Another Uni blog post for Sex and the Screen:
I found that last thought in today’s lecture particularly interesting, and because I’m a terrible note-taker, I think I will paraphrase…to my own benefit.
Basically, the point was brought up that of all the ways that “sexuality” could have been regarded, the object-of-desire gender was the focal point.
In other words, imagine an alternate universe where “sexuality” is determined by, say, the source-of-desire gender. Oh I’m going into deep shit here.
So when you meet someone, and it’s a chick, your first assumption is that her “other half” would be a male, and then consider the other possibilities (unless of course the chick is just exuding lesbianism, and hey some girls do that, I’m not being rude. Gotta watch what I write huh). But in this Alternate Universe, when you meet this chick, instead of assuming that, you just see her as a chick, and the thoughts that come with that are “she is attracted to all the other attraction possibilities”.
This completely ignores transexuals or transgendered people but I don’t know how to fit them into this universe. If you can think of a way, by all means!
So in AU, there is no “normal” attraction pairing for a particular person, but rather a variety of attraction possibilities. Since there isn’t the concept of a normal attraction pairing, you can’t have abnormalities – along with the possibilities are female, male, horses, sock puppets, whatever. Wouldn’t that competely eradicate the bullying and the segregation, even, of different preferences?
It probably would completely change the face of songwriting. Imagine if Taylor Swift had to write songs about a Prince/Princess/Phar-Lap/Miss Piggy. The farm-yard imagery would take on a completely different meaning each verse.
I’m going to be straddling the line between cheeky and rude many times, I think.