It's everywhere

These pieces frustrated me, left me puzzled and frazzled. I was consistently blindsided by the different terms expressed and the constant arguments of what social constructing is, and what it does, where it begins and where it may never end. Social, scientific, and political agendas are running in circles attempting to catch a wildfire sparked by opposing teams made of biologists and humanists. Biologists aren't allowed to be humanistic or emotions, but all scientists are biased. This question of what it is to be homosexual, hetero, bisexual, male, female will never be answered. One question from 'Heterosexual Quiz,' by Julie D. Moncada, "15. Heterosexuals are noted for assigning themselves and each other to narrowly restricted, stereotyped sex-roles. Why do you cling to such unhealthy role-playing?" made me realize that the problems we have about identifying male/female relations and identification arise from "these ideas of what a "real" woman or man should be straightjacket the freedom of individual self-expression." (Feinberg, 4) If we keep questioning people about whether they feel more masculine or more feminine, we'll drive around in circles, not considering that these outdated modes of identity no longer apply to an ever-changing culture.

'Social Construction Theory' by Carole S. Vance argued with a vicious bias against and sometimes for social construction theory, which left me in a red-seeing daze. "The punch line, "it's only socially constructed"...revealing their belief that only biologically determined phenomena could have any significance in human social life." (Vance, 30) I'm unsure if this is really the punch line or if biologists even think that biology can't coexist with socially constructed culture. It reminds me of the evolution v. creation argument. I always like to pose the question, "What if we were just created to evolve?" What if the culture of sexual identity was created to morph?

Going back to Feinberg's piece, in this, she identifies as a 'female who is more masculine than those prominently portrayed in mass culture.' (Feinberg, 5) I can agree with that, and I constantly see the idea of choosing a color to define myself (even for a baby) would be tremendously limiting. I can't understand, though, what our big issue is about choosing a sexual identity. "Because a sexual identity does not carry with it a universal social meaning, it follows that the relationship between sexual acts and sexual identities is not a fixed one, and it is projected from the observer's time and place to others at great peril." (Vance, 30). Ah.

Vance calls us "sexual objects," and for the life of me, I cannot grasp that we can't just be humans. The idea of claiming a sexual identity and acknowledging others for their individual selves means we must ACKNOWLEDGE there is a DIFFERENCE, and that breeds contempt. To get rid of boxes, we must make MORE boxes? This just seems incredibly tedious, long-winded and backwards. What is our obsession with understand sexual identity?

Yes, sex is everywhere. I just changed the title of my blog and saw the 'b' for 'bold,' and the 'i' for 'italic,' but before I knew it was 'bold' or 'italic,' I registered it as 'Bi' for bisexual. I believe sexual identity is socially constructed, intertwining with history and geography; it's just morphing, as it always has, to work for the culture of today.