On sexuality and gender, as identity and practice

[ebola?]

This confounds me...in that I lack a theory of how these interrelate on several levels, so I'd see what you all think.

With gender, we have some superposition/interrelation of physicality (most are clearly male or female physiologically, but MANY are intersexed in various ways) and social identity (bound with institutionally linked practices).

With sexuality, we have the channeling and then transfiguration of fluid, amorphous, ambiguous desire/lust into (at least in the present period), more rigid sets of institutionally linked practices, bound with restricted identity sets.

eg, identifying as gay and then linking into social networks of other gay men nearly exhausts routes for men to fuck other men (or does it? lol...).

Okay...then how and why does sexuality interrelate with gender? eg, why do 'real men' monitor and discipline themselves to avoid acting 'faggy'?

In short, how and why do these two binaries intertwine as they do?

Is it just that I don't 'get' Foucault and Butler....etc.?

ebola

 

[Opiated Bliss]

eg, why do 'real men' monitor and discipline themselves to avoid acting 'faggy'?

Much of what is thought about manliness is confused with masculinity. In the sense of the lay people. The same can be said about woomanhood and femininity. Jung did some good writing on the subject. Hope that helps clarify.

 

[panic in paradise]

i think to freely to explore mystery is to freely explore life

i think the original sin cam when 'we' did, and accepted the apple as a distinguishing factor of 'ourselves', instigating a 'food-chain', an us-&-them, a second-third-and then endless self-mobilizing set of dividing factors - which are becoming more and or indistinguishable.


there are many paradox's to life, and this is the greatest maybe, for it is a paradox of creation, a re-evolving sense of how we are all one actually, and as soon as we start to accept more on the out-side, we will start to accept more of whats with in; an acceptance of us' as human' creatures', only in 'nature'.

NSFW:

this reminds me of a powerful LSD experience honestly, this was 16+ years ago and it has never made sense until now; because it wasnt mine.

it wasnt mine because i wouldnt listen though. my friend, his dad and i on a lake in TX.
my friend was very very frustrated, all he would say for 12 hours plus was that "together we are one, under the sun..." that was all he would say, as an answer, or his immediate response if we tried to speak to him, it was so frustrating for him he was in tears almost every-time - or he would try and compos himself and say it(was heart wrenching really)

he wanted us to stop talking, and listen is all.

i couldnt hear the meaning of these perfect words, because i was to busy worrying about my own 'trip' and what real-world factors might come into play, like beer, weed, and people wondering onto the land that we were borrowing to start a fire on; what those people might think.

boundaries-lol, his seemingly disturbed reclusive mind-set, was only him reaching for the world - perfectly literally.

 

[sssssssssss]

its all part of your ego and how you see yourself in society and what you think is right for you to do.

as you grow up, you do things that you might think is right to see the reaction in others/urself
and depending on that reaction is how you store that experience/emotion so that if a similar environment arises, you can repeat that action/emotion and it becomes what you think you know.

this is why everyone is so different because of different environments and the ability to lie.
also the absent of a reaction can effect how you store your biased decisions also.

with this being said, you learn your sexual identity, and gender through this practice because you want to fit in with society

if you go through your child hood and puberty with people attracted to your sex and people fail to tell you the difference, you begin to think like that too because its all you know
and once you think you know something, its hard to let go of that concept and you block most thoughts that contradict it
you cant store a relative truth if storing it would make an already stored relative truth into a relative false
and if you want to store the new relative truth you would have to let go of everything you stored based of the old relative truth which is rather difficult which is why society is confusing and frustrating
and since you develop sexuality so early on in life, letting go of it would mean letting go of much of the knowledge youve acquired since

its not a choice, and your not born with it. life is like a big house of mirrors. it can be fun and it can be scary, with illusions around every corner

youve never seen yourself physically how everyone else sees you because mirrors flip the left and the right side. well i guess if you looked in a mirror behind you that reflected from a mirror in front of you, but thats not how people envision themselves as they dont look in double mirrors everyday

this is why everyone thinks they are a good person
this is why there are so many personality disorders to make people feel better about the decisions they developed in an unusual environment and gives them justification for not changing because they can just take this pill or just flat out say i have a personality disorder when really it means that they are weak minded and too lazy to fix it. and clearly they want to fix it because they want to fit in with society.

not raggin on people cause theres a lot of things about myself that i cant change cause if ive made it this far why would i risk not making it in life for petty changes. clearly those abnormalities got me somewhere.

 

[isStellablue]

Gender Issues

I am a transgendered person, I just really like to dress like a woman, partly because of the inherent "sexiness" of the things, but more so because when I was tot something happened to give me a very, very poor image of myself and at that very young age it just seemed that girls had it so much better. I was also a year or two younger than most of the kids on my block, made fun of, buck teeth, got called gopher. Was not as strong as, fast as, socially adept. I just did not like who I was.
I have many times gone for days dressed as and pretty much feeling myself to be a girl. I actually look pretty good, but just can't quite get to the point where people I interact with do not realize that I am not a physical woman.

Just kind of lately realized that I have been overdoing it. Like everyone else I have my female aspects and male aspects.

Have really, really been harming myself by neglecting my male self. I am not "a woman trapped in a man's body" (only speaking for myself)

Over the years I have come to like and respect myself as a male as well, just a very unhappy one. I just need to let the poor guy live a bit. Fairly recently I have become much more open about this with other people. I don't really hide it anymore. Don't flaunt it either. Don't give a rats ass if the neighbours see me dressed up or not. No sneaking around at night trying to get out without being seen by them. Shit, they mostly all know anyway and don't really care. They may look down on me but thats, can't really say I don't care what people think, but if everyone likes you something is wrong.

Getting freedom from self condemnation was for me key to working it all out.

I go to the local stores dressed either way. I never dress androgynously. If I'm dressed as a guy I don't feel the need to hide, be secretive. As a girl, most folks don't notice and if they do it doesn't bother me.

Just keep both sides healthy. We are one and the same.

Thanks for listning

 

[satricion]

Is it just that I don't 'get' Foucault and Butler....etc.?
ebola

Yes

Basically, bodies only become intelligible within the terms of certain systems of signification. So it's not that there is no material body, but rather that bodies are materialised socially.

The reason men police themselves in order to accomplish certain forms of desiring subjectivity is because these are the most powerful forms of sexuality that are available to them. Powerful both in terms of the pleasures and rewards of being this kind of subject, and also in terms of the discursive/institutional power relations which create and reproduce the systems of signs that materialise bodies in normative (or non-normative) ways.

One thing I would also say is that there is no pre-social desire which is then somehow 'funneled' into more rigid categorisations. As Deleuze and Guattari have argued, there is no desire that is not already socially constructed. It's just that the rigid and hierarchical binaries that are usually associated with sexuality construct desiring bodies in one way, and the more polymorphous sexualities are constructed by different systems of social relations.

 

[Psychodelirium]

Basically, bodies only become intelligible within the terms of certain systems of signification. So it's not that there is no material body, but rather that bodies are materialised socially.

This is maybe OT, but I've never understood this way of talking. Does this mean that the bodies of non-symbolic animals are not "intelligible" to those animals?

Also, does this apply only to sexuality or to other modes of our biology as well (e.g. sleep, feeding, excretion, etc.)? If not, why not?

I think it makes more sense to say that the body is originally intelligible but is co-opted for symbolic expression in a way that is inherently limiting and distancing (i.e. my body wants A but "I" want B).

 

[sssssssssss]

so are you saying we're all the same sex until we discover our bodies, and then we are the same gender until we adapt to our environment?

cause i could agree with that.

 

[panic in paradise]

we were only equal until we thought about the apple.

 

[yougene]

The way you stated the binary parallels freud's binary of a self(ego) juxtaposed between "lower" physiological drives(id) and "higher" social pressures(super ego).

Each rung in this ladder has its own version of "feminine"/"masculine" though(forming a 2 dimensional dichotomy). The physiological binary of the human body, the pscyhosexual binary of sexual polarization, and the social stratification of these lower rungs within the matrix of environmental structures as "woman" and "man".

 

[Psychodelirium]

so are you saying we're all the same sex until we discover our bodies, and then we are the same gender until we adapt to our environment?

cause i could agree with that.

Idk if I'd say we're all originally the same. I think it's more that we originally know what we are and what we want but we become confused when we have to choose between socially validated identity labels and discover that they don't always fit. At some point you go from "I am that I am" to "am I a this or a that?" and at that point something important is lost.

 

[sssssssssss]

but ur born not even knowing that ur hands are actually ur hands until you discover them. and u can actually tell when a baby discovers them because they are amazed and cant stop staring at their hands lol

 

[Psychodelirium]

but ur born not even knowing that ur hands are actually ur hands until you discover them. and u can actually tell when a baby discovers them because they are amazed and cant stop staring at their hands lol

Yeah but you don't need anyone to tell you what your hands are and what they're used for. You know what your hands are before you know the word for them.

 

[sssssssssss]

yeah but before you discover your hands, you would do the same thing with them as a baby that was born with feet as hands would do with theirs, but eventually the half of the population with feet as hands would be walking upside down. but until then, they are doing the same things with their extremities, waving them around in the air until they notice they are theirs.

but then you can wonder why some people are left handed... which then makes me wonder if the same concept of the level of ambidextrous is the same concept as sexuality. they are about the same percentage i think and are both significantly against the norm and has been persistent throughout history.

its kind of weird actually, i write left handed, use a computer mouse with my right, kick with my right foot but if i were to kick down a door/spartan kick someone, i only feel comfortable with my left lol. sorry kind of went off topic.

 

[Noodle]

Some of the differences in focus and practice across sex and gender lines are often expressions of brain structures that vary because of natural genetic variations at individual and group levels.

Some of the expressions also seem to be culturally driven and dependent.

Throw some differences in orientation to simmer in the mix and you have an interesting pot luck that challenges the legitimacy of the dominant heterosexual culture.

 

[Sweet P]

I am a transgendered person, I just really like to dress like a woman, partly because of the inherent "sexiness" of the things, but more so because when I was tot something happened to give me a very, very poor image of myself and at that very young age it just seemed that girls had it so much better. I was also a year or two younger than most of the kids on my block, made fun of, buck teeth, got called gopher. Was not as strong as, fast as, socially adept. I just did not like who I was.
I have many times gone for days dressed as and pretty much feeling myself to be a girl. I actually look pretty good, but just can't quite get to the point where people I interact with do not realize that I am not a physical woman.

Using the old terminology, do you consider yourself more of a "transvestite" or crossdresser than a "transsexual"? Just curious, because I'm transgendered too. I was born with a male body, but I'm now living as a female 24/7. I've been on hormone replacement therapy for years, I've legally changed my name, and so on. For me it isn't a sexual thing... I simply identity as a woman, and always have. My gender and my sexuality tend to be two different things. I'm a woman as well as bisexual.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

This confounds me...in that I lack a theory of how these interrelate on several levels, so I'd see what you all think.

With gender, we have some superposition/interrelation of physicality (most are clearly male or female physiologically, but MANY are intersexed in various ways) and social identity (bound with institutionally linked practices).

With sexuality, we have the channeling and then transfiguration of fluid, amorphous, ambiguous desire/lust into (at least in the present period), more rigid sets of institutionally linked practices, bound with restricted identity sets.

eg, identifying as gay and then linking into social networks of other gay men nearly exhausts routes for men to fuck other men (or does it? lol...).

Okay...then how and why does sexuality interrelate with gender? eg, why do 'real men' monitor and discipline themselves to avoid acting 'faggy'?

In short, how and why do these two binaries intertwine as they do?

I think the way that sexuality and gender intertwine is a lot like the way practice and theory intertwine. The latter provides something of an 'industry standard', if you will, a stereotype of how the former is supposed to go. Individual practices of sexuality are guaranteed to vary colorfully, if I may state the obvious. But the small handful of sexual orientations we recognize as a society serve as 'poles', so to speak, toward which people orient themselves in terms of their public appearance.

