Assembling Humanity → Sexuality

All identity issues, frustrations, opinions, discrimination, all issues based on or related to sexuality in any way or form can be solved overnight. For the simple reason that we, people, created them in the first place. The problem lies in the fact that we cannot make sense of the world without labels, and even correlate these labels to predictable behaviours and vice versa. When we accept that sexuality is a personal, unlabelable thing, a vastly personal preference, nothing more, you can see that all the value, positive and negative, we attribute to it becomes obsolete . And, with that, all problems go away. Here’s my plea, manifest if you will, what sexuality is and how we should see it.

TL;DR

Sexuality is your own unique, beautiful, but above all very, very personal spot on a globe. Fuck labels, stereotypes, and the pressure to conform, to try to mold yourself into a square box: just feel what you feel, be who you are, and don’t let anyone, including yourself, tell you any different. Freedom to love who you want to love, freedom to explore who you want to love without pointless constraints. Achieving true equality. True equality by not giving a fuck in the first place. 

What remains? Everything else. True equality based on sexuality, where people aren’t woke, progressive, traditional, gay, straight, queer, allies or whatever. They are just people. People who love and are allowed to love who they want to love and the joy of figure out what that means. 

STATUS QUO

Some societies do it rather bluntly, either you’re straight or you’re wrong. Others are more subtle or try to accommodate all categories of sexuality, but all societies label. As a result, you’re forced to label the unlabelable. Forced to ask yourself questions to define something as undefinable as your sexuality. 

We take this labelling exercise further, to the point where we think we can understand what kind of behaviour comes with it. When society brands you a man and you like others who also happen to have a penis. It’s not just that, it often comes with a presumed set of behaviours. Being more feminine, flamboyant, enjoying fashion. When you happen to have a vagina and you enjoy someone else’s vagina, you probably like flannel shirts, outdoorsy activities, have short hair and are more masculine than you should be as someone who has been branded a woman. 

The opposite is found to be true as well. If you have a vagina and you like to wear a flannel shirt and enjoy riding a motorbike, people might think you’re gay. When you’re a man and you’re more feminine than society thinks you should be, people will also think: gay. Nonconformity to societal standards of how to act based on your sex or gender often leads to various degrees of discrimination, including discrimination based on sexuality. 

As a result, people, especially at a young age, often subconsciously, are heavily influenced by stereotypes and think that when they find someone attractive they are not just finding a partner, they are having to conform to the stereotypes as well.

The severity of discrimination based on sexuality varies heavily. In total, there are 65 countries where consensual same-sex relationships are illegal. That’s about 1 in every 3 countries in the world. Besides the outright discrimination from your fellow citizens, by law you might find yourself fined, beaten, prosecuted or put to death. 

In most societies you’re simply gay, bi, pan, etc., often summarised to queer or LGBTQ+ (both are broader and encompass more than just sexuality), but you will have the same legal rights. You’re probably expected to adhere, to some degree at least, to the stereotypes coming with your label. Annoying, yes. Offensive, sometimes. Aggressive, no. However, this is mostly true. Because, even in some of the most tolerant societies, you might still get punched in the face for holding your same-sex partner’s hand. Most people who are open about a non-heterosexaul sexuality have experienced some kind of maltreatment. 

Forms of discrimination are not just found in the behaviour of a few who cannot handle others not having the same sexuality. It’s mostly vested in the habits and beliefs of many. It can be as simple as having to “come out”, inadvertently stating that having a sexuality aimed at the opposite sex is the default and others have to identify as different.  

Discriminatory behaviour is also shown by people who have been labelled. People can feel the need, perhaps to regain control over who they are, to proudly and loudly express that they are gay for example and loudly and proudly follow the stereotype society may have forced upon them. Basically, people who are branded based on their sexuality (or anything else, really) can become the stereotype they are expected to be. Something that is also true for people’s sexuality that fits the default, feeling the need to adhere to your gender role within the relationship. In some ways rendering the discriminatory stereotypes that created this segregation in the first place to become true, making it harder to break the status quo. 

