Rant: After reading Tim Dean's "Beyond Sexuality"

I've been having a less than brilly last few weeks... A lot of it hinges on my thesis, and the outlined problems that have been occurring (and reoccurring...) therein. Some of it has to do with my job, which makes me alternately angry, frustrated, and bored to the point of exhaustion. A bit has to do with the readings that I've been doing for class, all of which leave me with thoughts that won't be implemented, ideas that can't be pinned down, and a general feeling of "aaagggh...it's right there, somewhere, the solution to all the intellectual bugaboos that have been plaguing me for the last however-many years."
The readings, in fact, may be most of it. I finished reading Tim Dean's Beyond Sexuality yesterday morning. Let's see if I can outline the arguement. For a long time, I've been trying to wrap my mind around the idea that we, as a culture (and I'm speaking of any culture here, not specifically American or even generic "white culture") define sexuality as what the biological sex of your object choice is, with complete bearing on what your own biological sex is. Think about that for a second. We're more concerned with who does to whom that we're not even concerned with the what that they're doing, where they're doing it, and, I think the most important part, the why. This is how we define sexuality.

But when it comes to regulating sexuality (thesis material reference coming up), we don't just focus on the actors. By regulating procreation in limiting the number of children people can have and still obtain welfare, etc, we're regulating the what, when it gets right down to it.

And it's interesting that we choose to focus on biological sex, instead of gender, when I would argue that most people have a stronger gender preference than they do a sex preference. Hear me out...I very rarely look at dating opportunities and think, "That is a male" (referencing biological sex). I think, "That is a man" (referencing gender identity). A lot of this probably has to do with the fact that I'm by and large attracted to the "gym rat" type--former football, soccer, or baseball players who are generally big guys in height, weight and muscle mass. None of these characteristics have anything to do with the biological factor of being male, perhaps save muscle mass, since more testosterone means one can build muscle more quickly. I would argue that choosing a partner based on gender characteristics is especially prevalent in the gay community. (And if you don't believe me, watch The Broken Heart's Club.)

The "why" that's left out in considering how to define sexuality is the most important part, I think. What if people were defined solely by why they choose the partners they do, or why they choose to (or if) to sleep with someone? Maybe, when it comes down to it, we use biological sex to define because it's the most visible characteristic we have to go by. Of course, with gender reassignment surgery, we all know that's not exactly a fail-proof screening device... Another why definition might be left out because it disproportionately applies to women, ie, sleeping with someone because of economic reasons (needing someone to provide for you), as a prevention of violence (so he won't beat or kill you), or as an exchange of power (making someone else even momentarily helpless can make you feel more powerful). Maybe if we defined sexuality in those terms (which all those considerations do happen to women all the time, all over the world and right here in the US), women's situation would improve.

Defining your sexuality by whether or not you consent and/or want a sexual encounter is another way to go about it. If sex is, like it is for many women, something that "just happens" to you, I think that's very different than if you are an active, choosing participant. And while fully 1/3 of all women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, we still insist on defining sexuality on the biological sex of the actors involved. This would be what CMacK calls a "hello question." Hello? Does this make sense to anyone else? Is this just another way of ignoring victimization? Do we not focus on women as consenting, wanting actors (and there is a distinction between consenting to an encounter and actually wanting said encounter) because if we did, we would have to reexamine what happens to women every day?
Just asking.

I think I'll get down off the soapbox now. It's a little dizzying up here.