Swinging
Sep 29, 2014


Sexual labels and definitions are social constructs which unfortunately have a deep impact in our human sexuality. The existing moral divide implanted in our brain between different so called sexual orientations is a clear example of the subject being manipulated by these artificial constructs, among them we find the concepts of heterosexual normality and homosexual deviation. Trying to fit in these opposite extremes any other sexual manifestation and preferences which may not abide by the accepted social standards is an economic imperative of our current socio-economic environment since the diversity could undermine the accommodating bipolarity of what's good or wrong in sex following the oppressive morality of the moment.

As pure biological entities we belong to one of the rare species in the planet where sex is not just a reproductive instinct but an integral part of our interaction with other human beings. In our case sex is an inseparable mix of need and desire. If we tried to apply our labels and definitions to the other species known to be involved in sexual activities beyond the rigid biological reproductive obligation, we would have to face a gruesome dilemma. They simply ignore our rules and therefore display a wide variety of sexual activities where the same individuals engage with both genders following only temporary and circumstantial factors. Are they then naturally born bisexuals? No, they just don't need any labels. There is no need for them to define themselves within any shade of the sexual spectrum since they may move without distinctions along this same wide spectrum according to the factors mentioned earlier.

Then what happened to us? What makes us different from the bonobo apes or dolphins with respect to our sexuality? If you read The History of Sexuality by Michael Foucault there is an interesting thesis which I believe may explain this awkward situation in which we are now. Sexuality was transformed during the Victorian times into just another instrument of oppression. The elite wanted people to focus on their work, to increase the productivity and thus multiply the profits. Sex was an undesirable distraction and needed to be confined exclusively to the matrimony bedroom and for the unique purpose of reproduction. Nobody should even talk about sex acts in public. This thesis allowed me to understand that sex has been also mixed into the same cauldron of oppressive tools together with religious institutions and bourgeoise morals in order to suppress any manifestation of free will which could affect the productive output of the individual worker.

If we link the History of Sexuality with the previous scientific fact about the open sexual behavior of the other sexually active species, we should arrive to a compelling conclusion that sexual orientation, as it's understood in our current world, is a cynic artificial invention forced into our own state of mind and imprinted in the internal and external projection of our self within the existing socio-economic framework. What we see today as the standard, the so called heterosexual normality, is not a natural phenomenon nor the result of any evolutive process taking place in our social mind. It is simply an artificial creation, a social construct to serve the governing elite in their purpose to extract more profit and to keep the masses submissive and focused exclusively on their work. Only by recognizing this fact, this social construct could be then successfully deconstructed.

Humans like the other sexually active species are born without prejudices or any firm unchangeable sexual preference. With the exception of a truly hormonal distortion which could affect the biological inner self gender and thus making someone to become inclined into following the sexual behavior of the opposite sex, the rest of us are supposed not to follow any preset rules about what we should desire and the way we could obtain personal gratification from sex. We should respond exclusively to the circumstantial and temporary factors mentioned before like availability, compatibility and our own sudden sexual impulses of the instant. The way we decide to engage in sexual activities with someone in specific or with various individuals together from both genders should be an exclusive non judgmental process happening in our brains where we would analyze only those specific circumstantial and temporary factors mentioned above instead of constantly reaffirming a repulsion for this or that type of sex. We really believe that these repulsive feelings are certain and natural without knowing that they were simply implanted long time ago in our social mind.

In summary, the monogamous heterosexual normality is just an invention so deeply imprinted in our brain that we truly believe it is something that most people would follow by instinct while the other forms of sexuality are merely deviation of that norm. Homosexuality situated on the other extreme of the spectrum is trying now to gain social recognition and to establish itself also like an alternative norm for those who claim being born that way. In my opinion there is no point in encapsulating our human sexuality in either of these extremes and a mistake implying that these are natural states of mind defining someone to be born straight or gay. I'm not saying it is a choice because it is not, but we haven't found yet a gene that defines sexual preferences from the moment we were born.

Sexuality should be separated from the rest of our social behaviors because being a biological urge to receive gratification from sex is not a cause for projecting ourselves as representatives of a specific norm of sexual conduct. We should get rid of these internal and external taboos and feel free to experiment with any form of sexuality without having to put a label or fit into an imposed definition. Socially we are entities well above the sexual preferences of everyone. Sex is just for our own very private entertainment and should never have become a social issue nor a political flag. However, due to the existing conditions, the long term repression of our sexuality, the degradation of homosexuality and the oppression of women, it's understandable and totally necessary to fight for our rights and to get the recognition we deserve as sexual beings no matter what preferences we believe we have. On the other hand, this should not be an obstacle for our own internal liberation from the same taboos and preset norms we are trying to fight at the social level. By first stripping ourselves from the labels and definitions we can then experiment and explore every single way of obtaining sexual gratification and be bound only by the criminal code forbidding non consensual sex, the only restriction which should stay in place inside our minds.

That was supposed to be our true History of Sexuality until the production relationships entered in the equation together with one of the most horrible crimes committed by our specie, the oppression of our females by the males. This gender oriented power structure in our human society undoubtedly created the imprint in our minds about the superiority of the masculine over the female and therefore the association between authority and virility. Any submissive role taken by a male in sexual interactions was viewed as a lack of virility and therefore socially and mentally diminishing. This together with the requirement to suppress sexuality in general made possible the establishment of the monogamous heterosexual normality and the social degradation of anything outside of that imposed standard.

I'm totally convinced that if we could hypothetically isolated a small group of human babies and follow up from a distance their social evolution focusing exclusively on their sexual behaviour we would be able to witness a large spectrum of preferences these individuals would develop once they had reached their puberty. Under the lack of externally preset norms, we should expect that a great diversity of sexual interactions would be displayed among the subjects without any specific gender preference. Following this line of thoughts in that direction it would be impossible to define one specific set of sexual cannons as innate or the natural outcome. Therefore we should arrive to the conclusion that our normative standards enclosing human sexual behaviour are entirely determined by the dominating type of production relationships and enforced through known tools like the religious morality, the conservative traditionalism and the political and economic existing framework.

I do believe that the origin of the monogamous heterosexual normality currently predominant in our modern society was born under the influence of these external non biological factors which we can call social constructs. Meaning that the socio-economic environment is the one that dictates how we as individuals view our own sexuality and forces us to encapsulate our mind in an apparent natural state which defines our so called sexual orientation which then must be constantly projected towards our internal self and also outside to the social being that we represent.

Sexual preferences if left alone and outside of the social framework would develop spontaneously and in response to circumstantial and temporary factors, changing and evolving indistinctly and without any moral ranking. In this scenario the use of sexual orientation as a social identifier would be not only superfluous but damaging because as soon as sexuality becomes part of the definition of who we are as social beings, there would be the need to apply the concepts of right and wrong to these interactions and be measured using the same rules of conduct as with the rest of our social behaviors. Therefore we should stay away from any labels or definitions and feel free to search for new ways to expand our own sexual pleasures without having all the time to ask if this type of sexual interaction is right or wrong, or question ourselves if by doing this or that we are gays or straights or bisexuals.


Comment