People tend to think that positive affirmation of diversity is the key to solving discrimination and bigotry. But positive and negative discrimination are two sides of the same medallion, unjustly correlating, sometimes causating sexuality to behaviour. Not just someone who says that homosexuality is a sin, is a bigot. But a man who claims to be more flamboyant, sassy or fashionable because he’s gay is also guilty of discrimination, and could be called a bigot as well. Both are discriminatory. Neither achieves equality. Better said, neither strives to achieve equality. 

The bottom line is, we label sexuality and when the label is found, we start doing all sorts of things, to each other and to ourselves. When you think of it, what is the actual point? And, with that, is it even possible to label sexuality? What would happen if there is no pressure, no bias, no stereotypes, basically no labels? 

PROBLEM

If I ask you to tell me where the beginning and end of a round object are, could you do it? Could you tell where a ball, a globe, or any other round object starts, the middle is and where it ends? This is pretty much what we force upon ourselves and others when we label sexuality. It’s a continuum, nobody is straight, nobody is gay, or bi, or asexual, or pansexual or any other label we have come up with to try to define where we are on this round object. 

We are sexually interested, to various degrees, ranging from almost never to almost always, in others and in ourselves and sometimes even in objects. This sexual attraction can be physical, it can be emotional, usually both. It fluctuates, it varies, it can be intense, it can be absent, often tied to how you physically and emotionally feel. Pretty much an endless array of flavours that also happen to be situational up to the point of fluidity. 

We claim to understand this to the point of being able to label it. Perhaps because for some of us our sexuality points in a rather outright direction. But even in these outright cases, for example, where someone has never found someone from the same sex attractive, this person still can’t say they fully understand their desires. Nobody knows. Until you experience that feeling, that feeling of joy, euphoria, that intense, all-consuming feeling of love, or just raw sexual attraction. But even when you do, you still don’t know exactly what it is. Was it that smile? That joke that made you laugh so hard? Was it that hand you felt brushing against yours? Or was it just that killer body you saw on the beach? 

When we embrace the fact that sexuality is so personal that it’s beyond the point of comprehension, we finally come close to understanding it. You don’t have to understand it. You just have to feel it. Just feel, without being held back by bullshit, stereotypes, expectations and pretty much any social construct there is. Just feel and let your mind (or genitals if you must) guide you to who you find attractive. Don’t ask yourself why. Just accept it. Only so can you come close to understanding what your sexuality is. 

Is this easier said than done? Fuck yes! It’s more often than not impossible to know what is and isn’t influencing the way you feel, especially when the context is so heavily distorted by discriminatory assumptions. And that’s not even considering that deviating from the status quo usually involves a lot of unwanted feedback and opinions. So, let’s take it step by step and fix that.

SOLUTION

STEP 1: LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS. NOT SEXUALITY.

Various scientific studies try to define sexuality. At first, they categorised people’s sexuality in the categories straight (attraction to the opposite sex), gay (attracted to the same sex) or bi (attracted to both sexes) (link). Later, the acceptable idea became a spectrum, which is going in the right direction, but even this spectrum still revolves around the notion of gay and straight being on opposite ends of the spectrum, embodied in terminology such as mostly straight and mostly gay (link). Still a grotesque oversimplification of personal feelings and desires. 

When we strive to label everyone, we don’t just need a ton of labels up to the point that it’s not even feasible anymore, but also labels that are fluid, if that’s even possible. What if you’re attracted, mostly, to people of the opposite sex, but only when you can connect on an intellectual level and you don’t have much, but some need for penetrative sexual intercourse, but you do like to hug and feel the other? What if you’re attracted to people of the same sex, but also like to make out with people from the opposite sex and you’re turned mostly by people who are a bit older? And what if this changes? Permanently or temporarily? And that is not even including any views on sex and gender identity. 

Other studies try to find the origin of sexuality and suggest that there might be a correlation between certain hormones and your sexuality and that influences during pregnancy can be decisive for one’s sexuality (link). Fascinating stuff, but, besides this idea is inadvertently built upon the foundation of being able to label sexuality, it’s not very practical. Even if it’s possible to say something sensible about your sexuality based on hormones or events during pregnancy, it’s not going to do you much good. Let me illustrate.

