Sexuality is usually defined by gender, not by sex.
But, of course, Annie-Xmas was referring to sexual intercourse. And, well, no. Who each group has sex with is not the only difference. It is also who they get in romantic relationships with. It is who they are attracted to, even if they have no desire to have sex with that person.
Hence why, say, the fact that a gay marriage showed up in an Arthur episode didn’t make the show about sex. Gay characters on screen doesn’t make things sexual, unlike what the prudes would say.
And that is what is meant by “being gay is not all about sex.”
Exactly. Rah-rahs do not think that a person of the same sex can fall in love, marry, and remain faithful to one person of their sex. They think that gays are sexual deviants and mentally ill people who will have sex with anyone of their own sex who is willing to have them.
I’ve had them tell me “A man who has sex with a young girl is a pedophile. A man who has sex with a young boy is a homosexual.” Shades of Anita Bryant!
What’s interesting to me is how people many people feel that state endorsement of this one specific relationship is needed to accept it, that a man referring to a man as ‘my husband’ is only OK in the era after it became a state approved relationship. Why does husband/wife being acceptable depend on the legal status of the relationship and not on the people involved the way boyfriend/girlfriend does, or on religious standards (which can be more or less restrictive than the law)? And does this legal logic apply other ways - if a couple claimed to be husband and wife but couldn’t legally marry because one was infertile (that used to be the law in some states) or because they were different races (again, used to be the law), would people then find ‘my husband’ or ‘my wife’ off-putting?
I don’t, because it comes too close to saying (even in jest), “You’re right: being gay really is all about lust.” (See comments by Annie-Xmas and others in this thread.)
Most people I encounter (even when I include the hordes of participants on gender-variant Facebook groups I belong to) think in terms of “what physical body morphology do I (or you or that person over there) find hot & sexy?”, with far fewer people stating that they’re attracted to people who identify as this or that gender, or who are altercast by people in general as being of this or that gender.
Yes, I’ve encountered plenty of transgender activists who read into this the prospect of defining transgender people outside of the identity of folks that a person considers themself attracted to (on the grounds that they don’t have precisely the “right equipment” inside their underwear) – also called “gatekeeping” – and some of them may assert that sexuality is (or should be) defined by gender, and that the details of one’s physical configuration don’t properly belong in a description of sexual orientation. But they don’t constitute a majority.
And I’ve had many conversations with pansexual and genderfluid and agender people who don’t explain their own sexual interests in terms of the possession of this or that physical configuration, but this is less of a “gender matters but sex doesn’t” and more of a “neither gender or sex matters” attitude; and even then there are a lot of dlsclaimers about specific configurations, including morphological elements, that they don’t find attractive (“I date pretty much everybody except cisgender males”, for example).
And outside of the genderqueer/transgender segment of the rainbow? It seems to be first and foremost very much about the physical architecture, even if gender does also come into play (e.g., “Eww, no, I woudn’t wanna kiss her, she has chin hairs and her hair’s cut like mine, it would be like kissing Joe the plumber or something”).
Curious about what you’ve observed that leads you to make the statement that you made.
For the same reason why straight women take their husbands’ names: So that everyone in the family will have the same name. Now, there’s no particular reason, among straight couples, why it should always be the man’s name: I could envision myself, if ever I were to marry, taking my wife’s name. Or both could change their name to some new name, perhaps a portmanteau of their original names. But obviously, in a lesbian marriage, if both of them end up with the same name, there’s going to be at least one woman changing her name.
I voted that I’m okay with it because there wasn’t a “people can call themselves whatever they want why would I care?” option. I’m an asexual lesbian, so I fall in love with those of the female gender romantically, but not sexually. And I’m not anything sexually. If I ever galaged to find my way into a relationship I doubt we’d marry, but even if we did, I would prefer, soulmate to wife. I’d find “wife” squicky for me to use, but I have no problem with anyone else using it if it makes them happy.
I thought of that, too, but decided the necessary shock value was worth this one little instance of reinforcing a mistaken notion of what any coupling is exclusively about (and same-sex couplings have indeed been wrongly considered by many as particularly sex-focused).
To be honest, I still have a bit of trouble saying, “My Wife” when referring to the woman I married – and that happened a dozen years ago! I tend to think, Wow! Can I say that? Wow! Somebody likes me that much?
And it just occurred to me that it’s probably the “my” portion that bothers me most but that’s just because I’ve never felt a person can possess another person in any way. Then again, I guess if someone is voluntarily devoted to me, ‘my’ is the currently-most-parsimonious term available these days.
–G!
[You belong to me…]
Tell him you were foolin’
[You belong to me…]
You belong, you belong, you belong, you belong…
…–Michael McDonald (Doobie Brothers)
…You Belong to Me (Cover of Carly Simon’s & McDonald’s original)
…Livin’ on the Fault Line
Might that be a bit of an overreaction? Using “my” does not always imply ownership, does it? It can denote a relationship. My wife does not belong to me, per se. I live in California so California is my state, but California does not belong to me.
When I first got married it was a little awkward saying “my wife”, but then I got used to it.
But I don’t own her. In fact it’s the other way around – she owns me and all of my possessions and net worth!
As a flaming heterosexual, I have no problem with whom you cohabit or marry. But I have an honest question. How do you decide what to call your “partner” (that’s an all-purpose term). If two women are married, are you both wives? Husbands? One of each? Which is which?
Similarly with two males married.
Is it flexible? Random? A personal decision? Whatever?
Well, yes, and that’s the other half of my point. It’s still tough my low self-esteem to accept that someone has wanted to stay in this relationship for so long – but maybe she’s just holding out for my meager possessions and only-slightly-better net worth
I guess as long as we’ve moved beyond “significant other” we’ve made some progress. Not that such a term seems incorrect, but it always felt more cumbersome (six syllables) than “wife”, “spouse”, et cetera.
–G!
“Hi, I’m Ralph and this is Jane, my et cetera.”
:dubious:
Why in the world would you refer to a female married person as a husband regardless of what sex their spouse is? The same question for calling a male spouse a wife?
I had to get over hetero people using “partner” being jarring; in a way it’s kind of the same thing. For quite a while I had a reflex “Wait, you’re gay?”. With same sex wife/husband it was more of a stutter step “Huh?..oh I get it”. Both have well faded away.
It actually feels less weird to me than all the wrangling over partner, SO, companion, etc. Even before legal marriage, I thought, boy/girlfriend, fiance, and husband/wife are perfectly cromulent. Other terms seemed more appropriate for straight couples defying marriage norms than gay couples trying not to make waves.
Is this a serious question? Unless someone is gender questioning, you use the gendered noun that’s appropriate for their gender. It’s called ‘English language’.
My wife is a woman. So she’s called ‘my wife’. As am I. No one is ‘the man’.
