[description: fitting room selfie in a casual yellow sundress]
Welcome to another edition of Try This On For Size, in which I try on a series of bikini bottoms. Why just the bottoms? Honestly, because sometimes I feel like a prepubescent girl - bras and bikini tops serve no purpose on my relatively flat chest. In all seriousness, I did try on a few tops, but I didn't find any I absolutely loved, and none of them actually matched the bottoms I had picked up (it was a real mix-and-match crap shoot). Plus - who am I kidding? - the topless look is closer to being naked, and thus much sexier!
[description: topless fitting room selfies in assorted bikini bottoms]
File these under "utterly impractical". Not that they aren't workable (and they certainly look great on me), but modern society is having a hard enough time dealing with a man in a fully contained speedo, let alone a cute pair of bikini bottoms that only mostly holds him in. (Why are only women allowed to put their bodies on display like pieces of meat)? My friend is trying to convince me that I have an addiction to buying clothes I will never have an opportunity to wear. But can you blame me? What kind of world do we live in that I have no outlet - nowhere to go - where I can dress up to look super fricking hot? Without worrying about standards of decency, and adhering to gender stereotypes? I mean, would that be so terrible? I think we need more of that in this world, and not less. Are you with me or against me?
[description: nude fitting room selfies from front and back]
Friday, June 17, 2016
Thursday, June 16, 2016
How You Look vs. How You Feel
We currently live in a very politically correct culture. PC culture is one of the bylanes on the highway to Hell - the kind that are paved with nothing but good intentions, but still generally lead you toward misery and suffering. Don't get me wrong. As a highly sensitive person, I don't think we should go around swinging slurs and insulting people, just because we have the freedom to do so. That's not an argument I'm making - that's not who I am. Sensitivity is wonderful. But there is a point where being politically correct can go too far. Where it runs the risk of limiting our freedom of speech, hampering our ability to speak honestly and express genuine feelings, and, as a result, stands in the way of spreading the truth.
Case in point, if you've ever read any kind of fashion guides or magazines (or articles online), you've probably come across a feature that explains how to dress to your body shape. Generally, there are certain kinds of clothes - styles, cuts, and patterns - that look good (from a communally accepted viewpoint derived by professionals, despite the fact that much of this is subjective) on certain body types and not others. This can be helpful advice to those looking to improve their image and learn how to dress in a way that flatters their natural assets (and obscures their biggest flaws). Obviously, this can also serve to make people feel bad about their bodies, because it puts a lot of emphasis on their superficial qualities, and tacitly implies that how you look is critically important.
My perspective on these kinds of things is that they're just a guide. And there is some validity to them (although individual results will always vary). I've learned, just in my own experience, that there are some clothes that look better on me than others. I have incredible legs - so I like to wear things that emphasize and show off my legs. One thing I've learned is that, while I love tank tops - since they actually cover up less of your body - I look better in sleeved shirts (even if the sleeves are very small). The reason for that is because the sleeves de-emphasize my broad shoulders, which works against the image I'm usually going for, which is femininity (note that another person who finds broad shoulders attractive might come to a different conclusion than I have). In the swimsuit realm, I've learned to avoid the bandeau-style tops (even though I love them), in favor of the stringed triangle tops, because the latter "break up" my shoulders better, the broadness of which is just emphasized by the "straight across" approach of the former.
[description: fitting room selfie in a loud-patterned pink bikini]
I guess I should consider myself lucky that I have a "bikini body" at all - although that's a hollow victory, because, mainly due to my anatomical equipment, I cannot realistically wear a bikini anywhere except maybe some kind of a fetish ball where having a very noticeable bulge, if not my genitalia hanging completely out, would not be a problem. But that's another thing. There's a movement - one which I wholeheartedly support, in intention, if not technical terms - that tries to claim that there is no such thing as a "bikini body". Anyone can wear a bikini to the beach (or pool, or waterpark, or whatever). And this is true. If you like bikinis, or for any reason want to wear a bikini, my view is that you should. But that doesn't change the fact that some bodies look better in bikinis than others.
Here's where sensitivity rubs up against truth in an uncomfortable way. The truth is that you may or may not look good in that bikini. But the bottom line is that if you want to wear it, for reasons other than "looking good" in some external, narrowly-defined way (including your subjective opinion that you do look good in it, despite what any pop culture fashion designer wants to claim), then you shouldn't be discouraged from wearing it. If wearing it makes you feel good (e.g., "fuck it, I'm wearing a bikini!"), then that's good enough. I want to see you at that beach owning that bikini!
[description: infographic emphasizing the importance of wearing what you like]
The conceptual problem here, I think, is that we assume that looks have more importance than they really do. And looks are important. But they're not the only thing that's important, and they're not even necessarily the thing that's most important - even when we're talking about clothes. How important that is is entirely up to you. These people telling you what you can and can't wear - looks are very important to them. But that doesn't mean they have to be important to you. I mean, there are professionals you can pay to have them tell you what colors you look good in. If you really care about your looks, then maybe that's something that would be worth doing. But if, on the other hand, you really like that outfit, then for the love of all that's holy, you should wear it and feel good in it, no matter what anyone else's opinion is!
[description: closeup of a torso in the fitting room wearing a loud-patterned teal bikini]
It's how you look and how you feel, and anyone who has ever criticized your looks is missing part of the equation. That doesn't mean that all this looks business is bogus - it's just that it's only part of the equation. So try to keep that in mind. We do not need to go around preventing people from giving advice (to those who care) about how they can improve the way they look (according to this or that narrowly-defined standard), just because we happen to have a terrible body image problem in this culture. Body image problems stem from believing that image is more important than it really is. The solution is not deluding ourselves into believing that image is meaningless - lies take a lot of work to maintain, and hamper our ability to judge reality. The solution is to simply place more emphasis on the fact that looks are not the end of the story. If you feel good, then what difference does it make how you look?
That's something I've learned as a nudist - not to judge people by how they look. Some people look good, and they're fun to look at. But that's not the end of the story. That doesn't determine that person's worth as a human being. If you're a looker, that's fine. If you're not, that's fine, too, because there are a million other good things you can be, like a friend, a companion, fun, funny, smart, insightful, athletic. And none of that depends on how you look or what you're wearing. So don't let your looks be the sole determinant of your self-worth. There's more to life than that.
tl;dr - it's not a bad thing to care about how you look, and want to improve your image. But there's a point at which caring about it too much becomes unhealthy. And you shouldn't convince yourself that you have to wait until you have the perfect body until you can start enjoying life. Looks are just the cherry on top of life. Do they make it better? Yeah. But you can still have a sundae without them!
Case in point, if you've ever read any kind of fashion guides or magazines (or articles online), you've probably come across a feature that explains how to dress to your body shape. Generally, there are certain kinds of clothes - styles, cuts, and patterns - that look good (from a communally accepted viewpoint derived by professionals, despite the fact that much of this is subjective) on certain body types and not others. This can be helpful advice to those looking to improve their image and learn how to dress in a way that flatters their natural assets (and obscures their biggest flaws). Obviously, this can also serve to make people feel bad about their bodies, because it puts a lot of emphasis on their superficial qualities, and tacitly implies that how you look is critically important.
My perspective on these kinds of things is that they're just a guide. And there is some validity to them (although individual results will always vary). I've learned, just in my own experience, that there are some clothes that look better on me than others. I have incredible legs - so I like to wear things that emphasize and show off my legs. One thing I've learned is that, while I love tank tops - since they actually cover up less of your body - I look better in sleeved shirts (even if the sleeves are very small). The reason for that is because the sleeves de-emphasize my broad shoulders, which works against the image I'm usually going for, which is femininity (note that another person who finds broad shoulders attractive might come to a different conclusion than I have). In the swimsuit realm, I've learned to avoid the bandeau-style tops (even though I love them), in favor of the stringed triangle tops, because the latter "break up" my shoulders better, the broadness of which is just emphasized by the "straight across" approach of the former.
[description: fitting room selfie in a loud-patterned pink bikini]
I guess I should consider myself lucky that I have a "bikini body" at all - although that's a hollow victory, because, mainly due to my anatomical equipment, I cannot realistically wear a bikini anywhere except maybe some kind of a fetish ball where having a very noticeable bulge, if not my genitalia hanging completely out, would not be a problem. But that's another thing. There's a movement - one which I wholeheartedly support, in intention, if not technical terms - that tries to claim that there is no such thing as a "bikini body". Anyone can wear a bikini to the beach (or pool, or waterpark, or whatever). And this is true. If you like bikinis, or for any reason want to wear a bikini, my view is that you should. But that doesn't change the fact that some bodies look better in bikinis than others.
