Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Are we getting 'sexualities' confused with mindsets?

Yeah, I didn't want to prompt but wondered whether any women felt the same, and to what extent.
I think performing femininity has a whole bunch of things attached that get punished, whereas with men you just perhaps lose a very trivial benefit here or there.
One thing you lose as a man when you get older is you become less of a target for other men in a variety of situations. That's a non-trivial benefit I've sensed - the benefit of the middle-aged invisibility cloak.
 
One thing you lose as a man when you get older is you become less of a target for other men in a variety of situations. That's a non-trivial benefit I've sensed - the benefit of the middle-aged invisibility cloak.

And that younger women don't view you as a chat-up merchant if you catch their eye (obviously a valid defense against pests, but nice to be out of it).
 
How much is our sexuality ( whatever that is in totality ) determined or influenced by our "mindsets" or psychological responses to our environment and circumstances ?
 
Around 60%.
Where does the figure of 60% come from ?

I guess our sexuality is made up of physical , hormonal , neurological impulses , at base.....
And IF we were only discussing those base impulses , could that be said to be more or less 100% of "sexuality" (physically) ?

It's what "sparks/ignites"* those impulses I was thinking of primarily , and how much those "sparks" are in response to all sorts of life experiences ?
eta : Which is significant component of sexuality , but maybe significantly distinct .....?

I think part of the problem is that there is a lot of discussion about sexuality , without really defining what specifically it is being referred to.......beyond who we find attractive and what we may do with them.

I think there can be a lot more to sexuality than that......but not so easy to define

*eta I originally wrote "triggers" but realised that usually has negative connotations somchanged to "sparks/ignites"
 
Last edited:
I see a lot of sexualities being identified, as below, that seem to me to just be mindsets about how one approaches relationships (less so 'poly' and the last two, though):

View attachment 220989

I'm wondering if it's helpful to identify these as 'sexualities'? Might it be a bit limiting for people to say 'No, I only get attracted to people in this form?'

I came across this graphic from a tweet saying 'Look, it's harmless, let people have these words without saying "But were you murdered/oppressed for this identity" and I see that as well, but it still seems to be rather over-analysing and perhaps therefore unhea;thy to me to declare the way one approaches relationships as actually a sexuality or an identity. I mean, do I need a word 'I'm not attracted to many people, can do fine without lots of sex and am mostly attracted to men but also women a bit' , would that do me and the world any good ultimately?
Hi Cloo - I'm late to this thread, sorry so you may have already said, but where did you find that that graphic - who created it? Is someone seriously saying these are all 'sexualities' or was it something made up to fill a magazine/page?
 
I'm new to this thread as well.

I've read it all now though, and I'm still trying to get my head around it all :confused:

There's so much more that confuses me than doesn't I have to confess :oops: ....... that's as much to do with my age as anything else, but still!! :eek:
 
Hi Cloo - I'm late to this thread, sorry so you may have already said, but where did you find that that graphic - who created it? Is someone seriously saying these are all 'sexualities' or was it something made up to fill a magazine/page?
Twitter- I think it had been doing the rounds, don't know who created it. Clair De Lune 's kids' response earlier suggests these ideas are floating about with Da Kids, but maybe nowhere else!
 
I'm going to attempt to clarify what I wrote in previous post......and it's primarily to try and understand and separate "sexuality" & "mindset" in thread title

One component of sexuality is physical , ie. how sexuality is experienced in and through our bodies , usually in response to somebody or characteristic that we find attractive and "turns us on".....

What or who it is in particular that "turns us on" could be viewed as something quite distinct.
Not only physical responses , but also psychologically and emotionally.

Which could be callled "mindset" - or at least in this context , "mindset" plays a significant part in most sexuality.

It seems to me what all the categories in OP are trying to do is categorise all these potential "mindsets" into specific "sexualities" or "sexual identities". Every "mindset" can have its own "identity"....

Instead of aiming for a world where people can express their ( non abusive ) sexual attractions without prejudice , and without the need for maintaining any indetities or labels based on particular sexual attractions.
 
Last edited:
Instead of aiming for a world where people can express their ( non abusive ) sexual attractions without prejudice , and without the need for maintaining any indetities or labels based on particular sexual attractions.
Yeah, which is why I think most of us think it's a bit silly. You can be more than one of those things at any one time, and move from one to another over time, or be different things with different people. That's a reflection of the demographic on here - we become less rigid in our ideas often as we get older and recognise more grey areas. This is very young folk working stuff out. I think it's wrong-headed, but I also think it's harmless. It's even perhaps a bit better than harmless - this range of labels at least recognises that there is a range. Not such a short step from there to recognise that there is more fluidity to behaviours than that.
 
