I believe the problem comes from how we define Gay, Straight, Bisexual, etc. I feel a lot of these notions are outdated and hardly representative of the complexity of sexuality and gender identity. Firstly I view sexuality in terms of two key attributes, the feminine and the masculine. For instance a muscled hair chest would be considered a predominantly masculine trait, while thin hands would be considered feminine (but of course a lot of these are up for debate).
Next in terms of one's sexual identity I don't see individuals as purely gay or straight, I see it as a sort of attraction percentage. So a stereotypical "straight" person might actually be like 80% attracted to feminine traits, but have a subtle 20% attraction to the masculine side of things. On the flip side a gay individual simply has these ratios reversed.
I theorize that individuals such as ourselves have an attraction to masculine traits that are greater than usual 20%. And remember even within this subset there are gradients.
Now for some examples: And don't worry about the numbers here folks im just spit balling to make a point.
Notice fans of only Bailey Jay (see examples below) most likely fall closer to a 70/30 split (70% feminine attraction, 30% masculine attraction) while someone who is a fan of say Danni Daniels as well is more of a 60/40 split. For Bailey Jay exclusive fans, Danni Daniels is far too "gay" for them. But what they really are trying to say is that their personal sexuality percentage does not reach that particular level in terms of masculine attraction.
I feel this notion also applies to gender identity (though I doubt if there is a tangible connection between the two). Thoughts?
|
12-19-2014
Threaded Mode