Here's where sensitivity rubs up against truth in an uncomfortable way. The truth is that you may or may not look good in that bikini. But the bottom line is that if you want to wear it, for reasons other than "looking good" in some external, narrowly-defined way (including your subjective opinion that you do look good in it, despite what any pop culture fashion designer wants to claim), then you shouldn't be discouraged from wearing it. If wearing it makes you feel good (e.g., "fuck it, I'm wearing a bikini!"), then that's good enough. I want to see you at that beach owning that bikini!
[description: infographic emphasizing the importance of wearing what you like]
The conceptual problem here, I think, is that we assume that looks have more importance than they really do. And looks are important. But they're not the only thing that's important, and they're not even necessarily the thing that's most important - even when we're talking about clothes. How important that is is entirely up to you. These people telling you what you can and can't wear - looks are very important to them. But that doesn't mean they have to be important to you. I mean, there are professionals you can pay to have them tell you what colors you look good in. If you really care about your looks, then maybe that's something that would be worth doing. But if, on the other hand, you really like that outfit, then for the love of all that's holy, you should wear it and feel good in it, no matter what anyone else's opinion is!
[description: closeup of a torso in the fitting room wearing a loud-patterned teal bikini]
It's how you look and how you feel, and anyone who has ever criticized your looks is missing part of the equation. That doesn't mean that all this looks business is bogus - it's just that it's only part of the equation. So try to keep that in mind. We do not need to go around preventing people from giving advice (to those who care) about how they can improve the way they look (according to this or that narrowly-defined standard), just because we happen to have a terrible body image problem in this culture. Body image problems stem from believing that image is more important than it really is. The solution is not deluding ourselves into believing that image is meaningless - lies take a lot of work to maintain, and hamper our ability to judge reality. The solution is to simply place more emphasis on the fact that looks are not the end of the story. If you feel good, then what difference does it make how you look?
That's something I've learned as a nudist - not to judge people by how they look. Some people look good, and they're fun to look at. But that's not the end of the story. That doesn't determine that person's worth as a human being. If you're a looker, that's fine. If you're not, that's fine, too, because there are a million other good things you can be, like a friend, a companion, fun, funny, smart, insightful, athletic. And none of that depends on how you look or what you're wearing. So don't let your looks be the sole determinant of your self-worth. There's more to life than that.
tl;dr - it's not a bad thing to care about how you look, and want to improve your image. But there's a point at which caring about it too much becomes unhealthy. And you shouldn't convince yourself that you have to wait until you have the perfect body until you can start enjoying life. Looks are just the cherry on top of life. Do they make it better? Yeah. But you can still have a sundae without them!
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Oral Fixation
[description: a face, tongue outstretched, approaches the genitalia of a nude torso]
Chalk this one up to an experiment in clone mischief. And the fact that, ever since I joined deviantART, I've been fascinated with the limits of permitted eroticism on that website. You can't post anything explicitly "pornographic", but a perusal of some of the on-the-edge works that go undeleted is like a crash course in pushing the boundaries, including not a few semi-erect penises, mouths positioned suspiciously close to another person's genitals, and, surprisingly, even a few hands-on demonstrations. By sight, this looks like a failure of the rules to prevent sexual images from surfacing, but in reality, it's a glowing success for the near-magical power of suggestion. If you permit images of genitals, and you permit images of tongues, you can restrict images of tongues on genitals, but that doesn't cover images that happen to contain tongues and genitals, not necessarily in contact with one another. Otherwise, you wouldn't be allowed to post a harmless picture of a naked man sticking his tongue out. You might not like this state of affairs, but I call it a victory for the human imagination.
[description: closeup portrait of a tongue about to touch the tip of a penis]
I had to try one myself. This last one would never be permitted on deviantART, however. God forbid, because a little bit of tumescent tissue makes it a completely different picture, doesn't it? Yeah, right. What kind of puritans are running the show that expressions of physical pleasure are considered an affront to common decency? Miserable penises are fine, but happy ones are unacceptable? Why?
