07/19/2009 01:30:17 AM EST

Subdivisions of sexuality

posted by chrisandyasemin

Recently, I was pondering to myself, what is it about two women together that REALLY is so fucking amazing to heterosexual males?  Of course the answer seems obvious...two hot chicks getting it on...DUH...Now, when one REALLY analyzes this type of voyeurism, it is hard to ignore the fact that a guy cannot be part of a "two girl fantasy" and still have it be the "two girl fantasy".  It then becomes the "threesome" fantasy.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
Now, on top of this, a male is viewing a lesbian act.  So, this heterosexual male is supposedly turned on by an act in which he cannot be part of for it to be the same act.  It's not a completely voyeuristic fantasy, because part of the arousal somehow lies in the observtion of a strictly non-heterosexual act.  This to me seems to be a non-hetero-sexual act, and I would deem it "hyper-heterosexual".  I would say that a "hyper-heterosexual" gets pleasure in observing sexual in which hetero-sexuals do not get directly involved in.  Approaching from this view, the obvious opposite would be the "hypo-heterosexual".  These could be the people that like "opposite sex individuals who exhibit same sex characteristics".  For example, some men REALLY like flat chested women, and some men REALLY like big floppy tits.  This is not the same as a "hypo-heterosexual" who would like their partner to look like their same sex, but have heterosexual genetalia.  That would be as if a man LOVED butch looking women much more than a playboy model.  These preferences exist, and to blanket them as "heterosexual" seems to me to make "categories" useless.  There has to be a subdivision, because some people are okay with twin on twin action, while the same people would not agree with incest.  I would say that the twins performing the sexual acts could be called homo-incestual necessitating the distinction from hetero-incestual, or bi-incestual.  I think the scary thing about coming up with sexual divisions is that making it a "category" officially acknowledges that more people than we want to admit fuck their twin, and more people than we want to admit like watching it.  Now whether society wants to classify these things as "mental disorders", "sexual deviants", or "criminals", I think that is a step that has to come after acknowledging the difference.  You can't just say that people are sick for watching two lesbian twins make out, and not explain what the difference is between watching lesbians and heterosexuals make out is.  There is a distinct element of non-interaction that maybe creates some "mental distance" to allow people to be aroused by things they've heard society call "inappropriate".  Not to say that I support incest, but to deny it's been happening in civilized society is to deny the stigma of the term.  Of course I am open to suggestions, which is my reason for posting in the first place.  Please voice an opinion if you agree or disagree.  I'll take apathy too!

Chris

< What is the difference between treason and sedition? | C Street Cult House at Center of John Ensign and Mark Sanford Affairs >
 Display:
Subdivisions of sexuality | 9 comments (9 topical, 0 hidden)
Life is a Rainbow (none / 0)
Okay.  Let me apologize right away for even thinking of saying such a sappy thing.

But if we start dividing sexuality into classes based on preferences (whether or not they're genetic or learned), the number of classes quickly becomes unmanageably large, with possibly one class per person.  Can any two people have exactly the same preferences with exactly the same emotional power behind those preferences?  (Hmm.  It strikes me that we need a scale for measuring "emotional power", but this probably shows my ignorance of psychology.)

For many years, I've thought instead of sexuality being a spectrum that has at least two dimensions, if not more.  Class divisions imply that some one is either completely this or that, but a spectrum allows for very small variations in preferences.  In fact, I don't even like using the words "homosexual" or "heterosexual", because those are located at the extreme ends of the spectrum.  And I don't like "bisexual" because it implies that someone has no preference at all.

If someone wants to classify himself or herself as, for instance, a submissive who prefers his own sex but is not averse to having sex with the women, we might be able to locate that set of preferences on a multi-dimensional spectrum.  But calling that person a bisexual who is into BDSM doesn't seem accurate enough.

I realize that artificial divisions can make it easy when we need to generalize about people with similar preferences.  I just think its useful to remember that sexuality is not a set of discrete preferences.  We are more like a rainbow.

Now, as for the case of twins: isn't that something like masturbation?  Not being a twin, I can't say, but...




