The Hetero-Nomative Box
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-07-2013, 03:31 PM
RE: The Hetero-Nomative Box
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 03:32 PM (This post was last modified: 19-07-2013 03:43 PM by Atheist_pilgrim.)
RE: The Hetero-Nomative Box
(19-07-2013 02:36 PM)nach_in Wrote:  It is part of the hetero-normative to catalogue any kind of non-heterosexual orientation as promiscuous and unstable, gays are promiscousm, bisexuals only want to fuck everyone and never settle down... When sexual orientation is actually only a definition of the range of people one wants to have sexual relations with, it say nothing about the romantic aspirations of the individual or the family they dream of having (if any) or anything else.

But that's part of the subtle effect the box has, is like a theist assuming atheist worship the devil, they can't grasp the idea of disbelief, so they try to define it in their own terms (hence the devil worshipping thing) instead of acquiring new terms to define things they don't understand.

The worst part of our boxes is that they're invisible, we don't know we have them until we brake them

Notice that I didn't mention gays or bisexuals as "on the fringe" or promiscuous - I included them in the reproductive class within a committed union. While I agree that asexuals and omni/pansexuals may also want to commit to a partner and reproduce, the West's falling birthrate inspired me to use them as examples of non-reproductive folks who express sexuality in somewhat extreme terms on a Bell curve: either no sex, or enjoying sex with multiple partners outside of the confines of a committed relationship. Yes, a bit cut-and-dried, but useful for the purpose of illustration.

I should also mention that I'm a big fan of post-apocalyptic fiction, and an intriguing aspect of that genre is the paradigm shift in traditional relationships due to cultural and societal disintegration. It's fascinating to see what might take the place of the so-called nuclear family. Literary examples: Earth Abides, The Stand, and even futuristic/dystopian stuff like The Forever War and Brave New World.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 03:44 PM (This post was last modified: 19-07-2013 03:50 PM by amyb.)
RE: The Hetero-Nomative Box
(19-07-2013 03:32 PM)Atheist_pilgrim Wrote:  Notice that I didn't mention gays or bisexuals as "on the fringe" or promiscuous - I included them in the reproductive class within a committed union. While I agree that asexuals and omni/pansexuals may also want to commit to a partner and reproduce, the West's falling birthrate inspired me to use them as examples of non-reproductive folks who express sexuality in somewhat extreme terms on a Bell curve: either no sex, or enjoying sex with multiple partners outside of the confines of a committed relationship. Yes, a bit cut-and-dried, but useful for the purpose of illustration.

I hate to be that guy again (well, seems I'm always that guy...), but asexual doesn't mean someone who doesn't have sex. A lot of them have sex and procreate. Celibate people don't have sex (unless they're Catholic priests).

But there you go again about omnisexual/pansexual: you said "enjoying sex with multiple partners outside of the confines of a committed relationship." That's not what those words mean (and I did look itup to make sure). Pansexuality means one has the capacity to be attracted to male, female, or non-gender-binary folks. (Just like a woman can be bisexual and in a committed relationship with a man, and not sleep around on him.) It has nothing at all to do with not being in a committed relationship, and (like asexuality) has nothing at all to do with the amount of sex a person has. And neither of these has anything at all to do with the birthrate (I'd say that has more to do with education, careers and birth control than anything).

Just explaining why I don't think the examples worked.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 03:44 PM
RE: The Hetero-Nomative Box
(19-07-2013 03:32 PM)Atheist_pilgrim Wrote:  
(19-07-2013 02:36 PM)nach_in Wrote:  It is part of the hetero-normative to catalogue any kind of non-heterosexual orientation as promiscuous and unstable, gays are promiscousm, bisexuals only want to fuck everyone and never settle down... When sexual orientation is actually only a definition of the range of people one wants to have sexual relations with, it say nothing about the romantic aspirations of the individual or the family they dream of having (if any) or anything else.

