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

[melberon.livejournal.com]

Regarding straight being the default: given that over 90% of people are straight, it seems irrational to consider anything other than straight to be the 'default' sexuality. Given the attitudes to homosexuality in a large portion of society, it also seems to me that assuming that someone is striaght is much less likely to cause offence than assuming otherwise.

Asexuality is something that I've never really thought of much before. It's got me wondering about related concerns, like: Is there a corresponding term for people who experience (and act on) sexual attraction but don't form romantic relationships? (a quick skim of the wikipedia article on asexuality doesn't mention such a thing) Does "horribly repressed Englishman" count as a sexual orientation?

I'm also kind of imagining now a kind of multi-dimensional Kinsey scale as a projective plane, with asexuality being the "point at infinity" at which all lines intersect. Not claiming that this is a particularly good way of looking at it but for a mathematician, your livejournal doesn't contain anywhere near enough maths. :-p

[penchaft.livejournal.com]

Oh, that'd just be a player who can't commit until he finds the right girl, amirite?

Hmm. There's aromanticism, but I've only seen it in the context of asexuality (e.g. this sort of classification is in vogue at the moment - "{a/auto}sexual, {bi/homo/hetero/poly/a}romantic, {bi/homo/hetero/poly/a}aesthetic" - I thiiink aesthetic is the term? Basically it's "yes, I can find prettiness/attractiveness in this set of people" but it's not a sexual attraction).

Then there's the "graysexuals" who are not 100% asexual, but they seem to be sort of "I am romantically involved with this person, and because of our love for one another, sex is an okay, and sometimes an ejoyable thing".

(Then there's this (http://asexualunderground.blogspot.com/) creepy guy...)

[mothwentbad.livejournal.com]

It's sort of subjective, though. In what sense you regard straight as the default is an issue. For example, one could ask if they would act differently in some ways if they knew that there were gay people present. If you're saying things that would have you saying "sorry man, I didn't know you were gay", then you're doing straight as the default in a bad way. I think 1b especially, and in particular, how a straight person responds to being hit on by a same-sex person should roughly correspond to what they would find reasonable as a response to their unrequited attractions to anyone else. Well, that's the ideal anyway. The less OMGWTF whenever it does come up, the better.

[alias_sqbr]

The less OMGWTF whenever it does come up, the better

Agreed. I don't go around saying explicitly homophobic things(*) but I have a had a few double takes when I found out someone was gay/bi/lesbian which made me hit myself. So now my base assumption is that everyone is a (possibly closeted) bisexual and I do much better :)

(*)Well, I like to think so

[mothwentbad.livejournal.com]

After I started having friends who were gay, I slipped up on using "gay" in the middle school sense of "stupid" like two or three times before I got that out of my system.

[alias_sqbr]

Luckily I didn't encounter that usage until I was old enough to recognise it for what it was.

[alias_sqbr]

Certainly it's reasonable to assume that any given person is probably straight. But at the same time you should keep in mind the possibility they're not, and if talking to a large group of people should work on the assumption that some of them probably aren't.

Perhaps "default" was the wrong way to put it.

Given the attitudes to homosexuality in a large portion of society, it also seems to me that assuming that someone is striaght is much less likely to cause offence than assuming otherwise.

Just because homophobia exists doesn't mean we have to pander to it.

I'm also kind of imagining now a kind of multi-dimensional Kinsey scale as a projective plane, with asexuality being the "point at infinity" at which all lines intersect

When I first encountered the term I was thinking something like that as well :) I don't know much about asexuality (beyond "it exists"), so have no idea about your questions.

for a mathematician, your livejournal doesn't contain anywhere near enough maths. :-p

HAPPY NOW?

[melberon.livejournal.com]

HAPPY NOW?

Oh Sophie, you have no idea how happy you make me!