[description: closeup portrait of a tongue reaching for the balls at the base of an erect penis]
Chalk this one up to an experiment in clone mischief. And the fact that, ever since I joined deviantART, I've been fascinated with the limits of permitted eroticism on that website. You can't post anything explicitly "pornographic", but a perusal of some of the on-the-edge works that go undeleted is like a crash course in pushing the boundaries, including not a few semi-erect penises, mouths positioned suspiciously close to another person's genitals, and, surprisingly, even a few hands-on demonstrations. By sight, this looks like a failure of the rules to prevent sexual images from surfacing, but in reality, it's a glowing success for the near-magical power of suggestion. If you permit images of genitals, and you permit images of tongues, you can restrict images of tongues on genitals, but that doesn't cover images that happen to contain tongues and genitals, not necessarily in contact with one another. Otherwise, you wouldn't be allowed to post a harmless picture of a naked man sticking his tongue out. You might not like this state of affairs, but I call it a victory for the human imagination.
[description: closeup portrait of a tongue about to touch the tip of a penis]
I had to try one myself. This last one would never be permitted on deviantART, however. God forbid, because a little bit of tumescent tissue makes it a completely different picture, doesn't it? Yeah, right. What kind of puritans are running the show that expressions of physical pleasure are considered an affront to common decency? Miserable penises are fine, but happy ones are unacceptable? Why?
[description: closeup portrait of a tongue reaching for the balls at the base of an erect penis]
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Raw Bodies
[description: portrait of a nude man's lap, legs crossed and penis erect]
I like to create beautiful art, because one of my goals as an erotic artist is to prove that you can take pictures of naked bodies and sex acts in a way that is tasteful, and aesthetically appealing, by adhering to the classical rules of composition, and by striving to flatter the subject even in what are sometimes considered unflattering poses and situations. I try to avoid vulgarity partly because it simply doesn't appeal to me, and also because it tends to undermine this goal. That having been said, I'm not going to say that I will never (and have never) produced vulgar works, because I don't like to limit myself as an artist, and you have to push yourself to see where the lines - yours as well as those of society - will be drawn. And I've found that, on occasion, there is a certain draw to a raw, naked body, just lying there, unselfconsciously exposed, that is probably primal in nature. What do you think? Do you occasionally have the urge to just get down and dirty?
[description: similar portrait as above, this time with legs spread]
I like to create beautiful art, because one of my goals as an erotic artist is to prove that you can take pictures of naked bodies and sex acts in a way that is tasteful, and aesthetically appealing, by adhering to the classical rules of composition, and by striving to flatter the subject even in what are sometimes considered unflattering poses and situations. I try to avoid vulgarity partly because it simply doesn't appeal to me, and also because it tends to undermine this goal. That having been said, I'm not going to say that I will never (and have never) produced vulgar works, because I don't like to limit myself as an artist, and you have to push yourself to see where the lines - yours as well as those of society - will be drawn. And I've found that, on occasion, there is a certain draw to a raw, naked body, just lying there, unselfconsciously exposed, that is probably primal in nature. What do you think? Do you occasionally have the urge to just get down and dirty?
[description: similar portrait as above, this time with legs spread]
Monday, June 13, 2016
Clone Mischief
[description: a naked man stands, erection in hand, in front of another seated in a chair]
I would absolutely love to do some sexually explicit photoshoots. Not for the obvious reasons that GWCs tend to have - a pseudo-legitimate excuse to get girls to take their clothes off. If all I wanted was to see a naked girl, I could just look on the internet (which I do pretty much daily - for research purposes :p). What I want is an opportunity to create something beautiful. You know how serious I am about art. I want to apply my approach towards erotic art to sexually explicit encounters, to see what kind of beautiful, erotic portraits and bodyscapes I can create. To prove my claim that human sexuality can be depicted tastefully, and beautifully.
But there's a limit to what I can do with just one model. (And it's harder when that model's yourself). Not to disparage solo sexual acts - I consider masturbation to be sex as much as anything else (it's the safest form of sex, and one of the most important sexual skills a person can learn). But there's a limit to what one person can do with his own body (in terms of simple mathematics, the more bodies you have, the more combinations are possible -_^), and there's an added thrill when sex involves other people.
I've been using clones to play around with that idea, but it can only take me so far. Without contact, there's a wall I keep running up against. Exhibitionism is hot, but how many times can I depict one person watching another masturbate, or two people masturbating in front of each other, or three people masturbating themselves to the sight of a fourth, before it gets boring?
Okay, well, maybe it'll never get boring, but I'd still like to do more. But, with all the stigma out there about pornography and sexual expression, coupled with my extraordinary inability to cultivate a social network, it's just about impossible for me to find an attractive, photogenic subject willing to have sex on camera for anything other than private purposes, no matter how genuine my artistic intentions might be. So, I'm pretty much screwed. (And not in the fun way).
I would absolutely love to do some sexually explicit photoshoots. Not for the obvious reasons that GWCs tend to have - a pseudo-legitimate excuse to get girls to take their clothes off. If all I wanted was to see a naked girl, I could just look on the internet (which I do pretty much daily - for research purposes :p). What I want is an opportunity to create something beautiful. You know how serious I am about art. I want to apply my approach towards erotic art to sexually explicit encounters, to see what kind of beautiful, erotic portraits and bodyscapes I can create. To prove my claim that human sexuality can be depicted tastefully, and beautifully.
But there's a limit to what I can do with just one model. (And it's harder when that model's yourself). Not to disparage solo sexual acts - I consider masturbation to be sex as much as anything else (it's the safest form of sex, and one of the most important sexual skills a person can learn). But there's a limit to what one person can do with his own body (in terms of simple mathematics, the more bodies you have, the more combinations are possible -_^), and there's an added thrill when sex involves other people.
I've been using clones to play around with that idea, but it can only take me so far. Without contact, there's a wall I keep running up against. Exhibitionism is hot, but how many times can I depict one person watching another masturbate, or two people masturbating in front of each other, or three people masturbating themselves to the sight of a fourth, before it gets boring?
Okay, well, maybe it'll never get boring, but I'd still like to do more. But, with all the stigma out there about pornography and sexual expression, coupled with my extraordinary inability to cultivate a social network, it's just about impossible for me to find an attractive, photogenic subject willing to have sex on camera for anything other than private purposes, no matter how genuine my artistic intentions might be. So, I'm pretty much screwed. (And not in the fun way).
Thursday, June 9, 2016
The Trouble With Thongs
[description: rear view of a man's torso in thong underwear, with insufficient containment]
The trouble with thongs - or, more accurately, the trouble with men wearing women's thongs - is that they don't hold your "stuff" in place. Now, you could argue that this is a bonus - and, hey, it might be sexy - but the situations where this sort of arrangement is practical are exceedingly rare. My perspective is that if there's no problem with your stuff hanging out, then why are you wearing a thong in the first place? You might as well go full monty!
Chances are, if you're wearing a thong, it's because you want a sexy pair of underwear that nevertheless keeps you "legal" and contained. Maybe it's to go under a skirt and contribute to the feeling of being as bare as possible, while still being dressed. Maybe it's to go under a dress and reduce visible panty lines. In any case, it's helpful to keep the equipment in line, and from swinging about freely, while also reducing the embarrassing need to constantly adjust yourself in public.
All of these are reasons why women's thongs are just not practical for men. But that's not to say that there are no good reasons for wearing them. While there do exist thongs for men that are designed for better containment, they are not always an ideal solution. For one thing, they tend to be far more difficult to find in stores, compared to the women's variety. And the ones you do find are almost exclusively designed with men's "tastes" in mind. Sure, you can find men's thongs in leopard prints and whatnot, but those are just generically sexy. Good luck finding a pink one with a heart print.
The truth is, for those of us men who like thongs because they are more feminine, it can be practically impossible to find a style designed for men, but with pretty, feminine colors and patterns. Also, since men have more to contain, it's harder to find the skimpier (and, thus - in the opinions of some - sexier) styles of thongs - t-backs, g-strings, and the like. All of these things may be available at niche boutique stores that can be found online (carrying a multitude of erotic inventory), but they can tend to cost you a lot of money (especially when factoring in shipping), and lack the convenience of simply being able to pick some up while you're at the store.
