Yes, I know there has already been a lot of dialogue about the chalkings
I've heard a lot of comments trying to justify the nature of Coming Out Week chalkings, none of which actually make sense to me. The justification that bothers me the most is the statement that it's important to draw explicit sexual pictures all over the ground because homosexuality is all about sex and our society can't be comfortable with homosexuality until it's comfortable with sex. There are several reasons for which I don't believe this rationale makes sense:
First of all, homosexuality doesn't have MORE to do with sex than heterosexuality; they are both sexual orientations. If you want to pin homosexuality down as all about sex, then heterosexuality is all about sex too. It's not as if a homosexual relationship involves sex and a heterosexual relationship doesn't; it's not as if homosexuals are just more horny than heterosexuals. I feel like the chalkings that deal with sex alone and have nothing to do with homosexual rights or acceptance are equating homosexuality with horniness, thus perpetuating some of the stereotypes they are pretending to combat.
Related to that point, I think it's important to realize that no sexual orientation is all about sex: in my opinion (my innocent little girl opinion, I admit), there's a lot more about attraction, relationships, and all the mushy gushiness that goes into dating in general. Sure, it's hormones, and it's biologically all linked to sex, but there are couples of all orientations who don't have sex. Saying that a sexual orientation is all about sex discounts the validity of those relationships. Most importantly, it flattens all relationships down to the physical, purely hormonal level--which is unfair to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
Yes, sex is part of homosexuality, but it is part of any sexual orientation. I don't feel, however, that it is necessary to confront society's discomfort with sex before confronting its uncomfort with homosexuality. Requiring sex as a gateway to homosexual rights discussion requires that people enter the issue with a view that focuses on act rather than emotion. Combined with the percentage and prominence of the chalkings that focus on sex, this limited view implies that sex is the most important part of a homosexual relationship (self-insulting?) and that a discomfort with sex is the main reason for society's discomfort with homosexuality. Granted, I haven't done research on this, and I am by no means an expert in the situation, but I am a human being who knows how to separate sex from love. Sexual orientation does not involve HOW we love, but WHO we love. The question should not be "How can we convince society that homosexual SEX is valid," but "how can we convince society that homosexual LOVE is valid?" Wouldn't it be more effective to confront society's discomfort with the emotion than with the physical act? Doesn't it make more sense to discuss the fact that a homosexual couple can love each other as much as a heterosexual couple instead of discussing how they have sex?
First of all, homosexuality doesn't have MORE to do with sex than heterosexuality; they are both sexual orientations. If you want to pin homosexuality down as all about sex, then heterosexuality is all about sex too. It's not as if a homosexual relationship involves sex and a heterosexual relationship doesn't; it's not as if homosexuals are just more horny than heterosexuals. I feel like the chalkings that deal with sex alone and have nothing to do with homosexual rights or acceptance are equating homosexuality with horniness, thus perpetuating some of the stereotypes they are pretending to combat.
Related to that point, I think it's important to realize that no sexual orientation is all about sex: in my opinion (my innocent little girl opinion, I admit), there's a lot more about attraction, relationships, and all the mushy gushiness that goes into dating in general. Sure, it's hormones, and it's biologically all linked to sex, but there are couples of all orientations who don't have sex. Saying that a sexual orientation is all about sex discounts the validity of those relationships. Most importantly, it flattens all relationships down to the physical, purely hormonal level--which is unfair to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
Yes, sex is part of homosexuality, but it is part of any sexual orientation. I don't feel, however, that it is necessary to confront society's discomfort with sex before confronting its uncomfort with homosexuality. Requiring sex as a gateway to homosexual rights discussion requires that people enter the issue with a view that focuses on act rather than emotion. Combined with the percentage and prominence of the chalkings that focus on sex, this limited view implies that sex is the most important part of a homosexual relationship (self-insulting?) and that a discomfort with sex is the main reason for society's discomfort with homosexuality. Granted, I haven't done research on this, and I am by no means an expert in the situation, but I am a human being who knows how to separate sex from love. Sexual orientation does not involve HOW we love, but WHO we love. The question should not be "How can we convince society that homosexual SEX is valid," but "how can we convince society that homosexual LOVE is valid?" Wouldn't it be more effective to confront society's discomfort with the emotion than with the physical act? Doesn't it make more sense to discuss the fact that a homosexual couple can love each other as much as a heterosexual couple instead of discussing how they have sex?