Could someone educate me on the issue of single target sexuality (or, often "it's okay if it's you")? ["essay" coming up]
I kind of see why it would leave a bad taste. It's like saying, "oh, I'm only gay for you, so I'm actually straight, no homo." Kind of just dodging LGBTQ+ representation to avoid discrimination or something. (I personally don't feel like it is the case here because it isn't highly emphasized)
But also, in general... Can people be unlabeled? Is there such thing as being "mostly straight"? Does attraction to one individual who does not fit into one's sexuality require a label as pansexual, omnisexual, etc.?
Definitions can be helpful when people apply them to themselves—when they learn that there’s a category that corresponds to their own sexual/romantic experience, and they can say, “I’m not weird, there are a lot of other people out there who are [___]sexual/romantic.”
When people try to apply them to others, or to fictional characters, labels tend to be restrictive rather than enlightening—either readers want characters that reflect their own sexuality back to them, or they assume the author is representing [___]sexuality and then critique how it’s being done (even if there’s no evidence that’s what the author is doing at all).
You're once again knocking it out of the park, being all lucid and making sense. I personally don't like the compulsion to slap a label on every expression of romance and sexuality, but if you frame it as a means to an end, a stop-gap on the way to realizing your own identity (not just sexually) it is understandable. I like J.E. Marcia's psychological model on identity, in which "adopting" a label would fall into the "foreclosure" and exploratory "moratorium" states, probably on the way to self-realization through identity achievement.
As for the original question: There's absolutely such a thing as "mostly straight" or "effectively straight", but it could be defined several ways. I'll insert myself as an example: I don't really care what's in the pants, but I don't feel attracted to "clearly male physique" (face, build, bulk), so if a guy were to convincingly cross-dress (or actually be trans and pass well enough), I'd be down with that. (Un)fortunately I'm married to a woman. That last factor very much narrows down how my sexuality manifests to "effectively straight".
I wouldn't really care what's in the pants as long as the rest of the body looks feminine, and I don't know a label that properly describes it, nor do I care if there really is one. I think that's a bit weird, but that's okay, we're all weird in our own ways. Labels, while somewhat useful in discourse, are ultimately just rough categories that will almost never fully describe an individual.
I could speculate (!) that Ookuma has a similar perspective. She's not bothered one bit by what is and isn't in Kanda's pants, but was clearly attracted to her more masculine, if slender, physique.
Of course many people do care about what's in the pants, but initial attraction/falling in love is basically never about the genitals. Rather, it's about other, "unreliable" markers of sex and gender that can be misleading or be misread (as was the case in this manga). And probably pheromones.
All we can be certain about in Ookuma and Kanda is that they're now in a lesbian relationship, and I'm fine with leaving it at that.
last edited at Aug 12, 2020 7:25AM
.jpg?1589389769)
.jpg?1566389580)
