Bendability

BENDABILITY

I'm sick of being misinterpreted, it gets me nowhere! Apparently, I've got gay skin and gay fingers. I'm told that my wrists aren't all alimber and my lips all apuckering, but still, it does little for my love life. Apparently though, I could bed all this year's fresh supply of `punani' by the end of Freshers' Week and still be accused of looking like a great big girl's blouse who likes to take it from the be-hind. In reality, this confusion about sexuality need not, and should not, exist.

The truth is that I'm neither straight nor bent. I am, in fact, bendable. Many would probably like to label this as “bi-sexuality”, but society likes to pigeon-hole and categorise every living thing to the extent that it can no longer be just a `thing', but must be classified in order to create distinction and clarity on grounds for trends, statistics and prejudices. I therefore do not believe or accept the terminology “bisexuality”. But whilst I do not accept ”bisexual” as a description of those who confess to be both homosexual and heterosexual, I furthermore do not believe in the psychological existence of “homosexuality” and “heterosexuality”. Again, these are classifications in an increasingly classified world, but, more than that, they are terms that rigidly pigeon-hole our sexualities to the degree that we can no longer simply be “sexual”. It is from this perspective that I move from personalising my argument and instead aim to illustrate how the classification of sexuality in society is both unnecessary and false.

Physical sexuality is an expression of our conscious decision to simply have sex with the opposite, same or both sexes. But physical sexuality is not a true expression of sexuality. Physical sexuality simply implies with which gender we have opted to have sexual intercourse with, and with this definition I am perfectly content, although society is not. For the vast periods during my life when I am not indulging in sexual intercourse, which side am I batting for? When masturbation is my only form of release on a Friday night, am I on the fence or a particular side of it? I guess what I am trying to say is that the classification of sexuality can only be based on the simple fact of with which sex(es) we have sex. This is the only solid ground for defining an individual's sexuality. But even this rules out an individual's capacity to be bendable.

Bendability is human nature. Sexuality can be neither black nor white, but comes in various shades of grey. Whilst I have chosen never to personally indulge in sodomy (with a man or a woman), it does not mean that I have lost all sexual appreciation of members of my own sex. Without indulging, it is only natural for me to find myself attracted to both women and men. As a “heterosexual” male, you do not find all women sexually attractive, as a “homosexual” not all men are on your Christmas list. We form opinions of all things aesthetic, it is no different for people. Women are more than ready to “bitch” about other women, or, on the other hand, say if they find another female attractive. Men however, deny any sense of attraction to other men. When asked about their opinion on other men, males usually respond with “how should I know, I'm a bloodey man!”. Interestingly, men seem to be able to identify “ugly blokes”, taunting them without hesitation, but are unable to express their appreciation for a good-looking male specimen, even though, whether they like it or not, they form just as much an opinion as their female counterparts.

Of course, you may not want to jump into bed with someone of the same sex, although that mentality too could be a societal construction (various other societies have been indulging in it for centuries), but this is not the defining factor for sexuality as it currently stands. Many people are not regularly sexually active, some people are celibate, does this mean they have no sexuality? Of course not. They have a sexuality, we all have a sexuality, and that is simply it - we have a sexuality, that is to say, a need to be sexually fulfilled. At the point of climax it matters little who it was with, if anybody. Anyone who claims allegiance to “heterosexuality” is completely denying the psychological existence of “homosexual” (I use this term loosely) tendencies which are inherent in all of us (vice versa for “homosexuals”). Denial and suppression of this tendency is only normal under the current societal framework which has been moulded to the needs of the family and the principle of reproduction. But while sex exists as a pleasure form, it exists without limitations.

So now there ought be no more confusion. I need not declare my sexuality because I am, as we all are, simply “sexual”. I am here to be pleased and to give pleasure, and anything and everything is possible. Limber up and prepare to be bent!


	BENDABILITY I'm sick of being misinterpreted, it gets me nowhere! Apparently, I've got gay skin and gay fingers. I'm told that my wrists aren't all alimber and my lips all apuckering, but still, it does little for my love life. Apparently though, I could bed all this year's fresh supply of `punani' by the end of Freshers' Week and still be accused of looking like a great big girl's blouse who likes to take it from the be-hind. In reality, this confusion about sexuality need not, and should not, exist. The truth is that I'm neither straight nor bent. I am, in fact, bendable. Many would probably like to label this as “bi-sexuality”, but society likes to pigeon-hole and categorise every living thing to the extent that it can no longer be just a `thing', but must be classified in order to create distinction and clarity on grounds for trends, statistics and prejudices. I therefore do not believe or accept the terminology “bisexuality”. But whilst I do not accept ”bisexual” as a description of those who confess to be both homosexual and heterosexual, I furthermore do not believe in the psychological existence of “homosexuality” and “heterosexuality”. Again, these are classifications in an increasingly classified world, but, more than that, they are terms that rigidly pigeon-hole our sexualities to the degree that we can no longer simply be “sexual”. It is from this perspective that I move from personalising my argument and instead aim to illustrate how the classification of sexuality in society is both unnecessary and false. Physical sexuality is an expression of our conscious decision to simply have sex with the opposite, same or both sexes. But physical sexuality is not a true expression of sexuality. Physical sexuality simply implies with which gender we have opted to have sexual intercourse with, and with this definition I am perfectly content, although society is not. For the vast periods during my life when I am not indulging in sexual intercourse, which side am I batting for? When masturbation is my only form of release on a Friday night, am I on the fence or a particular side of it? I guess what I am trying to say is that the classification of sexuality can only be based on the simple fact of with which sex(es) we have sex. This is the only solid ground for defining an individual's sexuality. But even this rules out an individual's capacity to be bendable. Bendability is human nature. Sexuality can be neither black nor white, but comes in various shades of grey. Whilst I have chosen never to personally indulge in sodomy (with a man or a woman), it does not mean that I have lost all sexual appreciation of members of my own sex. Without indulging, it is only natural for me to find myself attracted to both women and men. As a “heterosexual” male, you do not find all women sexually attractive, as a “homosexual” not all men are on your Christmas list. We form opinions of all things aesthetic, it is no different for people. Women are more than ready to “bitch” about other women, or, on the other hand, say if they find another female attractive. Men however, deny any sense of attraction to other men. When asked about their opinion on other men, males usually respond with “how should I know, I'm a bloodey man!”. Interestingly, men seem to be able to identify “ugly blokes”, taunting them without hesitation, but are unable to express their appreciation for a good-looking male specimen, even though, whether they like it or not, they form just as much an opinion as their female counterparts. Of course, you may not want to jump into bed with someone of the same sex, although that mentality too could be a societal construction (various other societies have been indulging in it for centuries), but this is not the defining factor for sexuality as it currently stands. Many people are not regularly sexually active, some people are celibate, does this mean they have no sexuality? Of course not. They have a sexuality, we all have a sexuality, and that is simply it - we have a sexuality, that is to say, a need to be sexually fulfilled. At the point of climax it matters little who it was with, if anybody. Anyone who claims allegiance to “heterosexuality” is completely denying the psychological existence of “homosexual” (I use this term loosely) tendencies which are inherent in all of us (vice versa for “homosexuals”). Denial and suppression of this tendency is only normal under the current societal framework which has been moulded to the needs of the family and the principle of reproduction. But while sex exists as a pleasure form, it exists without limitations. So now there ought be no more confusion. I need not declare my sexuality because I am, as we all are, simply “sexual”. I am here to be pleased and to give pleasure, and anything and everything is possible. Limber up and prepare to be bent!