I'm wondering if it's helpful to identify these as 'sexualities'? Might it be a bit limiting for people to say 'No, I only get attracted to people in this form?'

How are they more helpful than all the “traditional sexualities” though?

Someone at one point decided that præferences in gender should be treated differently than other præferences, probably because it was birthed from trying to use the good old psychiatry, an everlasting ally to enforcing political morality, as a means to classify some præferences as “wrong” by saying that it was an illness — so they reclaimed the illness and it was then called a “sexual orientation” and we're left with the situation that “præferences in gender” are to be treated differently from other præferences with no real scientific reason to believe that they are fundamentally different.

I suppose now other præferences want in on that too. I don't necessarily consider it different and they may do as they will, as they aren't hurting anyone with it.

At the end of the day, there is no actual scientific standard for “sexual orientations”, and it's but taken as self-report, and, attempt one to devise one viā measuring symptoms of arousal, it becomes considerably more complicated — in that sense it's not that different from “race".

Had we lived in a world where psychiatrists had attempted to create medical diagnoses out of the then-sin of feeling attraction to a different race than one's own, we would have probably ended up “sexual orientations” related to race now as well.

If no-one really fits into the gender binary then how it is so ubitiquous?

I see a lot of people at the moment, especially men, dismissing the gender binary as all about stereotypes and thinking it doesn't really apply to them because they don't like football or sometimes cry when they're watching a film when in fact this represents a tiny part of what gender is and the social power it has.

A lot of gender, how we speak, our body language etc is unconsciously performed we learn it so well. Gender is how we dress, and how we present ourselves, and this indicates our social role and status in the gendered hierarchy immediately to others. I suspect one reason men are much more rigid in their physical gender presentation than women is that typically masculine presentation indicates a superior role, and most men don't want to give that up. Gender is even how we choose to make ourselves smell if you use that kind of stuff, although in reality this is chosen for us, and it's interesting that deoderants and products for men often very obviously specify themselves as being FOR MEN in a way women's don't, because men won't buy them if there's any ambiguity.

Gender is the job we do, and how much we get paid for it. Gender is whether someone expresses, or possesses a sense of internalised male privilege due to their gendered socialisation even if they are not consciously aware of it. Gender is whether we are worried about walking the streets late at night or getting in an Uber driven by a man on our own. Gender is how much reproductive work we do (in the Marxist not biological sense) such as care work or emotional labour. I'd even argue gender is linked to sexuality as in the perfectly gendered male, with all the social rewards that come with that, would be pretty much exclusively top and heterosexual. And yes, gender is about tastes, and interests, and coerced personality types, but all of those things are supported and maintained by the deeper elements of gender, and the fact that gender is not just something we consciously choose to perform but something that happens to us, whether we like it or not.

But it doesn't completely fit for most. All those things you mention will rarely be 100% one way or the other for any given singular human being.

For men in particular to shrug off the gender binary as just being about some stereotypes that they don't think apply to them then is really just a way of abrogating responsibility for the way gender benefits them. And most of the men who do it in reality are near perfectly gendered males in the context of a modern neoliberal and patriarchal society that doesn't really need men swaggering around and starting fist fights every five minutes.
But they're not in many ways; they will always have many things in their lives, their professions, their mannerisms, their hobbies that will be considered “feminine” and such considerations are quite arbitrary.

I can't say I care, however. I don't see the merit in compulsively “gendering” random social behavior. It isn't worth more than trying to compulsively assign it labels like “western” or “eastern" and wonder whether one's profession or behavior isn't particularly “eastern”.

I think it's probably true that some teenagers who are non binary are really just rejecting gender stereotypes based on their physical sex, although it's equally true that many non binary people feel a sense of disassociation with their physical bodies in the way many binary trans people do. But I also see a lot more non binary people really interregating the core of gender and exploring alternatives, including things like presentation which is a big part of gender, as well as social structures which enforce gender, then I do those men who just decide the gender binary doesn't really apply to them, and then carry on being just as gendered as before without any social cost or real reflection.
For what it's worth, there was a research in the Netherlands that investigated this and concluded that both in cases of “incongruent gender identity” and “ambivalent gender identity” about 1/3 had “gender dysphoria”.

Google Translate

If you wish to read it, you'll have to do so through Google Translate, but the numbers whereof I spoke are on page 4.

It should be noted, however, as something that is often overlooked, is that the majority of transgender persons does not meet the medical criteria for “gender dysphoria”, which is why gender identity incongruence absent gender dysphoria was declassified as a mental illness — the mental concern is gender dysphoria which is similarly a mental illness that depression is; if one have feelings of gender incongruence but this otherwise not compromise one's life, it is not considered a medical concern.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom