Still, it had the virtue of
one’s having to exert tremendous effort in the search for knowledge (meaning
objective facts), which made you appreciate it all the more once you had it.
And it also meant you would probably remember it a lot longer than today,
precisely because of the effort you
had to make.
In recent years—since the
nineties, which, to someone like me, born slightly less than halfway through
the previous century, seems like “only yesterday”—I’ve learned a whole new way
to do research. Despite being rather an “old dog” by the time the Internet
appeared on the scene, I didn’t consider myself above learning new tricks. And
almost by accident, I found myself being something of a pioneer, within my
limited circle, of the “working at home” culture of the Internet Era.
I’ve been doing precisely
that since 1995, when dial-up Internet connections first appeared in Patagonia,
a region to which I had moved less than two years before that. In doing so, I
came face to face with a self-fulfilling prophecy that I myself had made nearly
a decade before, when, writing a communications sidebar to a cover story that Apertura magazine of Buenos Aires
published on “The Future”, I said that, in the not so distant future, guys like
me, who made their living researching and writing, would be able to do both
from the comfort of their own home, even if they lived in a cabin, in the
middle of the mountains, in one of the most remote places on earth.
At the time I wrote it, I
still lived in a mid-town apartment in Buenos Aires, and it had seemed like a
pipe-dream. I mean, I didn’t doubt that it would happen eventually—just not in
my lifetime. But suddenly, there I was, a decade later, in my mid-forties, in
my Internet-based studio—in a cabin, in the middle of the mountains, in the
remote Argentine Patagonia—researching, writing and translating for a variety
of clients scattered everywhere from Buenos Aires to Miami, from Madrid to New
York, and from Houston to Patagonia. And although, in the beginning, even
people in the US had qualms about doing business through the World Wide Web, I
hung in there and convinced them there was no need for my presence in big-city
offices, or for material to travel by snail mail, or for us to use faxes and
teletypes when the Internet could do it all.
What it meant for me
personally, was that I had gone from being a stodgy old-school newsman whose
manual typewriter they had practically had to pry out of my cold, dead hands,
to being among the earliest advocates of the Internet, as much more than a
clever novelty—as, indeed, an incredibly useful tool for communication and
research.
I was just thinking about
that again today when, in some reading I was doing, I came across some
information about a French actress who said she identified as “sapiosexual”. Well, I was stumped. I mean, although I am a
very open-minded and liberal person, as someone who grew up in rural Ohio in an
era when sexual orientations were obtusely considered to be two—please check
one box only, M or F—and anyone who complained about it was sent to therapy, if
not to jail, I’ve had to practice to be able to memorize and pronounce the
initials LGBTQ. And while I’m a great believer in people doing whatever they want
to with their bodies, and particularly with their genitalia, as long as their
partners are willing, as long as there’s no pedophilia or unwilling subjugation
involved, and as long as I don’t have to watch, it’s okay with me—although
watching’s okay too, if that’s what turns you on—I have to admit that a lot of
definitions of distinct sexualities have escaped me entirely.
Indeed, I had no idea how many were escaping me until I decided to quickly research sapiosexuality. Looking the term up, I immediately came up with numerous explanations. The best definition was, in short, being sexually or erotically aroused by intelligence, no matter what the physical sex of the other person was. I actually found that a pretty cool idea. A sort of highly cultivated sexual orientation. I mean, I’m far too intellectually inferior and hopelessly hetero for it to be an appealing idea to me personally, but I thought, hey, good for them, these “sapios”! Brains turn them on.
Then, of course, seeking
an objective definition, I also read that some sexuality snobs said that while sapiosexuality
might be a preference, it certainly
wasn’t an orientation. I thought, now wait a minute, why not? What was that
saying? That the brain is the most powerful sex organ? In fact, it is the master
sex organ because without it, all sexual activity would be moot. So why not be sexually oriented toward
intelligence?
These can be put down to the
kind of rhetorical questions that assail an experienced editorial writer, I
suppose. But that wasn’t the only thing I had to ponder, because I was floored
by the brand new (for me) discovery that, besides the handful of sexual
orientations about which I’d already reduced my ignorance, another couple of
scores existed as well!
It was my own fault. This
was what I got for looking up a new term. Start pulling on a loose thread, and
the whole shebang came unraveled. How the heck many sexualities can there be,
you ask? ¨
Here’s a little
sampling.
Allosexual:
As far as I can tell, most of us are this. It means, simply, someone who
experiences sexual attraction, period. Doesn’t everybody, you ask? No. Allosexuality is the opposite of Asexuality, and one helps define the
other. Someone asexual either has very reduced sexual response, or simply
doesn’t experience sexual attraction of any kind. That, however, doesn’t
necessarily keep asexuals from feeling romantic attraction to specific people
of both (all) sexes. And as such, they may even engage in sexual
activity—presumably without really being into it.