But that's part of the subtle effect the box has, is like a theist assuming atheist worship the devil, they can't grasp the idea of disbelief, so they try to define it in their own terms (hence the devil worshipping thing) instead of acquiring new terms to define things they don't understand.

The worst part of our boxes is that they're invisible, we don't know we have them until we brake them

Notice that I didn't mention gays or bisexuals as "on the fringe" or promiscuous - I included them in the reproductive class within a committed union. While I agree that asexuals and omni/pansexuals may also want to commit to a partner and reproduce, the West's falling birthrate inspired me to use them as examples of non-reproductive folks who express sexuality in somewhat extreme terms on a Bell curve: either no sex, or enjoying sex with multiple partners outside of the confines of a committed relationship. Yes, a bit cut-and-dried, but useful for the purpose of illustration.

I did noticed, I was just commenting on amyb's post, specifically this part: "to be attracted to any gender, it doesn't mean "sleeps around with thousands of people and never settles down," so I'd see no reason why such a person wouldn't have a family either"

I see your point about asexuals doing other roles rather than reproductive roles in society. But I'd argue that the roles themselves may not by so cut and dry, even for illustration. Heterosexual couples who don't want children, asexual couples or individuals who adopt (or have artificial insemination), gay couples who adopt... Those are very viable possibilities for fulfilling roles in society based on reproduction or raising children.

The point you raise has this delicate issue of assigning specific roles to a sexuality, and we've seen that kind of thinking go awry with the whole "mom should stay in home and raise the children" thing.


I understand that you were just making conversation (I don't think you're a homophobic misogynist pig).

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 04:04 PM (This post was last modified: 19-07-2013 04:09 PM by Atheist_pilgrim.)
RE: The Hetero-Nomative Box
I suppose there are better or more specific terms I could use than asexual or pansexual, but again, I'm just making a fairly simple generalization with these terms to construct a basic foundation to work with. I confess I wonder how someone who was really into sex with both genders could be happy with one person - guess that's where an open marriage comes into play? But that's not exactly traditional, either.

Based on my interest in post-apocalyptic lit, I'm simply curious about how the world would look if we lived in a society where "family" and "reproduction" had different meanings. In a more realistic setting, perhaps I wonder how these terms would be expressed in a world where asexuals and pansexuals (as I'm using the terms), and people in general, were able to operate outside the "Hetero-Normative Box", if I'm understanding that term within the context of this thread.

For example, I consider myself an asexual/demisexual who wouldn't mind passing on my genes without having to raise kids, so would I be happier in a society where it was easy and non-binding to act as a sperm donor to a lesbian couple while remaining celibate? Or, given that at my age (46) I kind of like my freedom, would I be OK in a legally-recognized poly amorous "marriage" with similar benefits accorded to a traditional marriage where I was more of a "secondary" partner in the trio?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 04:15 PM
RE: The Hetero-Nomative Box
^I think a lot of people just want a two-person relationship, though, and I think that's why it's the norm, even among non-heterosexuals. And then, if they want kids, they would have them within that 2 person relationship. And also because that's usually the relationship model they grew up seeing.

Quote: I confess I wonder how someone who was really into sex with both genders could be happy with one person - guess that's where an open marriage comes into play?
Some aren't, but I'd say it's the same as a hetero man who could find any of a variety of women attractive, but chooses to settle into a monogamous relationship with just one woman. Again, I think you are confusing "nonheteroseuxal" with "person who sleeps around/sex addict."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 04:32 PM
RE: The Hetero-Nomative Box
(19-07-2013 04:15 PM)amyb Wrote:  Some aren't, but I'd say it's the same as a hetero man who could find any of a variety of women attractive, but chooses to settle into a monogamous relationship with just one woman. Again, I think you are confusing "nonheteroseuxal" with "person who sleeps around/sex addict."