None of these obstacles, however, should stop you from seeking out and wearing thongs - whether they are designed for men or women, bought at the store or online - if you happen to like wearing thongs, or are curious and have yet to try one out. Certainly, thongs can be an acquired taste for some, and they do unfortunately carry a certain level of stigma (but don't let anyone make you feel bad about yourself just because you want to look or feel sexy!). Some people think they are extremely uncomfortable, while others find them the most comfortable kind of underwear in existence - it's just a matter of taste. Don't be afraid to discover your own. :-)
The trouble with thongs - or, more accurately, the trouble with men wearing women's thongs - is that they don't hold your "stuff" in place. Now, you could argue that this is a bonus - and, hey, it might be sexy - but the situations where this sort of arrangement is practical are exceedingly rare. My perspective is that if there's no problem with your stuff hanging out, then why are you wearing a thong in the first place? You might as well go full monty!
Chances are, if you're wearing a thong, it's because you want a sexy pair of underwear that nevertheless keeps you "legal" and contained. Maybe it's to go under a skirt and contribute to the feeling of being as bare as possible, while still being dressed. Maybe it's to go under a dress and reduce visible panty lines. In any case, it's helpful to keep the equipment in line, and from swinging about freely, while also reducing the embarrassing need to constantly adjust yourself in public.
All of these are reasons why women's thongs are just not practical for men. But that's not to say that there are no good reasons for wearing them. While there do exist thongs for men that are designed for better containment, they are not always an ideal solution. For one thing, they tend to be far more difficult to find in stores, compared to the women's variety. And the ones you do find are almost exclusively designed with men's "tastes" in mind. Sure, you can find men's thongs in leopard prints and whatnot, but those are just generically sexy. Good luck finding a pink one with a heart print.
The truth is, for those of us men who like thongs because they are more feminine, it can be practically impossible to find a style designed for men, but with pretty, feminine colors and patterns. Also, since men have more to contain, it's harder to find the skimpier (and, thus - in the opinions of some - sexier) styles of thongs - t-backs, g-strings, and the like. All of these things may be available at niche boutique stores that can be found online (carrying a multitude of erotic inventory), but they can tend to cost you a lot of money (especially when factoring in shipping), and lack the convenience of simply being able to pick some up while you're at the store.
None of these obstacles, however, should stop you from seeking out and wearing thongs - whether they are designed for men or women, bought at the store or online - if you happen to like wearing thongs, or are curious and have yet to try one out. Certainly, thongs can be an acquired taste for some, and they do unfortunately carry a certain level of stigma (but don't let anyone make you feel bad about yourself just because you want to look or feel sexy!). Some people think they are extremely uncomfortable, while others find them the most comfortable kind of underwear in existence - it's just a matter of taste. Don't be afraid to discover your own. :-)
Monday, June 6, 2016
Can Gender Identity Determine Sexual Orientation?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: One may influence the other in some cases, but not in a deterministic way that would enable accurate prediction. Read on - the following is basically my thoughts on the hypothetical situation where, upon learning that someone is "trans", a person might assume they can deduce that person's sexual orientation. Or, in other words, the "only gay men wear dresses" fallacy.
It is obvious to me (more so than it apparently is to some others) that sex and gender are two very different things (and that orientation is something else altogether). One of them has more to do with your anatomy and physiology, and the other has more to do with your psychology and personality. That there are two obvious sexes and two obvious genders (at least - gender is a far more nebulous concept than sex), and that the majority of the population goes through life never seriously questioning the traditional pairing of these (i.e., men are masculine, and women are feminine), explains why those who experience life otherwise are a commonly misunderstood (or downright ignored) minority. But it doesn't diminish the value of their experiences, the legitimacy of their identity, or their claim to the same rights and freedoms the rest of us have.
Now, I wouldn't go so far as to say that sexual orientation and gender identity are completely independent of one another. I believe they can have strong influences on each other. But the fact is that different people ultimately come to different conclusions (about what gender they identify with, and what "sex" they are attracted to), and the determination of one isn't enough to predict the other. Just as some males can be masculine and others can be feminine (and some females can be feminine while others are masculine), a person who identifies as the male gender may be attracted to either males or females (or both, or something else altogether), and the same can be said of a person who identifies as the female gender. The antiquated notion that if a man identifies as female, for example, he must be sexually attracted to men, is blatantly heteronormative - denying the existence of females who are attracted to other females - and gender normative - assuming that no "red-blooded" male who is attracted to females could have stereotypically feminine interests.
