2.3.7 |
EROTIC: ORIENTATIONAL |
The last taxon of
sexualist manifestations that we shall
examine here contains those
exclusivisms which can be classified
as "orientational".
Even if we confine ourselves to defining sexual orientation in terms
of (biological) sex or of (cultural) gender, its definition can be
either absolute or relative.
In an absolute, ontologically fundamental sense somebody feels,
or can be, sexually attracted to male human beings, to female human
beings, to both or to neither.
(Strictly speaking, it is only the first two attractions which are
definitely fundamental.)
A human being that feels attracted to men or boys will enjoy meeting
and being with a nice, lovable man or boy; a human being that feels
attracted to women or girls will enjoy meeting and being with a nice,
lovable woman or girl; a human being that feels attracted to other
human beings will enjoy meeting and being with another, nice, lovable
human being; a human being that does not feel attracted to male,
female or human beings, will not experience the pleasure of meeting
or being with a nice, lovable male, female or human being as far as
the joy of erotic interchange is concerned (but
'e may enjoy such a meeting
for purely social, or other, nonerotic reasons).
These are the four basic tenets of love in a sincere sense, whatever
mess the lovers of a malignantly partial sexualism may make of it.
Yet, the above picture of sexual orientation and satisfaction is usually
overshadowed by a different conception of sexual orientation.
It is the relative one, according to which someone's
orientation is not defined in terms of females, males and humans but
in terms of members of
'er own sex, the opposite
sex, or both sexes (or 'genders', if not biological but cultural).
It is based on the conceptually produced properties of hetero- and
homosexuality, which are not
ontic properties.
For example, when describing someone as "heterosexual" it is suggested
that this human being loves (or is/can be sexually attracted to)
somebody else as somebody of the opposite sex.
A 'heterosexual' boy or man, for instance, would not love girls or
women as females, but rather as specimens of the opposite sex.
(Traditional ideologies which are exclusively truth-conditional
cannot comprehend the difference between these two aspects.)
Relevantly described, however, the boy or man in question is
'gynophile' and not 'heterosexual', if he loves females because of
their feminine qualities and/or capacities.
(It is then only a later, truth-conditional inference that he is also
heterosexual, since he is both male and 'gynophile'.)
The relative description of the state of love affairs may be germane to
special cases, such as those of people who have only become hetero- or
homosexual because the great majority of their neighbors were
heterosexual; and it may be germane to special circumstances, such as
those of monosexual human beings looking for a partner or wanting
children of their own, but it is a rather odd conception to stick with
thru thick and
thin, regardless of the context.
Not surprisingly the exclusion and exclusivity of people and
characteristics on the basis of their propensity usually rests on
taking love in this relative way.
It is, then, manifested in all sorts of relative orientational
sexualism (X.4671).
What has been said of other forms of
interfactorial sexualism holds for
the relative orientational type of it as well.
Thus, the
aggrandizemental component of it involves
an exclusive or disproportionately great emphasis upon discrimination on
the basis of homo- or bisexuality or sexual propensity in general,
whereas the
abnegational component of it involves a
complete disregard, or disproportionately little attention, for the same
discrimination on the basis of sexual propensity, particularly in
comparison with the attention paid to other forms of discrimination.
The
dimensional manifestations of
infrafactorial orientational sexualism
follow a pattern similar to that of
writing-related handedness-based
exism.
For "single-handedness" must, then, be read "monosexuality", for
"ambidexterity" "bisexuality", for "left-handedness" "homosexuality" and
for "right-handedness" "heterosexuality".
Historically there certainly is much more resemblance between the attitude
towards, and treatment of, left-handedness and ambidexterity on the one
hand, and homo- and bisexuality on the other than just the fact that their
formal positions in the two dimensional cladograms are the same.
Abnegational components or operations of homo-, hetero- and bisexual
exclusivism are, for example:
- the belief or feeling that homosexuals are, or that
homosexuality is, inferior to heterosexuals, or heterosexuality;
- uneasiness (possibly hatred, fear, distrust or ignorance)
of a heterosexual with respect to homo- or bisexuals, or homosexuality
(possibly also with respect to his or her own homoerotic
by-feelings);
- uneasiness (possible hatred, fear, distrust or ignorance)
of a homosexual with respect to hetero- or bisexuals, or heterosexuality
(possibly also with respect to her or his own heteroerotic by-feelings);
and
- the use of pejoratives in colloquial language and of
ignorant or stereotypical descriptions in exclusivist dictionaries to
denote homo- or bisexuals.
Since homosexual females and males, and perhaps also bisexual
ones, have always been a minority in larger societies, it is
they who have been victimized most by discrimination on the
basis of relative sexual orientation (particularly when the
object of the supernatural hatred of orthodox monotheists or of
the 'objective' hatred of biological materialists).
In this respect they can be compared to discriminated-against ethnical,
denominational and political
minorities which also used to lack the power to enforce their equality as
persons.
Moreover, they can be compared to other classes of human beings
exploited, molested or bothered because of particular sexual
characteristics or activities.
In the past the attitude of certain parents vis-à-vis the
masturbation of their children, for instance, has definitely not been
more enlightened when it concerned their sexual relationships with
others, for example, when one of their partners turned out to be 'of
the wrong race'.
The measures taken have often only been much worse when one of their
partners turned out to be 'of the wrong sex'.
It was quite predictable that after an era of abnegational
homosexual exclusivism (or antihomosexualism) a reaction would
follow, that is, an attitude of aggrandizemental homosexual
exclusivism as popularized in slogans like Glad or Proud to
be gay. It is this kind of slogans which demonstrates how
exclusivist prohomosexualism, too, fell straight into the trap
of the relative conception of sexual orientation. No-one is glad
or 'gay' because 'e is homosexual or, for that matter,
nonhomosexual, and no-one should have the arrogance of being proud
of 'er homosexuality or other sexual propensity. This merely
provokes a reaction in turn. A homo- or bisexual female can be
made happy when meeting and being with a nice, lovable woman or
girl, and so can a hetero- or bisexual male. Similarly, a homo-
or bisexual male can be made happy when meeting and being
with a nice, lovable man or boy, and so can a hetero- or
bisexual female.
(And all of them can be made unhappy when being confronted with the
social, political or legal outpourings of the sexual totalitarians'
abomination.)
Whether the person or 'er body concerned is, then, of one or two genders
or sexes, simultaneously or in the course of 'er life, and whether the
people or their bodies concerned are, then, of the same or a different
gender or sex is irrelevant in this regard.
