Totally random thought

[textualdeviance]

So what if, instead of categorizing ourselves by whether we're attracted to same-sex or opposite-sex people, we split off into tops and bottoms? Or attracted to men/attracted to women? Or butch/femme? Or casual/serious?

All of these things are just as important, in terms of how we relate to other people on sexual and friendship levels as whether we're attracted to people who have the same genitals we do or different ones. So why don't we think of them that way? Why don't we arrange ourselves in groups according to those commonalities?

Comments

[mrdorbin.livejournal.com]

You know, I was reading that same-sex union book and apparently the concepts of 'straight' and 'gay' would have been considered artificial and meaningless to both the Greeks and the Romans around the first century AD (you'd have SLIGHTLY better luck with 'top' and 'bottom', but they were supposed to change with age as well). Also monogamy was probably the exception rather than the rule, at least among the upper classes.

I want to be in whichever group thinks nerdy males are really cute.

[havdrake.livejournal.com]

That would be my group.

[textualdeviance.livejournal.com]

I want to be in whichever group thinks nerdy males are really cute.

*raises hand*

yum

[waterfaery.livejournal.com]

nerdy boys. i'm a queer femme serious top who likes my girls boyish and my men girly. but nerdy is almost always a requirement.