Nah, I'm not being that extreme - less "person who sleeps around/sex addict", more "person who naturally expresses him or herself in a sexual fashion." Not that they drop trou for anyone, but that they are cool with having sex with people as an expression of friendship or admiration, without baggage or attachment, and not as the result of an addiction or expression of mental illness/sociopathy. If I imply non heterosexuality, I do so in the context of this thread - IMO, such a person would be the ultimate example of being outside the Hetero-Normative Box, as they are equally cool being sexual with both genders.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 04:50 PM
RE: The Hetero-Nomative Box
(19-07-2013 04:04 PM)Atheist_pilgrim Wrote:  I suppose there are better or more specific terms I could use than asexual or pansexual, but again, I'm just making a fairly simple generalization with these terms to construct a basic foundation to work with. I confess I wonder how someone who was really into sex with both genders could be happy with one person - guess that's where an open marriage comes into play? But that's not exactly traditional, either.

Based on my interest in post-apocalyptic lit, I'm simply curious about how the world would look if we lived in a society where "family" and "reproduction" had different meanings. In a more realistic setting, perhaps I wonder how these terms would be expressed in a world where asexuals and pansexuals (as I'm using the terms), and people in general, were able to operate outside the "Hetero-Normative Box", if I'm understanding that term within the context of this thread.

For example, I consider myself an asexual/demisexual who wouldn't mind passing on my genes without having to raise kids, so would I be happier in a society where it was easy and non-binding to act as a sperm donor to a lesbian couple while remaining celibate? Or, given that at my age (46) I kind of like my freedom, would I be OK in a legally-recognized poly amorous "marriage" with similar benefits accorded to a traditional marriage where I was more of a "secondary" partner in the trio?

well, heterosexual people are never fully satisfied with their partners either, bigger boobs, better ass, bigger arms, better abs, cuter face, you name it... I think for bi/pan people it's kind of like that in some way.

For the hypothetical world, it would be weird for sure, there would be some bizarre mating rituals I'd like to see, not as straight forward as night clubs and stuff like that nowadays. Maybe some fashion code would rise, along the lines of the Handkerchief Code but in a more open way.
I imagine publicity like "express yourself: buy our new brand of hair dyes for your sexual allure" or some cheesy thing like that Tongue

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 04:59 PM
RE: The Hetero-Nomative Box
(19-07-2013 04:32 PM)Atheist_pilgrim Wrote:  
(19-07-2013 04:15 PM)amyb Wrote:  Some aren't, but I'd say it's the same as a hetero man who could find any of a variety of women attractive, but chooses to settle into a monogamous relationship with just one woman. Again, I think you are confusing "nonheteroseuxal" with "person who sleeps around/sex addict."

Nah, I'm not being that extreme - less "person who sleeps around/sex addict", more "person who naturally expresses him or herself in a sexual fashion." Not that they drop trou for anyone, but that they are cool with having sex with people as an expression of friendship or admiration, without baggage or attachment, and not as the result of an addiction or expression of mental illness/sociopathy. If I imply non heterosexuality, I do so in the context of this thread - IMO, such a person would be the ultimate example of being outside the Hetero-Normative Box, as they are equally cool being sexual with both genders.
Ok, I was confused by your use of sexual orientations (asexual, pansexual) to denote the amount of sex a person was having. Again, pansexual doesn't mean they are nonmonogamous, or have sex with people for different reasons than heterosexuals have sex with people, or that they have more or less sex than "normal" people.

Personally, I think it'd be great if people just threw away the "normal" relationship model, but I think people keep this model because it's what they want, not because it's necessarily what society dictates. Sure, some people may not feel comfortable expressing their sexuality or what they want in a relationship honestly because of society, but I really think that most people's ideal relationship is probably a monogamous one.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2013, 05:02 PM
RE: The Hetero-Nomative Box
OH!!! btw!! omnisexual is a term coined in Dr Who to define the sexual orientation of the Captain Jack Harness, he was sexually attracted to every gender of every species of every planet in the universe... O.o

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: