January 9, 2010
-
Bisexuality
This is a subject that it’s possible to approach from so many different angles. An interesting one is to first consider if there is a specific set of attractions or lifestyle that can be thought of as “definitely straight,” or “definitely gay,” or “definitely bisexual,” even as we might say that “this chair leg is definitely wood, not metal or plastic.”
A theory called “constructionism” asserts that these different types do not exist as much in reality as they do in our need to classify, classification being a basic methodology of the scientific approach. A major piece of support for this idea comes from the fact that there were no such words as “homosexual”, “heterosexual” or “bisexual” until the late 1800s, when certain scientists wished to write learned articles on sexuality. I’m thinking specifically of the german doctor Krafft-Ebing (1840-1902) but I dare say there were others, so I’ll say “they.” They needed exact scientific names where there were none, and so glued “homo,” (Greek for “same”) onto “sexual,’” (which is Latin.) Now they’d made a name, but also a problem: what to call a non-homosexual? “Hetero,” (Greek for “opposite”) was now glued onto”sexual,” to invent another new word. Problem: these two polar opposites didn’t cover the variations that occurred in reality, so again a dip into Greek, to fish out “bi,” meaning “two.”
This hasn’t proven totally satisfactory, even as a new, made-to-order system of labelling, for “homo” in Latin means “male,” causing for some a belief that “homosexual” refers to male-to-male attraction, rather than same-to-same.
My point? The whole discussion may be based mainly on a system of pigeon holes that don’t clearly exist in nature, and didn’t in society - until an invented language made them exist.
My second novel follows a holiday romance in the bisexual society of 2035,
and came onto the market on the sixth of this month.
Comments (6)
If someone opposed the publication of that book would they be a Zorn enemy?…..That comment was lame even for me….(post anyway.)
Mr., are you friend or enema?
Interesting to note that only humans seem to have a problem with sexuality, whereas other mammals do not, and in fact seem to relish in the carnal delights of each other…..I think religion is the culprit.
@disillusionisreal - The classic definition of a mammal is that it is covered in hair, brings forth its young alive, and nourishes them with milk. As none of these apply to me, I consider myself a failure.
@darkoozeripple - Welcome Mr. Buzzkillington.
@disillusionisreal - In The West, religion certainly is one of the major culprits. The formula, as I see it, is basically simple. All religions commence with a realisation on the part of some individual that there is a higher, more satisfactory life, a level of understanding or experience that moves us beyond being the mere fleshy prey of daily joys and sorrows. Some form of determined internal work is necessary to attain it, and too much sexual involvement gets in the way, as does too much involvement with becoming rich, or too much concern with the opinions of others. We can easily see from this that chastity, poverty and withdrawal from the world are useful to an extent. These self-realisation systems are usually opposed as dangerous and revolutionary at their beginning, but as they expand from their source, gain “official” recognition, after which they corrupt and ossify into relisions. Things that were originally practical – to an extent – like chastity etc.then become seen as virtues in their own right. There are other complications too, of course. The main one I think is the sheer delight people’s uneducated, petty minds take in interfering in the lives of others. When the smarter and more ambitious of the populace seek to hold the rains of government, they have to win votes by pandering to the prejudices of the flock, and in fact will openly admit to doing so, but in such rounded and responsible sounding terms as “this law is passed because (whatever) is not in accordance with the accepted customs and standards of our society.” Of all the practicallity/virtue conflicts, carnality versus chastity is probably the most flashy, so it makes the news the most. Wealth versus poverty is sort of dull; hooked in a lot with recycling bottles and old hippy values, and the realisation that all forms of goods we don’t need are thrust at us by a consumer society. It’s sort of respectable, and therefore duller, and doesn’t get as contraversial a press.