Wolf says I should write, so okay.
I cannot be other than what I am.
I cannot pretend to be the cute, fluffy, pink sugary sweetness of other delicate, feminine girls.
I cannot pretend to be the tough-as-nails, black leather and mud type hard-ass girls, who nonetheless ooze sex appeal and hang with the boys.
I cannot be the furry, adorable, mouse-type, squirreled away in a corner, that people just want to scoop up and cuddle.
I cannot hope to be the punk-rock, obscure references, facial piercings, with the artists deep, sensitive nature.
Maybe I’m just like everyone else in feeling that I’m distinctly weird.
In relation to my other post, it’s not that I once was the dolled-up, beauty queen type, and have since discarded that persona… I never had it. I’ve never been particularly soft and sweet and feminine. Sure, given a couple hours, lots of makeup (for all the mistakes) and an hour or two, and a couple burns, I could be all made up nice and pretty and hair curled (who really thought putting a stick of hot steel near your flesh was a good idea, anyway? The Inquisition, that’s who). But whether it’s a lack of regard, general disinterest, or what, I’ve just never been the girly girl. I’ve never really been the tomboy either. Which is the point of this… I don’t know if I feel like I have an identity in being a woman. I don’t look in the mirror and think “I’m a woman”… I think “I am me.”
I guess this is as much about identity as anything, I’m trying not to rehash the same thing over and over, though it’s all tied together.
I worry about labels, and our instinctual need as a species to categorize everything, and how much we struggle when people and things defy easy categorization.
I’ve struggled a lot with labels and the underlying meaning beneath them.
For example, we understand someone who is “Bisexual” to be attracted to both men and women. But to me, this doesn’t explain anything. Does this mean that they are able and willing to just engage in sex with either men or women, that they are equally aroused by images of naked men as naked women? Does it mean that they are interested in developing relationships with men and women equally? Are they looking for a meaningful emotional connection with someone of either sex or is it purely sexual? Is there a sense of “I struck out with the hot guy at the bar, but eh, maybe I can get the girl”?
Maybe I overthink, but after these kinds of musings, the word ‘bisexual’ becomes almost meaningless.
I recently met with a man who is Dom, (not our Dom, but dominant) and through conversation, arrived where I told him some of my difficulties, which boiled down to this: “I have trouble seeing sex/gender”.
This is not to mean that I have a brain condition where I can’t differentiate between the two, but rather while I can recognize “That is a very attractive man”, or “she looks very pretty”, I tend to see: “This is person A, and person A is male”. The fact that they are male is secondary and difficult to wrap my head around as being an influence on who they are as a person.
His response to this was to offer me another label, “pansexual”. This, of course, runs into similar issues as any other attempt to categorize. The term is meant to indicate an openness to all sexualities, not only male/female, but transgendered and any other mishmash of sexuality and gender you can think of. I’m not sure this is true of me. I guess it all depends on the person, as with most things, and I think I have trouble imagining a relationship that meshes with me and my life that is other than heterosexual.
All this to say: my head is just fucked up and I just don’t know anything anymore.