What if your hormone structure tells you that someone is attractive, but this person turns out to be openly racist? Are you now still obliged to uncork the Chablis and just pray said person doesn’t want to roleplay “KKK-member and the impossible love of a person of colour” again? 

What we need to accept as a society, as people, is that sexuality is abstract, intangible, and above all, very, very personal. It’s your own personal spot on the perfectly round globe. With that, your sexuality is in fact exactly the same as that of the next person in the sense that it’s just another spot on that globe. Each person’s sexuality is so specific and personal that it becomes pointless to try to differentiate between them, let alone label them. The only label you need you already have, your name. 

Does this mean it’s you just have to get lucky and there is no point to figure out what your type is? Does this mean you cannot have any preferences? Of course not. Dating is and will always be somewhat of a lottery, but by doing it you’ll figure out what things you like about others and things you don’t like. 

Besides dating, clues can be anywhere about your preferences. Perhaps you felt a sudden urge when Margot Robbie stood in that door opening in The Wolf of Wall Street. Perhaps it’s Brad Pitt in Fight Club that’s keeping you up at night. Perhaps both. Perhaps neither. Just feel. Or, more importantly, accept what you feel.

Perhaps you feel that you can connect with others who feel the same and you can both share how Brad Pitt made you feel. But perhaps your sexuality turns out to be vastly different from the others around you. So what? It’s not about being different, it’s not about being the same. There are differences. There is overlap. 

To put it bluntly, and somewhat negative, I believe that we label everything due to a mixture of ignorance and arrogance. Ignorance in the sense that we’re not able to understand the world around us if we don’t put a label on it. Arrogance in the sense that we think we actually can label something as fastidious as someone’s sexuality. Just accept that you don’t understand it and feel. That’s the only way to understand it. 

What’s most important about this is the fact that when you don’t have a label, you cannot act outside of what is expected of you, including what you expect from yourself. There is no right and no wrong. There is no label. There is nothing you have to conform to. There is just you, without any distractions. No expectations. No pressure. We tend to think that the label is the solution, finally figure out that you’re gay, pan, etc, but it’s in fact the problem. 

People think it helps us to label and in some ways it does. It helps us, in today’s society, to understand which group we belong to, to define our sexual preferences perhaps and connect with others who feel the same.. To find like minded people, to set up your Tinder profile, basically to explain to someone else what your preferences are. For some this is great. They belong. For others this might not be so great, since they feel they have to conform. But for all, it’s them, a round object, being put in a square box. But the question remains, what is the point of the label? 

It appears to be answered, you can find a group and identity as part of this group, but in fact it’s not. In fact the label is a misplaced vehicle on which the groups are formed or selected. Misplaced in the sense that for none it will be more than only a guide to their sexuality and not a definition. But now you’re part of a group based on this label. What if you want to venture outside of the construct of your label? Will this lose you your spot in the group? Do you have to change your Tinder settings? And what if you don’t like the group your label puts you in? 

But now you still want to set up your Tinder profile. If you zoom out and think about what a dating app does, it lets you find people you want to date. You select men, women or both and start swiping. How often do you swipe right? How many of those profiles appeal to you? In most cases, not many. The reason is that the cutoff should not be men or women of both, the cut off should be people you feel attracted to. 

So, what if you leave out the presumptions, the biases, the constructs, the sex or gender, and allow an unbiased AI model that doesn’t understand sex or gender, or anything really, other than what you tell it to figure out what you want. This model will show you profiles, at random, you just swipe right or left, teaching the model to understand you. Will it still only show you men or women? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But perhaps this would be the most concrete way to understand your sexuality, but one that’s only possible without the construct of labels. 

What remains key here, is that the label is actually stopping us from allowing us to do this exercise truly. It’s distorting the dataset with biases. The fact is, without the label you can still use Tinder, but without the bias. You can do it better. Truly better. Due to the biases of the label, the constructs, the failed notion of consequences, having to explain something to yourself and others, people are messing with their own internal dating algorithm. 

Basically, without the label you get none of the bad stuff and you can still have good stuff. Going back to forming groups with like minded people. The discrepancy lies in the fact that the label is supposed to be fitting for common ground to form a group. To some extent it does, but not really. Not enough.. Because what is the crux of a like-minded group, is not labels, it’s behaviour. We like to mingle with people who also enjoy the same behaviours as we do. That’s the key.

Without labels you can still bond over sexuality, or anything other really, be part of something bigger, but you don’t have to anymore. Without the label, trying to define you, trying to dictate what behaviours you should like, you get freedom. Freedom of choice. There is no explaining if you do, but also no explaining if you don’t. Only logic is left. Logic that you mingle and connect with people that complement you, regardless of sexuality. You can find an even better group, one that is truly fitting, not one society puts you in. 

To continue this line, we label people based on sexuality, and this label, in turn, to a certain degree, decides (dictates) who is and isn’t attractive. Call it, the receiving end of your label, and this requires you to also label others as well. To illustrate, when your label finds men attractive, you have to decide what men are. What if someone is transexual, and went from being a woman, to now being a man. Is this man enough for you? And what defines being a man? Is it a natural penis? Is chest hair enough? The absence of boobs? And what if a woman has no breasts, is she now a man? Or is it the way someone identifies and acts? 

(I may also have an opinion on Sex and Gender. Have a look here)

Not labeling yourself, and not labeling others, would solve this unnecessary problem. The only question would then be, do you find this person attractive? How does this person make you feel? No strings, no judgement, no constructs. Just feelings. Are your feelings pointing in the “fuck yes” direction? Go for it! It’s up to you and only you to feel who is and isn’t attractive to you. 

In a less outright manner, we take labeling another step further. Call it social labeling or emotional labeling. Your sexual preferences perhaps less so, but you’re preference for a partner aren’t just influenced by someone’s sex or gender, but also by someone’s wealth, social status, country of origin, how your friends judge the person, what your parents might think and basically any other aspect that can be of importance to you due to some kind of societal idea, pressure if you will. How often have you heard the phrase that someone is  “just for fun”, “not marriage material”, “fun, but not for keeps”. Why the fuck not? 

Of course, there’s merit in stating this based on the person’s behaviour. But in most cases we’re just limiting ourselves on misplaced judgement of the “material” that is the person you find attractive, because we labeled the person to be outside our “social label”. 

To conclude this step. When we, as a society, accept that there is no right or wrong, no differences, no woke views, no traditional views, just spots on a globe, the label becomes obsolete, because there is no bias, no consequence anymore. No need to explain anything. Not to others, not to yourself, not to Tinder. What’s left is you being you. Feeling what you need to feel. And that’s what matters.  

So, in practice, if you have never dated someone of the same sex, a certain social class, ethnicity, or any other thing you can come up with, it doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to. It doesn’t mean you’re switching sides if you do. It means nothing. It’s just you being you and enjoying life or, perhaps, trying to make sense of it. Don’t shy away from these feelings. If you feel you’re attracted to someone who doesn’t fit the picture you painted (or others painted for you), don’t hate it, embrace it. If you’re on a night out, hook up with someone of the same sex, the opposite sex, two or more people, or nobody at all. Who the fuck cares? Just make sure you have a wonderful night. It does not mean that you’re any different from the person you were before that night. It doesn’t mean you need a new label. It doesn’t even require an explanation. It just means you had a wonderful night, you, both of you, all of you. 

To summarize. Nobody is gay, nobody is straight, bi, pan, asexual, etc. Fuck labels. Try to find your spot on the globe and just be you. And don’t let anybody tell you differently.

STEP 2: SEXUALITY IS NOT A BEHAVIOUR AND BEHAVIOUR DOESN’T DEFINE SEXUALITY.

Sexuality is just your sexuality. It’s about who and what you find attractive. Basically why you are or aren’t sexually aroused. Your desires. Your attractions. Your feelings. Nothing more. 

The fact that you find someone of the same sex attractive doesn’t mean you have to be more feminine as a man, nor does it mean you have to be masculine as a woman. Better said, your entire gender shouldn’t even be part of this equation. If you like to wear a dress, what sports you enjoy, your survival skills, your idea of a nice holiday, basically any kind of behavioural stereotype is not in any way related to your sexuality. There is no label to define or take into account. No bounds. Just you being you. 

Some might want to argue the opposite based on averages (read: stereotypes). Even when it would be true that there is a correlation between certain behaviour and sexuality, it doesn’t mean it causated. It’s not inherent. So, even when it would be true that on average women who are attracted to women are more masculine as compared to other women, it doesn’t mean that all masculine women are attracted to other women and it also doesn’t mean all women who are attracted to other women are more masculine. The same is true for men who are perceived as more feminine having to be attracted to other men. Even more so, the concepts of feminine and masculine behaviour are social constructs, things we made up, begging the question if you can even state in the first place that someone is acting “masculine”. And with that, these concepts can just as easily be unconstructed, collectively but also on an individual level, rendering them beyond pointless as markers for someone’s sexuality. 

In the spirit of social constructs, the stereotypes we see may just be a self-fulfilling prophecy. When society keeps telling you that you must be attracted to the same sex because you’re too sensitive for a man or too butch for a woman, you might just start believing it. Or vice versa, when you’re attracted to the same sex and people keep telling you that you don’t fit the picture, you might just start adhering to the picture others painted for you. Suppressing your desires to be with the person you want to be with. The same is true for being attracted to the opposite sex, or any labeled sexuality for that matter. All are riddled societal pressure. All these behaviours that are branded to be part of a person’s sexuality are in fact holding us back from finding what our true sexuality is, distorting any average we think we see. 

This is acknowledged in academia as well (link). It’s discussed that the averages are flawed due to the fact that people who identify as, for example, straight self-identify as such and may only do so because of societal pressure forcing the default of being attracted to the opposite sex. As a good friend of mine once said “if it wasn’t such a big deal, a lot more people would be gay”. I don’t agree with the wording, but I do agree with the message. Even though my friend said so in 2013, today, and it’s improving a lot (link), it still appears to be true to date.

On top of faulty averages, it’s also worth asking yourself how relevant an average is in the context of sexuality. When did you ever want to have sex with someone because the person didn’t appeal to you, but did belong to an average that fit your sexuality? Using averages for individual assessments is just a fancy way of saying you’re discriminating the fuck against the person. Also, in most cases, we don’t actually use an average for our assessment, we are using outright stereotypes and branding this to be the average due to these being the most prominently visible. And more often than not, we do this to ourselves as well. 

These stereotypes we think that are true, and are often vested within our society, these behaviours we think are inherent and causated to sexuality (amongst other things), are nonsense. To illustrate, when a man wears a skirt, and I would say this person must be gay, some people will agree, others will call me homophobic, a bigot, but probably wouldn’t question the logic. If in the same situation I would say that the man in the skirt must love apples, people will think I have a brain injury. A skirt is just a skirt. It’s a piece of clothing, cloth made to wear. Not any different than an apple just being an apple, a piece of fruit. However, as society we deem a skirt correlated to a gender role and, in turn, to sexuality. My point is that stating that someone wearing a skirt is illustrative of this person’s love for dick is as deranged as stating it illustrates this person’s love for apples. 

This may sound unorthodox based on today’s standards, but there are ample examples of the idiocy of thinking in such constrained ways. It has taken centuries for women to be able to wear pants. Literally hundreds of years of society, people, being opposed to accepting something that is now clearly so unimportant that it’s not even worth mentioning (the only true form of equality, by the way). The behaviour of wearing a skirt is as related to the person’s sexuality, as riding a motor bike, wearing flannel, enjoying outdoor activities, a hair cut, a tattoo or a piercing. It’s not. This does not define someone’s spot on the globe.

