard in coming down on said women for being imposters. And I always see hazard in coming down on women for being sluts or "too" sexually open. You really can't determine, for reals and for sure, if the women are doing anything wrong in that scenario.

However, the guys who thereafter assume that all bi women exist for the sake of turning men on? They are definitely doing something wrong, and it's pretty much the same wrong as assuming that straight women's sexualities exist for men. Which they're already supposed to know better about.

[alias_sqbr]

If there's one thing writing this post has emphasised for me, it's that while I may notice a disturbing amount of stupid crap hurled at LGBT people, there's a whole lot more that I totally miss by being straight.