Hanne Blank has written a book on the history of “straight” and found that the heterosexual-homosexual dichotomy is fairly recent. Like mid
1800’a recent. Hmmm. No labels. So that must mean that I have been right all along.
From my earliest years teaching human sexuality I have maintained that the sexualities of people, with the possible exception of people that really want to hurt other people, are normal. Hell, the hurters may be normal too, in the sense of genetically driven, but I don’t have the data on that. The variations are numberless, with “none” and “pure something” probably the extremes. But you know something? There is a lot of ground to cover between these bookends of human desire. Way more than the usual GLBTQ -----.
Consider this: If we didn’t need a category for “straight” until the mid-1800’s, then what were we before that? What was the stick to measure against? Beats me. Probably none. Ok, the Bible and other writings categorize people by sexual orientation. Laws likewise do it, mostly but not
exclusively Bible based. But why? What is it about sexual orientation that is
so threatening to so many that they devises laws and punishments for everything
but “normal” (their normal of course)? Why should someone worry about someone
else under the sheets? Who cares? Clearly a lot of “someones” care.
The answer is a glaring one: we are taught to be as we are, mostly, and to revile, ignore or seek to heal all who are different. We individually are the stick we use to measure against. And it is not a natural stick either. It is a society-based and learned set of values or rules to be followed or ostracized. Or killed (think Matthew Shepard).
The world is changing somewhat, and that is good. The gains
made by the spectrum of people who are not considered “normal” are in some
cases real, but are they enduring? Time will tell, and personally I think not.
Hope? Yes. Work for? Yes. Expect to last? No.
In the next few weeks I am going to explore my own history of “straight” and see where it takes me. It isn’t as straight a path as I once thought.
1800’a recent. Hmmm. No labels. So that must mean that I have been right all along.
From my earliest years teaching human sexuality I have maintained that the sexualities of people, with the possible exception of people that really want to hurt other people, are normal. Hell, the hurters may be normal too, in the sense of genetically driven, but I don’t have the data on that. The variations are numberless, with “none” and “pure something” probably the extremes. But you know something? There is a lot of ground to cover between these bookends of human desire. Way more than the usual GLBTQ -----.
Consider this: If we didn’t need a category for “straight” until the mid-1800’s, then what were we before that? What was the stick to measure against? Beats me. Probably none. Ok, the Bible and other writings categorize people by sexual orientation. Laws likewise do it, mostly but not
exclusively Bible based. But why? What is it about sexual orientation that is
so threatening to so many that they devises laws and punishments for everything
but “normal” (their normal of course)? Why should someone worry about someone
else under the sheets? Who cares? Clearly a lot of “someones” care.
The answer is a glaring one: we are taught to be as we are, mostly, and to revile, ignore or seek to heal all who are different. We individually are the stick we use to measure against. And it is not a natural stick either. It is a society-based and learned set of values or rules to be followed or ostracized. Or killed (think Matthew Shepard).
The world is changing somewhat, and that is good. The gains
made by the spectrum of people who are not considered “normal” are in some
cases real, but are they enduring? Time will tell, and personally I think not.
Hope? Yes. Work for? Yes. Expect to last? No.
In the next few weeks I am going to explore my own history of “straight” and see where it takes me. It isn’t as straight a path as I once thought.
Image: http://www.hanneblank.com/img/book_straight_176x272.jpg
If life or sexuality are as straight as we would like them to be, biology would not exist. Even the simplest things alive function (physiologically, molecular, sub-cellular,chemically) at least on a binomial scale... Straight is simply a misunderstanding of the true meaning of quantum of life.
ReplyDelete