When you boil it all down. The only true behaviour that is related to your sexuality, the only behaviour that can be correlated or perhaps causated to your sexuality is the act of having or not having sex. Better said, how you act upon your sexuality. How you act on your feeling of sexual arousal (or lack thereof). The fact that you find the same sex attractive doesn’t mean you have to act or dress in a certain way, or find Pride the coolest event of the year. But it might mean that halfway during either Fight Club or the Wolf of Wall Street you might just get a bit “overwhelmed”. And if you find all sexes attractive, it might mean you never get through either movie. And I’m not talking about the feeling or arousal itself. That’s not the behavioural part. You can’t control a feeling. You can influence it, yes. Control, no. 

The important part is to figure out what is and isn’t relevant to your sexuality. And, perhaps, most important, what shouldn’t be relevant but still is. When you accept that sexuality is not a behaviour, in the sense that it doesn’t come with any obligations, and you accept that your behaviour doesn’t define your sexuality, in the sense that acting “outside of your stereotype” doesn’t mean shit in relation to whom you want to share your bed with, what’s left? How do you feel? That’s the closest you will come to understanding your sexuality. 

In summary, you don’t have to like flannel, motorbikes or fashion. Nor are you liking any of these things relevant to your sexuality. Social constructs. All bullshit. Find your spot on the globe and just be you. And don’t let anybody tell you differently.

STEP 3: DON’T BE AN ASS.

What we do as a society is judge behaviour. Which is fair. If someone saves a drowning person from a river, this person is judged to be a hero. When someone drowns a person in a river, this person is judged to be a murderer. How we treat others, or better said, how we behave and how this behaviour affects others is fair ground for judgement. Where this simple principle usually goes wrong is the fact that we assume behaviour, or vice versa, based on stereotypes and assumptions as described above and, also, that we often suck at considering others when we act.

So, not sexuality itself, but where someone acts on their sexuality, judgement becomes valid.  People judging another purely based on their sexuality. Often not even aimed at behaviour, but a misplaced notion of how a person will behave or even fundamentally is, simply put, is just pur bigotry. Some claim religion. Others claim culture. The next has another reason. All bullshit. Even when people act on their sexuality. If two (or more) people want to love or simply fuck each other, they have all the right to do so, and it’s nobody’s business other than the people involved. Someone’s beliefs, religion, any other opinion, does not matter. 

We often don’t realize how our opinions shape how other people will express their sexuality. The term microaggression is used in this context. However, this is somewhat of a misnomer. It’s not an aggression, nor is it micro. 

It’s not aggressive for a person to misunderstand something about another, often because said person was raised to believe certain stereotypes. Does that make it right? Of course not. It’s affecting others, without reason or consent. But it’s not meant as aggression. It’s a mistake. 

But unfortunately, it’s not micro. Micro implies little to no effect. This may be true in the same cases, for some people, but most often it is not. Even with the right intention, thinking you understand someone else’s sexuality based on misconceptions is affecting this person. All the above, the labeling, the stereotypes, what influences most is not necessarily aggressive, outright discriminatory behaviour. It is more subtle, seemingly common behaviours, like drops of forming a rain storm, installing societal wide affects. All these little ass-like behaviours are affecting people, including yourself, from finding out, from understanding your true sexuality. 

This is especially true for people at a young age, whose brains and bodies are still developing, susceptible to basically anything. But mostly susceptible to popular opinion. Trying to fit in, make friends, or act cool, basically fighting against their insecurities. These young people, even when they are from loving homes, living in progressive countries, can be tormented by these microaggressions, teaching them lessons on how life should be, how they should be, how their sexuality should be. More often the ones that don’t fit the bill, who fall outside the defaults, will get stuck in a mental place that can hunt them for yours. And for what? 

But perhaps a better way of viewing this is not that the judgemental behaviour itself is the problem. Micro-asses don’t make the world, the world makes micro-asses, kind of an idea. These little behaviours, these stereotypes, these microaggressions are symptoms of the disease and not the disease itself.

What we communicate to eachother, verbally and nonverbally, are expressions of our opinions of something. What we truly think about something. The words or gestures we choose are just the languages, the rules we agreed upon, to expres these opinion to each other. Hence, where people say something, an opinion, about someones sexuality, the questions shouldn’t be how we can change the speech to make it more appropriate. The question should be why some though this in the first place. How we fix the underlying cause and not the symptoms. 

