Romantic Orientation?
One of the ongoing challenges we have when presenting a case for equality for all human beings is that whenever we bring up the topic of gay and lesbian individuals, someone screams something to the effect of "We can't teach children about sex!"
The upshot of this is clear. Lesbian and gay individuals are expected to remain in the closet, quietly tucked out of sight, lest the simple fact of our existence open a Pandora's box of questions about who does what with various body parts in that relationship.
However, the simple truth of the matter is that we do teach children about sex. Every February 14 starting when I was in kindergarten, we had a party in the classroom in which we all exchanged little pieces of paper with abstract pink shapes on them that we were told were hearts (but which we all now know are labia). Our teachers held up pictures of Cupid and told us that he flies around shooting people with arrows and making them fall in love. Somehow, we, as a society, have no problem teaching children about romance without bringing up how romance is part of our mating practices and therefore an inherent part of human sexuality.
Heretofore I've spent a fair amount of time bitching that the "Think of the children!" histrionics comes from an inherent, prejudicial preoccupation with what same-sex couples do in the bedroom. And that might still be true. But I'm beginning to think that it's not the whole picture.
Certainly there are people who will remain obsessed with (and opposed to) gay sex no matter what we do. But a surprising number of otherwise rational individuals (including many gays and lesbians) can be convinced that children shouldn't learn about sexual orientation because it's too-young an introduction to sexual concepts.
Therefore, I wonder if the problem is the term "sexual orientation."
Yes, anyone schooled in psychology knows that sexual orientation involves much, much more than which sex acts turn you on. In fact, two people with the same sexual orientation can have extremely different sexual preferences, to the point of complete incompatibility. The "sex" in "sexual orientation" is really "gender" when we come down to it.
But, ultimately, there's still more to it than the physical attraction. There's also the emotional bonding that occurs.
We humans are perfectly capable of having sexual relations against our sexual orientation. According to many studies, a majority of Americans have done so. And -- at least since the concept of sexual orientation was first defined in the 19th century -- people do not self-identify as bisexual or homosexual or heterosexual based on what genders they have had sexual relations with, they self-identify based on which gender or genders they fall in love with. It's about the bond that forms, the desire to spend forever with someone working together as a family unit, not whether or not someone is capable of providing us with an orgasm.
Ergo, I would like to propose a semantics change. Let's leave the term "sexual orientation" to the psychologists who know how to use it properly. The rest of us, when talking in public, let's use the term "romantic orientation."
With a "romantic orientation" there's no risk of teaching young children about sex when they meet a same-sex couple. The couple has a different romantic orientation and they fell in love with each other instead of falling in love with someone of the opposite gender. This is no more teaching children about sex than celebrating Valentine's Day is. Cupid behaves a little differently around them, that's all.
Yes, those who are bound and determined to hate us no matter what will still scream about how it's bad for the children. But with a simple linguistic adaptation we can G-rate the discussion for those who don't (and shouldn't be expected to) understand the complexity of human sexuality.
Let's try it.
Update: A friend over on facebook pointed out an earlier post on Waking Up Now which used "homoromantic" instead of "homosexual." Let's use that one, too. Waking Up Now also independently suggested "romantic orientation" at least a year ago. Great minds think alike!
The upshot of this is clear. Lesbian and gay individuals are expected to remain in the closet, quietly tucked out of sight, lest the simple fact of our existence open a Pandora's box of questions about who does what with various body parts in that relationship.
However, the simple truth of the matter is that we do teach children about sex. Every February 14 starting when I was in kindergarten, we had a party in the classroom in which we all exchanged little pieces of paper with abstract pink shapes on them that we were told were hearts (but which we all now know are labia). Our teachers held up pictures of Cupid and told us that he flies around shooting people with arrows and making them fall in love. Somehow, we, as a society, have no problem teaching children about romance without bringing up how romance is part of our mating practices and therefore an inherent part of human sexuality.
Heretofore I've spent a fair amount of time bitching that the "Think of the children!" histrionics comes from an inherent, prejudicial preoccupation with what same-sex couples do in the bedroom. And that might still be true. But I'm beginning to think that it's not the whole picture.
Certainly there are people who will remain obsessed with (and opposed to) gay sex no matter what we do. But a surprising number of otherwise rational individuals (including many gays and lesbians) can be convinced that children shouldn't learn about sexual orientation because it's too-young an introduction to sexual concepts.
Therefore, I wonder if the problem is the term "sexual orientation."
Yes, anyone schooled in psychology knows that sexual orientation involves much, much more than which sex acts turn you on. In fact, two people with the same sexual orientation can have extremely different sexual preferences, to the point of complete incompatibility. The "sex" in "sexual orientation" is really "gender" when we come down to it.
But, ultimately, there's still more to it than the physical attraction. There's also the emotional bonding that occurs.
We humans are perfectly capable of having sexual relations against our sexual orientation. According to many studies, a majority of Americans have done so. And -- at least since the concept of sexual orientation was first defined in the 19th century -- people do not self-identify as bisexual or homosexual or heterosexual based on what genders they have had sexual relations with, they self-identify based on which gender or genders they fall in love with. It's about the bond that forms, the desire to spend forever with someone working together as a family unit, not whether or not someone is capable of providing us with an orgasm.
Ergo, I would like to propose a semantics change. Let's leave the term "sexual orientation" to the psychologists who know how to use it properly. The rest of us, when talking in public, let's use the term "romantic orientation."
With a "romantic orientation" there's no risk of teaching young children about sex when they meet a same-sex couple. The couple has a different romantic orientation and they fell in love with each other instead of falling in love with someone of the opposite gender. This is no more teaching children about sex than celebrating Valentine's Day is. Cupid behaves a little differently around them, that's all.
Yes, those who are bound and determined to hate us no matter what will still scream about how it's bad for the children. But with a simple linguistic adaptation we can G-rate the discussion for those who don't (and shouldn't be expected to) understand the complexity of human sexuality.
Let's try it.
Update: A friend over on facebook pointed out an earlier post on Waking Up Now which used "homoromantic" instead of "homosexual." Let's use that one, too. Waking Up Now also independently suggested "romantic orientation" at least a year ago. Great minds think alike!