The issue you're getting at is the paradox that sexuality both extremely private and shared with other people at the same time. This requires some degree of behavior which is revealing of one's sexuality, but never too much. I think that this notion of 'poles', which I mention, serves this need for minimal essential revelation of sexuality very well. If my speech, dress, and behavior says clearly to any stranger, 'I am a straight male', then this provides a modicum of familiarity for other people to place me in their worlds, and form a preliminary strategy for how to socially engage me. If they engage well with this surface version of me, and want to probe deeper (no pun intended), they'll have to discover and accept that I'm an individual, and that my tastes and preferences deviate in very definite ways from the stereotype to which I orient. Like a fleck of iron entrained by a magnet, I may orient towards a pole, but abide far into its periphery.

This is something I've thought about, as a straight male who has well developed masculine and feminine sides. It's hard not to be bitter sometimes that I live in a society that celebrates females with well developed masculine sides, but not vice versa, despite the fact that it bestows a lot of the same practical advantages. I know how to play the role of a 'guy's guy', at least for a limited amount of time, expressing the 'correct' preferences and attitudes. I've accepted that this is a necessary evil, which doesn't remain necessary for relating to anyone who really desires to know me as an individual.

I can only speak for myself, but one reason I don't tend to gravitate towards straight men who remain very true to the societal norm of 'straight male' is that one is never finished proving that one is a 'real man'. It's like keeping a balloon in the air -- you have to constantly bump it to make sure it stays up. To me, especially as someone who's found a life partner who accepts me as I am, this seems like an incredible waste of effort that's better spent elsewhere.

But you ask why is it this way? I think it's because competitiveness is one of the core components of the stereotypical straight male identity. We compete with each other for females' attention, so it's easy to slip into the groove of espousing competition for pretty much everything we do with one another. I see through and question this; I like some competitive pursuits, but I'm as much if not more a nurturer, a creator, and a communicator as I am a competitor.

 

[Paul Muad Dib]

This confounds me...in that I lack a theory of how these interrelate on several levels, so I'd see what you all think.

With gender, we have some superposition/interrelation of physicality (most are clearly male or female physiologically, but MANY are intersexed in various ways) and social identity (bound with institutionally linked practices).

With sexuality, we have the channeling and then transfiguration of fluid, amorphous, ambiguous desire/lust into (at least in the present period), more rigid sets of institutionally linked practices, bound with restricted identity sets.

eg, identifying as gay and then linking into social networks of other gay men nearly exhausts routes for men to fuck other men (or does it? lol...).

Okay...then how and why does sexuality interrelate with gender? eg, why do 'real men' monitor and discipline themselves to avoid acting 'faggy'?

In short, how and why do these two binaries intertwine as they do?

Is it just that I don't 'get' Foucault and Butler....etc.?

ebola

I think there has been written a lot about this subject, even though I must admit I haven't read any. But some of the "subtopics", such as what sexuality and gender is, has been dealt with by feminist theories as well as modern psychology (which largely contradicts the more extreme anti-realist feminist views). So if you are interested in any specifik interrelations that haven't been dealt with maybe you should try survueying the litterature and see if there can be found any comprehensive theory and see what they imply? That is very ambitious, but still, if you have time on your hands it might be worth it - and it would probably be spectacular. But hard and very interesting subjects with a lot of feelings and politics involved

Edit.: your question "why does sexuality interrelate with gender" might almost point towards its own answer. I mean, if we acept some kind of materialistic account of consciousness and human psychology, then ultimately social constructions will be determined by over genetical dispositions, and hence faggyness and manliness might be partly determined by actual physiological states of affairs. But it must be massively complex, and perhaps sexuality needs other explanaitons than our neuro-whatever linked to the penis-chromosome. I would guess that we can at max get some kind of idealized model to explain it, but who knows, maybe coqnitive scientists will crack the nut sooner or later.

 

[yagecero]

Basically, bodies only become intelligible within the terms of certain systems of signification. So it's not that there is no material body, but rather that bodies are materialised socially.

You can replace the noun "bodies" with any other noun and your sentence still holds true.

Any "thing" only becomes intelligible within the terms of certain systems of signification.

That's how we interpret reality