By fixing the labeling issue and fixing the issue of sexuality being a behaviour and that behaviour defines sexuality, we would cure the actual disease. Making it so that stating it’s gay to go home early on a night out or saying that a hair cut makes you look like a lesbian will be things of the past. Better yet, saying something like that would considered as deranged as stating that wearing a dress illustrates a person’s love for apples. 

Where a person acts on their sexuality, behaviour is involved, providing fair grounds for judgment. But only by those involved. When someone makes it clear to another to find this other attractive, the other has all rights to reject, since this behaviour  influences the other. Flirting etiquettes vary from society to society. Which may lead to friction, but can remain within bounds of respect when communicated properly. Meaning that the one taking initiative listens to the one that is the subject of the initiative and accepts where the boundaries are. 

The opposit it true as well. When someone is flirting with you in a respectful manner, don’t stomp all over their feelings. Especially when this person had to conquer societies rules on non-hetrosexuality first. This person probably had to gather a lot of courage to master that awkward opening line. And when you go on a date, have the decency to express that you’re not wanting to go on another instead of ghosting the person.

Yes, the other person’s advances affect you, making it fair ground for you to judge if you’re open to them or not, but don’t be an ass about it. Allow others to retain the courage to explore their sexuality. You can easily reject someone in a respectful manner without having to other cross any of your boundaries. 

This seemingly simple concept, when followed properly, is awesome. It’s fun. It allows you and everybody else to experience joy whilst exploring your sexuality. So, to make sure that everybody is experiencing this joy, learn where the bounds are. Accept rejection. Be respectful. Understand what you are being told, verbally and non verbally, and tread others the way you would like be treated yourself. 

If everyone involved, both the giver and the taker, the advancer and the advancee, treed each other with respect, and respect each others boundaries, no harm is done. Or perhaps more importantly, no harm can be done where we understand what these boundaries are and don’t cross them to begin with, everyone can experience the joy of figuring out your sexuality. The joy of the journey towards finding your soulmate (and some fun dates and late nights until you find your soulmate).

CONCLUSION

Basically, all issues can go away, can easily be solved, when we just stop allowing them to happen. Just stop labeling. Just stop stereotyping. Just stop thinking about it. Let someone, and most importantly, yourself, figure out who you are, who you love, who you find attractive, on your own. Without constraint. The only way to do so is to stop letting sexuality labels, or any form of judgment, positive and negative, be part of our societies. The fact is, nothing bad will come of this.

People who are afraid their identities are taken away when they cannot conform to a sexuality, are only thinking this because they were forced to do so in the first place. People who may have struggled, who may have suffered bullying or worse, trying to figure out if they are gay, straight, bi, pan, or anything other. Forced to label themselves in the first place. The simple fact is, without the constraints, you can still be part of a group, you can still have your preferences, you just don’t have to anymore. Your sexuality doesn’t define you anymore, nor are you defined based on your sexuality, leaving just all the freedom to explore what you want. Without fear. Without consequences. So, none of the bad stuff, but still all the good stuff.

This is also true for those who are still stuck in their, call it traditional ways. The olden views of man plus woman being the default or perhaps even being the only way. These people who are afraid their identities are taken away when they cannot conform to this only few of sexuality, are only thinking this because they were forced to do so in the first place. Forced to label themselves, and others in the first place. The simple fact is, without the constraints, you can still be part of a group, you can still have your preferences, you just don’t have to anymore. Your sexuality doesn’t define you anymore or others, nor are you or others defined based on sexuality, leaving just all the freedom to explore what you want. And you get all the freedom to explore what you want. Without fear. Without consequences. So, none of the bad stuff, but still all the good stuff.

Will this fix people being put in prison for sleeping with someone? Not at first. Eventually, yes. You can’t change the world overnight, but you can change yourself overnight. Were everyone who reads this to stop discrimination based on sexuality by stopping to label it, by stopping to think it is anything other than someone’s personal, unique, intangible spot on the globe, and embrace the beauty of that, we start to reach true equality. True equality by not giving a fuck about it in the first place.