“Sexual orientation” is a funny thing

Many children—gay or straight—seem to know early on what their “sexual orientation” is even before they have any sexual contact. They do not yet know what “feels good.” And, in fact, a lot of people do not even try both major genders of sexual partners before settling on which one they “prefer.” Unlike ice cream flavor preference, sexual preference appears to manifest itself before a “test drive.”

But if sexual/physical touch isn’t necessary to a decision about what gender one prefers and/or is attracted to, what is the basis for attraction? I think about some gay couples I’ve seen in which one person in the couple appears like a “guy” and the other appears like a “girl.” And when I say appears like I mean looks exactly like. What makes them gay, then? Did they actually have to physically consummate the relationship in order for that attraction to have meaning? Then I also think about pop culture references (which I’m sure also manifest themselves in real life) to men finding a “woman” attractive, whom they later find is biologically a man (Pharcyde’s “Oh Shit” or The Crying Game), or the classic Shakespearean gender benders that occur in Hollywood comedies (She’s the Man or Tootsie), in which straight characters find themselves attracted to what appear to be people of the same gender only to be relieved later to know that the real person underneath is of a different gender. This last type of narrative is the most heteronormative, as it presupposes an instinctual attraction to another gender that necessary cuts beyond surface appearance.

I’m one of those people who claims to be straight, and I’ve been that way my whole life, even though I was celibate for most of my life. Having no sexual experience, how can one claim to be straight (or gay, for that matter)? If I were attracted to manly-looking women, would I still be straight? On the flip side, would gay men who are attracted to womanly-looking men still be gay?

Sexual preference or orientation is a funny thing, because of the visual separation of public and private manifestations of gender. Gender, on the outside, is malleable or at least flexible. Barring surgery, sex—underneath the trappings of clothing and makeup—is immutable. But sex itself isn’t just about the connection of genitals, is it? Nor is sexual attraction. I think a lot of the pleasure that gays and lesbians in so-called butch-femme couplings is the idea of playing with what attraction is, of bending the idea of what it is to be a man or a woman or to be attracted to a man or to a woman. And in direct opposition to that play on attraction is a heteronormative culture that discourages any blurring of gender lines. Boys in skirts, no. Girls with facial hair, no. Boys doing ballet, no… unless they’re gay.

Interestingly enough, we do not feel the same need to exaggerate gender differences in animals. People will often mistake others’ pets as being male instead of female (or vice versa), because most humans can’t tell (without looking at the pets genitals) the difference between a male and female dog or cat. Nor do we feel the need to have our female pets grow their hair extra long, wear makeup, or walk daintily; or have our male pets grow “beards” or walk with more of a swagger.

I think the desire to exaggerate any existing sexual differences stems from homophobia, the fear that if genders blend too much, that there will be a lot more Crying Game incidents and a lot less She’s the Man incidents. With all the cultural gender forces at work, it’s hard to find where you really are. I often find myself swaying back and forth between being too masculine or too feminine, not knowing where I would “really” be if I didn’t feel the pressure to fit into a box… or completely bust out of it. It would be an interesting experiment to construct a society in which you didn’t teach children about gender roles (”No, no, honey. Girls don’t do that”) but just let them grow up and see what happens.