Sexual orientation can be about so much more than your partner/s’ genitals

Myth-busting Monday:  Sexual orientation can be about so much more than your partner/s’ genitals.

 

Yes, absolutely.

 

When we think of orientation, we are considering who we are attracted to.  Typically, in our culture, we center our orientation around the gender (a broad concept) and/or the genitals of our partner/s (penis or vulva; we often leave out those that are intersex) and describe orientation as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual1.

 

But this way of understanding and experiencing orientation can leave so much out and is often a sticking point for folks (creating clients for me, as people feel incongruent with the options available).  Culturally, we began defining orientation around our partners’ genitals in the late 1800s2.  Before that, what was discussed more often were the sexual acts practiced, not the ‘bits’ of our partners.  Not coincidentally, it was around this time that science started studying sexuality more thoroughly, and this study allowed for the categorization and pathologizing of people.  Study, categorization, and the medicalization/pathologizing of sexuality did not occur in a vacuum and was influenced by cultural, religious, and personal bias, creating a form of intergenerational stigmatization and trauma we are still living with today. Ugh3.

 

So what’s missing from this genitals-centric model? A lot.  Like the acts or roles you enjoy with partner/s.  The number of partners.  Levels of desire and interest in sex and romance (ex. Asexual and/or aromantic).  Sensations you enjoy.  Other features of attraction that draw you to partner/s (body type, intelligence, ethical mindset, interests, politics, gender expression including non-binary-ness, etc).4

 

Another consideration that is often left out of the genital-focused sexuality, the fluidity of sexuality.  Sexuality can (even should?) change with you as you grow and change throughout life.  You might not like something at 60 that you enjoyed when you were 20.  Sexuality is not a fixed component of our self-hood, though it is an incredibly important aspect of the human experience across our lifetimes.

 

Further, when we focus on “just” the bits of our partner/s, it creates categories, which can turn into hierarchies that rank and “other” people, both within and between categories.  As in, you aren’t lesbian enough if you have slept with a man at some point, or assuming heterosexuality as the default and perpetuating heteronormativity.  Hierarchies are a mechanism of power dynamics and separation, limiting us from affirming the incredible diversity of the human experience. This categorization also contributes to false binaries.  A perfect example is of our partner/s’ genitals – we often think in terms of penis or vulva, but what about our beloved intersex humans?

 

Quick, simplistic categorization misses the nuance and richness of orientation.  So if the utilization of partner/s genitals to define your orientation doesn’t quite work for you, it is likely for good reason.

 

Additional resources/considerations:

  1. Kinsey measured levels of homosexuality in the early 20th century with the Kinsey scale. https://kinseyinstitute.org/research/publications/kinsey-scale.php Others such as the Klein scale was used in the 1980s to look at orientation across time and outside of the sexual encounter itself to include emotional and social connection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_Sexual_Orientation_Grid I wrote about these more here:  https://ignitewell-being.com/sex-gender-and-sexual-orientation/
  2. See the work of MJ Barker.  Their GSRD paper https://www.bacp.co.uk/media/5877/bacp-gender-sexual-relationship-diversity-gpacp001-april19.pdf  as well as their books: Sexuality: A Graphic History and Queer: A Graphic History.
  3. I do feel like the intertwining of the medical field with religion early in the standardization of medicine, the Christian hegemony, and framing of “good” sexuality around procreation participated in the focus around genitals as it was through heterosexual union that allowed reproduction, until recently. So the normalizing of heterosexuality fed into this narrative and was reinforced through cultural and scientific/medical bias.
  4. Sexologists and sexuality professionals counter the genital focus of sexuality with a broader understanding of orientation such as this – all the contributing factors that lend themselves to attraction and desire. A great model that plays with these ideas is call the Sexual Configurations Theory https://www.queensu.ca/psychology/van-anders-lab/SCTzine.pdf

 

 

…………………………………………………………………………

The above content is written by Dr. Allison Mitch, PT (DPT), RYT500; sex-positive/affirming, trauma-informed sexuality counselor and educator (they/them/we/she); copyright protected, please cite accordingly.  The picture is from Pexels.

For more offerings that support sexual well-being, please see: https://ignitewell-being.com/upcoming_events/   or my EventBrite page: https://www.eventbrite.com/o/allison-mitch-41024584863

For more information on my offerings or to work with me directly, please email [email protected] or schedule with me via Calendly https://calendly.com/ignitewellbeing-naperville