I can't, personally, say that my sexual orientation hasn't influenced my gender identity, in the sense that I am fascinated by females so much, I began to think I'd enjoy being one; and after experimenting, discovered that it fit me so much better than a male identity ever has. In a different case, a person with a sexual attraction to males (who, as a male, would be labeled "gay"), might begin to identify more with females from something of a vaguely heteronormative (which is NOT to say homophobic) perspective, in the sense of wanting to be the "female" to a male's desire. To be true, this is not how all (or probably even most) gay men feel. And the sex (or sexes) that one is attracted to does not necessarily impact the gender they identify with - they are two different feelings, two different "senses". But it's just one of a variety of fabulous possibilities.
Which is why I can't say that sexual orientation and gender identity are completely independent of one another, in all cases. But at the same time, it should be kept in mind that they are not determinant predictors of one another, either. In logical terms, if A may influence B or C, then it could be said that there is a connection between them, but knowing that something is A is not sufficient to predict whether it will align with B or C - as both possibilities exist. You cannot look at a woman and know with a glance whether she is straight or lesbian (or something else). It is no less true that you cannot look at a man wearing a dress and know instantly who or what he is sexually attracted to.
Long answer: One may influence the other in some cases, but not in a deterministic way that would enable accurate prediction. Read on - the following is basically my thoughts on the hypothetical situation where, upon learning that someone is "trans", a person might assume they can deduce that person's sexual orientation. Or, in other words, the "only gay men wear dresses" fallacy.
It is obvious to me (more so than it apparently is to some others) that sex and gender are two very different things (and that orientation is something else altogether). One of them has more to do with your anatomy and physiology, and the other has more to do with your psychology and personality. That there are two obvious sexes and two obvious genders (at least - gender is a far more nebulous concept than sex), and that the majority of the population goes through life never seriously questioning the traditional pairing of these (i.e., men are masculine, and women are feminine), explains why those who experience life otherwise are a commonly misunderstood (or downright ignored) minority. But it doesn't diminish the value of their experiences, the legitimacy of their identity, or their claim to the same rights and freedoms the rest of us have.
Now, I wouldn't go so far as to say that sexual orientation and gender identity are completely independent of one another. I believe they can have strong influences on each other. But the fact is that different people ultimately come to different conclusions (about what gender they identify with, and what "sex" they are attracted to), and the determination of one isn't enough to predict the other. Just as some males can be masculine and others can be feminine (and some females can be feminine while others are masculine), a person who identifies as the male gender may be attracted to either males or females (or both, or something else altogether), and the same can be said of a person who identifies as the female gender. The antiquated notion that if a man identifies as female, for example, he must be sexually attracted to men, is blatantly heteronormative - denying the existence of females who are attracted to other females - and gender normative - assuming that no "red-blooded" male who is attracted to females could have stereotypically feminine interests.
I can't, personally, say that my sexual orientation hasn't influenced my gender identity, in the sense that I am fascinated by females so much, I began to think I'd enjoy being one; and after experimenting, discovered that it fit me so much better than a male identity ever has. In a different case, a person with a sexual attraction to males (who, as a male, would be labeled "gay"), might begin to identify more with females from something of a vaguely heteronormative (which is NOT to say homophobic) perspective, in the sense of wanting to be the "female" to a male's desire. To be true, this is not how all (or probably even most) gay men feel. And the sex (or sexes) that one is attracted to does not necessarily impact the gender they identify with - they are two different feelings, two different "senses". But it's just one of a variety of fabulous possibilities.
Which is why I can't say that sexual orientation and gender identity are completely independent of one another, in all cases. But at the same time, it should be kept in mind that they are not determinant predictors of one another, either. In logical terms, if A may influence B or C, then it could be said that there is a connection between them, but knowing that something is A is not sufficient to predict whether it will align with B or C - as both possibilities exist. You cannot look at a woman and know with a glance whether she is straight or lesbian (or something else). It is no less true that you cannot look at a man wearing a dress and know instantly who or what he is sexually attracted to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)