Again, please let me say how sorry I am for that syrupy "rainbow" remark.  It just came out.  I couldn't help it.

by EveningStarNM on 07/19/2009 02:19:12 AM EST

we already have fetishes (none / 0)
I'm not arguing that we need to give EVERY sexual preference a name, but I think some the locus of heterosexual and homosexual needs to be expanded.  If heterosexuals are pretty much split down the middle on if it's okay to watch twins have sex, then it's not an individual.  Now, I'm not saying that a person who has a foot fetish is a completely different sexual class than a "heterosexual", and if anything, "hyper-hetero" would be a class that includes people like those who watch lesbian acts, those who watch orgies, those who watch women in cars pressing the gas pedal(this is a true fetish I swear to god), those who like heterosexual domination.  I think the "fetish", is more of the sexual act preferred, where the "sexual orientation" talks more about what kind of partner is desired.  One can like "sadomasichism" and be straight or gay, so to call someone a "sadomasichist" really doesn't talk about their sexual orientation.  I definitely agree that sexuality is on a spectrum, but right now in America, that spectrum only really has three publicly recognized options:straight, gay, bi.  I think as well, the people in the world who are a-sexual, shouldn't get the same classification as a hyper-sexual, or hypo-sexual.  And again, I use these terms only as an example of how the divisions could theoretically be applied.  I think at this point, human sexuality is getting MORE complex, not less complex, so the subdivisions would become more complex as well.

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 07/19/2009 11:54:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hyper- and Hypo- (none / 0)
That is an interesting idea.  I've been trying to develop a mental model for sexuality that incorporates not only the homosexual/heterosexual dimension, but also one or more dimensions for fetishes, too.  My problem has been that there are so many different and seemingly unrelated kinds of fetishes that it's hard to relate them all to one dimension.

How, for instance, does general voyeurism relate to the myriad foot fetishes people can have -- of which the gas pedal foot fetish you mentioned is not the weirdest. Does the specific imagery involved with a fetish matter?  Or are all fetishes basically the same with the only significant characteristic of a fetish being the intensity of a person's desire to indulge it?  For instance, is it meaningful to distinguish between someone who has a leather getish and someone who prefers latex, or even someone whose sexual experience is enhanced by certain kinds of music?  Or is it more meaningful to relate the strength of people's desires for their fetishes?

If the particular interest of a fetish is not important, then a simple "hyper-sexual/hypo-sexual" dimension might suffice.

by EveningStarNM on 07/19/2009 12:37:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
EXACTLY (none / 0)
it's like a phylogenetic tree of sex.  Hetero and Homo at the top, then subdivide between asexualhetero- hypo hetero- hetero- hyperhetero-hyperbiheteroma jora- biheteromajora-hypo biheteromajora- asexual biheteromajora-asexual bihomomajora- hypobihomomajora-bihomomajo ra-hyperbihomomajora- asexual homo-hypohomo- homo- hyperhomo

Holy shit...this is why dialogue is so great!

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 07/19/2009 12:55:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Relating the tree to a spectrum (none / 0)
Here's my rough idea:

A rough 2D representation of sexuality
A rough 2D representation of sexuality

But it could be related more accurately to a 2-dimensional representation of a 3-dimensional color spectrum, relating colors to luminance and chromaticity:

The 1976 CIE Chromaticity Diagram, courtesy of Photo Research, Inc.
The 1976 CIE Chromaticity Diagram

If you imagine that your "phylogenetic tree of sex" replaces the divisions with the color names shown on the field, then you can see what I'm talking about.  The discrete parts of the phyla can be related in a generalizing way to the spectrum.

by EveningStarNM on 07/19/2009 05:35:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
who says (none / 0)
tabali tigi tree" weed kills motivation "?

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 07/19/2009 01:50:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I've never seen weed do anything like that. (none / 0)
Thai stick, maybe.  Hashish, certainly.  But weed?  I want to see it.  Those leaves have got to be dripping.

by EveningStarNM on 07/19/2009 04:05:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I take what he's been smoking! (none / 0)
Good post, though ;).

by eborujion on 07/19/2009 03:41:07 AM EST

to the left (none / 0)
my brotha to the left...

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 07/19/2009 11:54:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Subdivisions of sexuality | 9 comments (9 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: