http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12/06/the-wheels-on-the-bus-go-round-and-round Comments On: The Wheels On the Bus Go Round and Round by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 22 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Wed, 22 May 2013 03:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
People think "sexual orientation" = "nature", "what I 'really' am", and "sexual identification" = "culture", "what I have become (in my society, through my choices)". Given that, in our culture (!), nature is better than culture, it follows that sexual orientation is better -- more ''legitimate'', ''deeper'', more ''who you are'' -- than "sexual identification" (never mind the word "identity" and its origin)...

Which is why people argue about that. To me, it's not really a question, but a claim about what makes people people, what makes them "who they are", plus a hidden claim about the nature vs. culture debate.

Some people feel a "choice" (for lack of a better word) as if it were their "nature" (culture -> nature; "I'm born gay/straight, there's nothing I can do about it"), whereas others don't ("I'm bi-curious, but it doesn't really do all that much for me", etc.). It may well be the case than in the gay-straight continuum the number of people with well-defined extreme preferences -- 100% gay or 100% straight -- are more numerous than along other continua (say, BDSM vs. non-BDSM, monogamous vs. polyamorous, etc.). So maybe there are more people who feel that they don't have a choice about being gay or straight than there are people who feel they don't have a choice about being BDSM or polyamorous -- and this would be in itself an interesting fact -- but I think it's a difference of degree, not of kind.

To sum up: it's not as the first commenter above said: "it's either dick or vagina or both, only 3 possibilities". Er, no. There are more. There are different intensities and combinations, for starters.
Posted by ankylosaur]]> Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:36:03 -0800 The Stranger "Note that the notion of "sexual orientation" is relatively new from a historical perspective. That's because earlier societies didn't really give a shit whether folks slept with men or women, so long as they produced heirs. Hence being gay/straight/bi was more of a preference back then. And gawd willing, it will become a preference again once the right-wing crazies crawl back under their rocks."

yes. that is relevant.
however, the problem here is people taking their current semantic constructs, and using it to erase others experience. that is not ok. i get what this LW is saying. i id as sub, i wouldn't define it as my orientation, but it is an immutable part of my make-up. and it is how i relate - irrelevant of how the other people in my life see themselves.
i see it as very similar to het/homo style orientation. i can love someone without that d/s dynamic, i can even choose to go to bed with them. but no matter what we get up to, orgasm is extremely unlikely. in fact, i would hesitate to call it sex. i still don't call it an orientation, but i can see how someone would. and i can't understand how anyone who is not that person has any authority to state otherwise.
Posted by sappho]]> Sun, 09 Dec 2012 12:35:19 -0800 The Stranger
Seriously, I like Lance @34's suggestion of a spectrum. Preferences on one end, orientation at the other. I'd throw kinks and fetishes in there as well. For some, D/s with a red-headed guy, dressed in horsehide black leather and shaved pits might be a must-have and they couldn't get it up or get off unless all of that was present. Clearly, others are rather vaguer or more flexible about the gender, numbers, roles, and sex acts involved.

My orientation might be your preference. Another's slight preference for smart women is must-have for me.
Posted by DAVIDinKENAI]]> Sat, 08 Dec 2012 11:42:23 -0800 The Stranger
The terms are already getting mashed-up by general public usage anyway, which always wins in the long run over point-in-time semantics. For example: Websters has a definition for 'aint'.

Bad example; that actually demonstrates the reverse. "Ain't" was legitimate English (and was in the dictionary in the 19th century) until language prescriptivists got snippy about it and declared, despite it being in general public usage, that it was improper English, thus leaving an annoying hole in the list of contractions, just as annoying as the lack of a second person plural. I don't know if it ever left the dictionary, but the artificially-created association with vulgarity and lower social classes has made "ain't" toxic, and I don't see that really changing, unfortunately.
Posted by Susan]]> Sat, 08 Dec 2012 08:08:28 -0800 The Stranger
In any case, allegorical evidence is basically meaningless. But since we're talking about it, I know people who want to live a D/s lifestyle, all the time. They want to be master and slave, dom and submissive, in public, not just in sex. This would (and does) result in them being treated differently by people in general... so does that define an identity to you?

Don't get me wrong, I'm on the fence about whether D/s should be considered an "orientation". I can imagine it, but I'm not convinced. It doesn't seem that different to me from "gay" or "straight", but I don't get those either.

My sexual orientation of "bisexual" seems to be defined solely on what I do not care about (gender), and not by what I do actually find attractive. Seems like a weird way to classify my sexual orientation, really. Like you said, it does seem to be what other people think that matters.

Posted by wingedkat]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 22:28:09 -0800 The Stranger Posted by samanthaf63]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 18:47:57 -0800 The Stranger Posted by LukeJoe]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 15:50:23 -0800 The Stranger
"The letter writer claims D/s as the underlying requirement for all attraction, much as gender is to most people."

I have a problem with this reasoning. It kind of seems to imply that just because all the people a person has been attracted to are of one gender, that this is the sole underlying requirement for all their attraction. What if the sole underlying requirement actually is that they all have enormous breasts? What if the sole underlying requirement is that they share a sense of humor?

Basically, I think people are giving the phrase "sexual orientation" too much weight- there is no "sole underlying requirement" for anyone's sexual preferences, and defining orientation in such a way is not really helpful. Sexual orientation is just about the genders of the people one dates. That's all. You might exclusively date liberals, and be bisexual; you might exclusively date chubby people, and not care about gender, but these are not sexual orientations. They are identities. Sexual orientation is about letting everyone know what genders they can expect you to date.
Posted by alguna_rubia]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:06:00 -0800 The Stranger
Posted by JJinAus]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 12:32:20 -0800 The Stranger
Lance has spoken. You are welcome.
Posted by Lance Thrustwell]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 12:01:26 -0800 The Stranger Posted by debug]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 11:16:23 -0800 The Stranger
The terms are already getting mashed-up by general public usage anyway, which always wins in the long run over point-in-time semantics.

For example: Websters has a definition for 'aint'.

If someone is politically misusing terminology to repress your rights then, of course, I fully support your right fight it with lawyerly-nitpicking.
Posted by debug]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 11:15:39 -0800 The Stranger Posted by sirkowski]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 11:04:48 -0800 The Stranger The point of my post was actually in what I wrote after my comment on your example, and your new examples tell me you are still missing it.

The letter writer claims D/s as the underlying requirement for all attraction, much as gender is to most people.I like how you have no rebuttal to the examples. My Asian-fetishist friend has Asian (and female) as underlying requirements for all attraction. Seriously: he doesn't even look at other women. So how is that different than your D/s example? Answer: It isn't-- under your theory.

Let me boil things down for you: whether an attraction rises to the level of "identity" is defined by other people, not by you. The question is whether they use that attraction to identify the person having it-- and whether that identification results in differing treatment. My Asian fetishist friend has an absolute attraction to Asians, but no one really cares (other than good-natured ribbing from everyone, including his wife). My Asian fetishist friend also has an absolute attraction to women, and people do care about that. If he were only attracted to guys, or if he were also attracted to guys, employers and customers and friends and family and people on the street are likely to treat him differently. That's why heterosexuality is an orientation, while yellow fever is a preference.

Note that the notion of "sexual orientation" is relatively new from a historical perspective. That's because earlier societies didn't really give a shit whether folks slept with men or women, so long as they produced heirs. Hence being gay/straight/bi was more of a preference back then. And gawd willing, it will become a preference again once the right-wing crazies crawl back under their rocks.
Posted by I Hate Screen Names]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:40:49 -0800 The Stranger
As for Webster, yes, this proves that D/s does not fit the current definition of "sexual orientation." However, remember when dictionaries had the words "man and woman" in their definition of marriage? Meanings can change over time. Right now, D/s doesn't fit "sexual orientation," but that might not be the case in twenty years.
Posted by DRF]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:20:57 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Zuulabelle]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 09:00:57 -0800 The Stranger Posted by James6]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 08:56:46 -0800 The Stranger
No poly is not an orientation, but an identity. However Dan's asinine comment that it is a choice is about as valid as saying gender identity is a choice.
Posted by Sphinx002]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 08:55:29 -0800 The Stranger Posted by ArtBasketSara]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 08:06:49 -0800 The Stranger Posted by puppydogtails]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 07:58:54 -0800 The Stranger
Culturally, we use the phrase "sexual orientation" to refer to gender preferences. It doesn't mean other forms of preference have less value, it just means we use different words to describe them.
Posted by smajor82]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 07:49:50 -0800 The Stranger
Definition of SEXUAL ORIENTATION
: the inclination of an individual with respect to heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual behavior

http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/s…

Being Poly, or Dom or into feet or whatever may be an innate part of someone's sexual identity, but sexual orientation specifically refers to the gender(s) a person is or are not sexually attracted to.

I'm all for Poly rights, or the freedom to identify as whatever you want, but these other things are NOT sexual orientation. They are sexual identity. Deal with it.
Posted by Fortunate]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 07:43:58 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Karina]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 07:06:46 -0800 The Stranger
The letter writer's orientation, as described, is bisexual (or pansexual). That is by definition the sexual orientation that allows for attraction without (or with greatly reduced) gender preference. This does not mean that D/s is not the fundamental underpinning of their sexual identity, but that's not what the term "orientation" seeks to define. You may as well answer "left handed" when asked for your race.
Posted by Reverend Tap]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 03:18:49 -0800 The Stranger
The letter writer claims D/s as the underlying requirement for all attraction, much as gender is to most people.

I can imagine a person for whom D/s is such a powerful force of attraction that it is the requirement which defines the attraction. As I've been told by my gay and straight friends, "preference" is not at all the same thing.
Posted by wingedkat]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 02:41:46 -0800 The Stranger