In my recent reflections, I have found myself considering society’s approach to sexual minorities. From fetishism to transgender attraction to polyamorous behavior to non-heterosexuality, non-normative sexual behavior reflects perhaps most directly the twisting and fluid nature of the human subconscious —it is intertwined with our animal past, complicated by our cerebral evolution, and manifested in our daily lives. With this article I intend to analyze the spectrums by which these non-normal sexual behaviors are defined and draw a conclusion.
Fundamentally, our society seems to have created several spectrums with which to quantify sexual preference. There is a spectrum along the sex line — whether one prefers a penis or vagina. Another spectrum exists along the gender line — this is harder to define, but slides from typically masculine behavioral traits to typically feminine behavioral traits. A third spectrum spans between what is considered “vanilla sex” and “kinky sex” — this covers a vast variety of possible “kinks,” but fundamentally hinges on the sex act itself. A fourth spectrum captures the idea of monoamory (literally ‘one love’) versus polyamory (literally ‘many loves’) — though this spectrum, perhaps, can be represented as a simple binary preference.
So let us start by looking at the first spectrum, as it decides whether someone is gay or straight. The psychology behind this spectrum is incredibly convoluted by our society. It is entirely preferable to be heterosexual in this culture, but the fact homosexuals exist suggests that there is a large genetic component. But we define sexuality as a spectrum for a reason — many people hover in the middle of pure straight and pure gay, developing a preference over time and through experimentation. But in the end there is a distinct lack of control involved with where you end up. Some people are compelled to only find penises attractive, some people vaginas. And, of course, some are lucky enough to be able to fluidly shift between the two.
But if the sex preference is determined by factors beyond society’s means to control, the gender preference is almost a complete societal construction. By creating distinct images of what a man should be and what a woman should be, society can compel its population to find certain things attractive or unattractive. The root of the preference, however, is simple. One finds certain personality traits attractive, and based on how many of those traits are masculine or feminine, finds a place on this scale.
The kink scale arises from a person’s preferences surrounding the sex act itself. Some people enjoy dominating others, while some enjoy being dominated. Others might find feet irresistible, or latex or furry animal costumes. Kink comes out of the deep places of the subconscious, and the number of fetishes are so diverse they escape analysis by simple means. And so to define where one lays on this spectrum, one must turn to the definition of normal. Again, what is “normal” sex and what is “kinky” sex is here defined by society. Thus, kink is a measure of how normative one’s preference in sexual activity is.
And, finally, we have the binary of one single love versus many loves. This might arise from two places — the first is a throwback to patriarchal systems. This system can be observed in archaic Mormonism, where men were polygamists while women were monogamous (polygyny, in other words). The more contemporary version of polyamory seems to derive itself from the concepts of free love and, more generally, communalism. Men and women can possess multiple partners and all of it seems to be in the spirit of the freedom to love as many as one wants. Monoamory, on the other hand, promotes the idea of giving one’s all to a single, special person. It is individualistic and romantic and is the normalized model in our culture.
Now, each of these scales possesses a societal majority side (heterosexual, cis-gender, vanilla sex, and monoamory) and each possesses a minority side. Interestingly, however, where one exists on each spectrum is not coupled to where one exists on the others. A heterosexual man could be kinky with his one very special butch female. A bisexual could have vanilla sex with her somewhat feminine male partner on Tuesdays and her caring female partner of Thursdays. Gays can settle down with one person or many. And the reason for this decoupling is the fundamental deterministic psychology behind each preference.
The sex preference is a biological and social imperative about what a person has sex with.
The gender spectrum is a personality-based preference about with whom a person has sex.
The kink preference is about how a person has sex.
The poly/monoamory is about how many people the person allocates emotion to.
The behaviors do not arise from the same roots – they are independent preferences and come with independent desires. Interestingly, however, the sexual minorities from each group are often linked together in the social conscious and treated as a single, bulk community.
Thus we reach the point I wanted to draw. It is dangerous to set equal these minorities in the social psychology, as they represent very different interests and very different goals. Each minority group deserves equality, but to treat a gay person as identical to a polyamorist or a fetishist as someone who is gender queer is an offensive simplification of sexual identity and sexual preference. Some gays want nothing more than to settle down with one true love, while others push for their polyamory to be accepted. Some fetishists enjoy the company of the same sex and others of the opposite.
And so, it is my hope that our society might start to see the sexual minorities as individual communities, allied in their struggle for acceptance but not identical in their desires or differences. Each represents a different aspect of society’s relationship with sex, and each should be examined as its own unique identity.
Anonymous tops his scoop of vanilla with a dopple of kink-sauce.
A lot of this is addressed via the KSOG, Klein Sexual Orientation Grid.
http://www.bisexual.org/kleingrid.html
KSOG covers sexuality mostly and gender pref. partly but misses fetish and mono-poly dimensions. Is it possible to develop a 4-dimensional model of these variables over time (past,present, ideal – a 5th dimension).
Would a modified KSOG-like survey factor in some individuals who switch between monogamy and polyamory from time to time?
I also have noticed that GenderQueer orientation is not constant, but relationship-dependent. GQ people prefer to defy definitions of gender.
An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and marriage with ANY consenting adults, in the way they mutually agree, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.