Androsexual
means being attracted to all things male and masculine. That seems pretty
straightforward, like a me Tarzan, you Jane, kind of thing, but it’s not that
simple. It has to do with being attracted to anyone who identifies as being male or masculine—regardless of biology,
anatomy or whatever sex was assigned to the object of that attraction on his or
her birth certificate.
Then there’s Aromantic
(as opposed to “a romantic”), which simply means people, regardless of sex or
gender, who experience little or no romantic
attraction to anybody. But that definition says nothing about their possibly of
still having a strong sex drive and taking part in “unromantic” sex. Or maybe
they just end up being Autosexual, which sounds an awful lot like what we used
to call “self-abuse”, but apparently isn’t, because (it says here), “someone’s
desire to engage in sexual behavior such as masturbation doesn’t determine
whether they’re autosexual…” So, wait, I’m confused. If that doesn’t define autosexual, what does?
Now, an Autoromantic is a
whole other ball of wax. These are individuals who are attracted to themselves.
Autoromantics apparently find themselves experiencing relationships they have
with themselves as romantic. Not sure how that works, but it would be
worthwhile asking somebody if that’s like the amorous relationship former
President Donald Trump has with himself.
And those are just the ones
on the A-list!
Later, we have the Bicurious
(people who might ask themselves what their sexuality really is and, as a
result, explore bisexual relationships), Bisexual (somebody who is sexually,
romantically or emotionally attracted to people of more than one sexual
orientation or to different genders—in other words, Bicurious folks who have
made up their minds), and Biromantics (individuals who become romantically but
not necessarily sexually attracted to people of more than one gender—which kind
of sounds to me like a bicurious introvert, but hey, that’s not a scientific
explanation, just my own speculation).
 |
| Mexican
artist Frida Kahlo was a gender non-conformity trailblazer. Openly bisexual, she would occasionally dress in clothing considered stereotypically male, as in this family photo, in which she (center) is dressed in a men’s suit with her hair pulled back. Her artwork also reflected her thoughts surrounding identity, gender and sexuality. |
Then, there are the Closeted—as
the term suggests, people who are “in the closet”, or in other words,
individuals who keep their sexual identity, attractions, or gender expressions
secret from the public. Some “closet whatevers” may only keep their secrets in
certain publics, where they are afraid of being rejected, targeted or discriminated
against, but will reveal their proclivities in “friendly” surroundings. Now,
the opposite of Closeted is
Coming Out, or in other words, making the decision
to reveal, or even advertise, one’s sexual identity, proclivity or gender. I’ve
known quite a few outed people and have talked to them about it enough to know
that it often comes after a long process (frequently years) of indecision,
guilt, social ostracism and general suffering. Which is why I’ve always held
those who come out in high esteem for the courage and self-acceptance that it
requires. Now, things get complicated with the term Cupiosexual. These are
asexual individuals who may not experience sexual attraction per se, but who
still have a desire to take part in sexual behavior, or even in a sexual
relationship. (Hey, don’t look at me; I have no idea how this works).
Next on the list are
Demisexuals and Demiromantics. These are very similar terms in that they refer
to having a sexual and/or romantic attraction only under specific
circumstances. This would apply, for instance, to people who need to build a
romantic or emotional bond before feeling sexual attraction. I think this must
apply to quite a number of people I know.
Then there are also
people who just kind of go with the flow. They are aptly described as Fluid,
which has almost nothing to do with wetness as such, but rather, is a
description of people who take it for granted that sexual behavior, sexual
attraction, or sexuality in general can change in accordance with the times and
the circumstances. Someone with fluid sexuality will embrace shifts in their
attractions and behavior in keeping with the circumstances they happen to be
living, or simply over the course of time.
I finally hit on one I
knew—or thought I did—when I came to Gay on the list. As most of us know, gay
individuals (a term that achieved popularity in the sixties) are ones who feel
sexually, romantically and emotionally attracted to people of their own sex.
This is sometimes so strong that a gay friend of mine once told me, when I
mentioned common everyday marriage to him, that he couldn’t help me, since he
had never been able to understand hetero (we’ll get to that in a minute)
relationships.
I also got into a
discussion with another gay friend once when I talked about “gay people”
meaning both men and women. He laughed derisively and said, “Wow, Caveman,
you’ve gotta get out more! Only men are gay. Women are lesbians.” Typical of my
intellectual arrogance, I pressed the point, saying that wasn’t true. That, in
fact, the “gay community”, as conceived of in the sixties, included both male
and female “homosexuals”. That really cracked him up. He said he wouldn’t know.
He’d have to get out his “gay history book” for that one.
Well, I have to say, if
you’re reading this, pal, the accepted definition of Gay, according to the list
I’m quoting from, stands for both males and females. But the list concedes that
“some gay-identified women prefer the term ‘lesbian’, while others might prefer
‘’queer’ or ‘gay’. And, okay, to your point, it also says, “It’s also best to
ask which word or term someone uses to describe themselves.” Also, I guess your
crack about the “gay history book” wasn’t far off, since the report also says,
“The fields of medicine and psychology previously referred to this sexual
orientation as homosexual. “Homosexual” is now viewed as an outdated and
offensive term and shouldn’t be used to refer to LGBTQIA+ people. (Oh man, more
initials to memorize)!
Graysexual:
Right, that’s not a misprint. It’s a term to describe a “gray area” (which, out
of longstanding habit, I would spell as “grey
area”) on the sexuality index. It is reserved for people who may not be overly
sexually attracted to anybody, but
who also don’t identify as asexual/aromantic. They may experience a certain
level of sexual attraction or desire, but not as intensely or frequently as
those who identify as completely beyond asexuality. Similarly, someone Grayromantic might feel
the occasional romantic twinge, but not as strongly or as often as someone
beyond the bounds of aromanticality.
Gynesexual, as should be
clear from the prefix, is all about being attracted to women, females and all
things feminine. As with Androsexuality (see above) Gynesexuality isn’t just
about guys who like girls. The term specifically includes those who identify as
women, females or feminine, regardless of questions of biology, anatomy or
birth-certificate sex.
I found familiar
territory when I got to Heterosexual. But by the time I got to this term that
describes Me, I would have almost modified it with “boring”, as in Boring
Heterosexual. As most of you know, the term describes people who are sexually,
romantically and/or emotionally attracted to people of the opposite gender
(although I have to admit, I’m getting pretty confused about what “opposite”
means). This heading is more commonly known as “Straight”. But that doesn’t
take into account that trans-gender people (someone whose gender identity
differs from that typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth)
can also be heterosexual, as can cisgender folks (someone whose internal sense
of gender corresponds with the sex the person was identified as having at birth),
which is pretty much the majority of people. People like us aren’t included in
the initials LGBTQIA+ (Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, Intersex—a general term to describe
people born with sexual characteristics that are not typically male or female, including
sex chromosomes, external genitalia, or an internal reproductive system—and
Asexual), with the plus being added, I presume, to symbolize “whatever else
might crop up in the future.”
And
the list goes on:
Labidoist
Asexual (people who are ostensibly asexual but who have sexual cravings
satisfied by other means, such as masturbation), Monosexual (typically, those
who feel attracted only to people of one gender—meaning people who are
exclusively heterosexual, gay or lesbian), Non-Labidoist Asexuals (people with
no sexual attraction or sex drive at all), Omnisexuals (people with an
indiscriminate sexual appetite that spans the entire spectrum of sexual
possibilities), and similarly, Pansexuals/Panromantics (people who can feel
sexual, romantic or emotional attraction to anyone, regardless of their gender,
sex or sexual orientation).
Sex-Averse is not so much
a choice of sexuality as exactly the opposite—people in the “asexual”
classification who are utterly disinterested in or even violently opposed to
sex and sexual behavior and activity in general. Sex-Favorable is the term
reserved for usually asexual people who can, in certain situations, be positive
toward or even favorable to sex. Then there is Sex-Indifferent, in other words,
asexual-leaning people who are, nevertheless, indifferent to or neutral to sex
or sexual behavior issues. Sex-Repulsed, meanwhile, is, as the name implies,
the term that describes asexuals who are, directly opposed to and repelled by
anything to do with sex. Skoliosexuality is the word for those who are
attracted to others who do not identify as cis-gender—for instance, non-binary,
genderqueer, and transgender individuals. Spectrasexuals are sexually or romantically
attracted to people of multiple or varied sexual and gender persuasions, but
not necessarily to all of them.
But in the end, why
describe, classify, or pigeonhole others at all? Why not just accept everyone
as another human being like you or me, with all of our doubts, dichotomies,
preferences, proclivities, quirks and idiosyncrasies? But in the end, nevertheless,
all children of the Earth, just seeking to get through this life the best way
we know how. What business is it of mine what lifestyle you embrace? What
business is it or yours whom I fall in love with, or what we do behind closed
doors to express it, and in the intimacy of private lives?
