Cultural expectations are killing us. Men are expected to be split between body and intellect — archetypes illustrated as the “bruiser/blue collar worker” vs. the “CEO/nerd/inventor”. Similarly women must be split between their sexuality and nurturing instincts with archetypes most commonly iterate as the “Mother” vs. the “Whore”.
Transness, gender fluidity, non-binary identity, and/or having a focus on personal completeness outside of social construct is a beautiful and freeing place to reside and play within the self. The opportunity to recognize complexity not only within one’s own sex, gender identity, and orientation, but within all of the roles and archetypes set forth within society is critical work. Each of us is a dynamic whole attracted to and successful in embodying (to varying degrees) any archetype presented. Naturally we align with some types more than others — though if being a character actor has taught me anything, it is that empathy for all “types” is not only possible but deeply important and personally effectacious.
The construction worker/plumber/farmer (male body-alligned archetype) day in and day out also works with numbers and real world problem solving to get the job done. The CEO/computer programmer/scientist (deemed essentially intellectual) in order to be effective is inspired by their ability to take in the responses and reactions to their work by the self and the physical world around.
Pregnancy, the so-called harbinger of a nurturer-to-be, is a natural result of expressed sexuality. Not all sexuality will result in pregnancy. Not all pregnancies are a result of sex or consensual sexuality. Not all nurturers have been through a pregnancy. Not all pregnancies result in nurturing. The nurturer must attend to the needs of their own body first in order not to burn out or harm those in their charge. The sexually accommodating/free/engaged person must care for their health through medical checks, research, development of habits with which to stay safe and healthy, trips to the store for toys, various supplies, and cleaning materials — is this not a dedicated form of nurturance? Sharing a thoughtful and enjoyable sexuality can be deeply nurturing.
Our realities are more complex than the variably defined filters which “identity” causes us to view our civilization, one another, and ourselves through.
Behavior: what we do is as important as how we identify. If we identified along the lines of every experience we’ve had, over time we might allow ourselves to continue having more varied experiences. There is a crisis in communication concerning sexuality, a gap of honesty within ourselves and to one another which allows us to cling tightly to an “idea of oneself” — one’s stated identity — which sends concentric shock waves of distortion to all those nearby. For example, who’s ever been in a relationship where they’ve been led to believe one thing about their partner which, in actual practice, was not completely lived as advertised? We deceive through omission much about our experiences, our behaviors, and our feelings, perhaps in an effort to fit in with what we believe others wish to believe about us, and perhaps to reinforce that which we wish to believe about ourselves.
What if we identified as we have behaved: I’m a “enjoys-making-out-with-anyone-I-feel-kindly-toward-when-I’m-drunk-but-have-only-dated-AMAB-people-romantically-yet-have-enjoyed-being-fisted-by-a-female-during-a-threesome-once-and-only-want-penetration-about-once-a-week-on-average-unless-it’s-with-someone-new-sexual”? It would be more difficult for that person to communicate quickly about what they like and don’t like. I think even more insidiously though, it would be even harder for them to have to explain (and personally own) dissonance with others in a moment of confrontation.
When a woman says they’re “heterosexual”, yet behaviorally has had the experience of making out with another woman “for their male partner’s enjoyment” and found that they liked it too, that woman is not generally expected to make out with other women whenever the opportunity arises. A simple “I’m straight” usually suffices in shutting the scenario down wherever it’s coming from (proposition from another woman, boyfriend wanting it to happen again, or whomever suggesting something like that occur). No one in the situation has to feel bad — because you can’t fight their “identity”. In reality she just might not feel like it. Sadly that’s not a protected reason for turning someone down in most communities, and that articulation may not be respected.
People use a similar line of meaning making when they fail to disclose sexual activity to a partner they’re supposed to be transparent with when the sexual experience happened outside the parameters of “counting”. Take that same woman, she might have a sexual experience with another woman and not tell her boyfriend about it because “it didn’t count” since she’s “heterosexual”. He may still want knowledge of that activity disclosed.
Yet another way this manifests is in longterm repression of personal interests and desires. That same woman may repress her desire to have sexual or sensual experiences with women because she doesn’t want her “heterosexuality” (and let’s be honest: usually all of the privileges it holds) to be put into question by herself or by others.
In all of the above instances it’s illustrated that we’re more attached to the “idea of an identity” than we are to being honest with others or even ourselves about our feelings, reactions, desires, actions, and possibilities. It’s hard to say to someone “I’m not interested” without having an excuse for why it’s “not about them” and “not in your control”. It’s difficult to be explicit and thoughtful about one’s feelings when faced with opportunity, desire, fear, confusion, complexity, inexperience, and a million other felt situations. It’s hard to react to a moment by slowing down and considering all of the moving parts before explaining what you are open and not open to experiencing in that very moment. Sometimes this is doubly reinforced because we are afraid of another person’s reaction to rejection. I think it’s also connected to the common desire “to be liked”. Rejection may cause others not to like us as much, and most everyone wants to identify as “someone who is liked”.
I identify as “sexual”, as in: I’m either attracted to you or not, just like everyone else. A note on what this does not mean:
- This doesn’t mean that if I am attracted to you I necessarily want to get sexy or romantic about it.
- This doesn’t mean that if I’m not sexually attracted to you that I never will be. I’ve found on more than one occasion that after years of getting to know someone more intimately I’ve come to find them increasingly sexually palatable and if the right moment came along so might some degree of romantic or sensual/sexual connection.
- This doesn’t mean that if I am attracted to you and want to get down about it right now that I’ll feel that way in a half hour, a week, or a year from now. I’ve definitely fallen out of sexual attraction with people, and I don’t think I’m the only one to have that experience.
These are all reasons why our culture’s deepening understanding surrounding consent is so important in conversations about sensuality and identity. We are starting more and more fully to recognize the complexity of everyone’s wiring and to ask for consent each time we want to plug in. This is also why it’s critical to be able to talk about sexuality and identity and have the courage to articulate, consider, grow, change, and rearticulate as our needs, feelings, and interests evolve.
The Maiden, the Mother, and the Crone: which is to say, it’s already archetypically expected that through experience and time we change, we grow, and we become. I remember reading an article once that quoted an older person who had been in a very long relationship with their spouse, and they said something to the effect of: to remain in a longterm relationship for decade upon decade one must fall in love with their partner over and over again as they become new people. No one remains unchanged in their lives. Our cells are dying and newly growing every day. We are meant to move through archetypes as we move through new experiences, and to see the world with new eyes and through new reasoning over time. In this technology filled society which overly acknowledges 13-27 year olds and pushes the value of individuality over community, in this time of single generation social groups and media reinforced divisiveness between age brackets, we all lose. We lose sight of one another. We lose sight of where we’re going and where we’ve been. We lose sight of the Earth we live on and the needs of all the organisms cohabiting on our planet which we are not directly speaking to or directing our energies at. Because of these losses we lose the richness of our incredibly complex and diversely intelligent selves. Without these losses, who might each of us be?
Play On My Friends,
~ Creature
Please support my work on Patreon, or for one time: Support the Artist or email me.
~Thank you.