Let's talk about sex, baby

[andrewducker]

A couple of days ago cangetmad asked me to define "sex". If you've ever spent any time around lesbians, this is a topic that comes up, usually when someone makes a 'joke' about them not having proper sex (note to self: stop doing that).

Anyway, with a few tweaks (cheers to nancylebov for a couple of pointers), here's my response, laid out here, so that people can tell me how much of a wronghead I am:

I think there are a variety of things that are called "sex", and they form a kind of continuum.

1) Everyone agreed that "penis/vagina interface" stuff is sex. Some people think that this is the only thing that is sex, and that other things are sexual, without being sex. If you overheard someone say "I gave him a blowjob, but we didn't have sex." you'd know exactly what they meant there. Most people would include anal sex here as well - although some people would move it into category two.
2) Expanding the definition somewhat - some people agree that anything involving stimulation of the genitals is sex. So blow jobs are sex, mutual masturbation is sex, cunnulingus is sex, etc.
3) Expanding it even further - some people think that any physical contact which is intended to cause sexual feelings is sex. Which would include nipple-licking, naked massage, extended kissing sessions, etc.
4) Expanding as far as I can possibly think of, you have things which don't involve touching at all, like cybersex or phone sex, or watching "The Triumph Of The Will" together.

And on top of this, some people don't think that it's sex unless it involves an emotional component - because they don't believe that rape is sex (something I find baffling, as (to me) rape is clearly "sex without consent").

Oh, and I've heard all sorts of linguistic hypocrisies around this one - with (for instance) women agreeing that if they did act X with another woman it would be 'sex', but if they did it with a man it wouldn't be 'sex'.

The problem being that "sex" is inductively defined - it's based on experience, and what triggers in your head go off when you're exposed to certain acts/ideas. Which means that people are never going to agree.

To sum up, sex is in the eye of the beholder, and it no more matters whether what you're having is "real sex" or "lesbian sex" than it does whether you're having a "marriage" or a "civil partnership" - i.e. not at all to some people, and a vast amount to others.

Comments

[andrewducker]

Aaah, actually, it's not stating that. I should have realised that that sentence wasn't going to work for foreigners. In the UK marriage and civil partnerships are _exactly the same thing_ - only gay people can't get married and straight people can't have civil partnerships. What I was saying was that lesbian sex _is_ real sex, unless you want to quibble over a name. There's a reason both terms are in quotes in that sentence, it's to denote that I'm talking about the terms, rather than just using them.

[rahaeli.livejournal.com]

Mmm, maybe it is a US vs. UK thing -- what I'm saying here is that by separating out the two terms -- "real sex" and "lesbian sex" -- you're creating a separation between them, and in the words of the great man, "separate is inherently unequal". And the emotional value-judgement contained by the word "real", along with the dichotomy created by separating both parts of it, means that whatever is not Real is Fake.

Cultural differences, probably, but it really made me grit my teeth. (Mostly because, yeah, I've had a lot of jokes made in front of me, and it gets bloody old.)

[andrewducker]

It's tricky - because I could change it to "penetrative sex", but that would then stop it being my point - that lesbian sex _is_ real sex, if you choose to look at it that way.

And I understand why it made you grit your teeth - enough things have exactly that effect on me.