Gender and Sexual Scripts

I’ve recently been thinking about my history of sex with male-identified individuals with penises and trying to pin down my limits and hesitance when it comes to sex with such individuals in the future.  It may be irrelevant–after all, I don’t even have many cis-gendered male friends–but I am curious because for me it’s sort of a sexual black hole that’s scary to poke at.

The place that everything is coalescing around is related to sexual scripts.  This is true, in fact, both for sex with men and male-bodied individuals and for sex with women and female bodied individuals (and any combination).  My big thing is that I don’t want to have sex with someone who views our sex or our relationship as “straight” or “lesbian.”

As a genderqueer person, I can’t have “straight” or “lesbian” sex anymore.  And in my experience, the places where sex gets labeled in that way, and where I start to feel uncomfortable and viewed as “woman,” are the places where a sexual script starts rolling.

The straight sexual script is fairly well-known–foreplay, insert penis, sex, orgasm with variations including some oral sex in there somewhere, female orgasm, what have you.  The lesbian script is similar, if more egalitarian–mess around, get aroused, stimulation (often mutual), orgasms (sometimes multiple), sleep.

For me, sexual healing is a lot about removing these assumptions.  It’s about figuring out what kinds of stimulation I like and what kinds I don’t like.  It’s about being with partners that will ask what I like, and tell me what they like, without the sort of quiet assumption-filled sex I have experience with.  It’s not so much about gender, which I used to think it was.   As long as a partner <i>respects</I> the above and doesn’t make any assumptions–whether that’s about PIV sex, or the order of acts, or what constitutes a “sex act”–then I’m happy.

Monosexuality and the “It’s About the Person” Argument

One argument I’ve heard a lot in reference to bisexuality or pansexuality is “it’s not about the gender to me, it’s about the person.” Which is all well and good, of course, but I think it’s kind of unfair for people who are monosexual (straight or gay) or have some group of people that they are not attracted to for reasons of sex or gender. If this is the case, is it no longer “about the person?” Presumably, bisexual and pansexual people also have dealbreakers–perhaps related to things like marital status, smoker or non, children or childfree, financial situation, hobbies, drug use, location, or whatever else. When a group of people is excluded from dating consideration in this way, is it no longer “about the person?” If not, then why would this apply to gender? Food for thought.

Defining Sexuality from a Genderqueer Perspective

I considered using this space for a brief introductory post, but instead it seems appropriate to get straight to the content.  If you are curious as to the blogger’s background, please feel free to visit the About page for some information.

—–

Why do we define sexuality with reference to sex and gender?

Simple enough question, I suppose.  I started thinking about this the other night, as I considered my own explorations and vague dissatisfaction with terms like “gay,” “lesbian,” and “bisexual.”  For the record, I use “queer,” mostly for reasons outlined in this thought process.

Feminism 101: Gender and sex are not the same thing.

Fair enough.  I think most people who stumble upon this blog will be aware of that distinction.  But there is at least some connection, no matter how arbitrary, and that is the point from which I begin.