Sexuality Seminar

The seminar was surprisingly well done. This is particularly so, considering the fact that much of it was simply dialogue. As such, much of the talk seemed to be preaching to the choir. That being said, I suppose reinforcement is always helpful. Ultimately, what I’d like to talk about, is the type of language used in the discussion. I understand wanting to be inclusive in language. Language serves as a first step, for without it, you can’t even begin to speak. There is, however, another concern at the other end of the spectrum. I honestly think language can be too inclusive.
For example, I had a hard time distinguishing the meanings of heteronormative and heterosexism, and I don’t think that’s uncommon. It seems, understandably so, that people are eager to create a science here in the face of persecution, but we’re getting carried away with ourselves. The danger of this is that the field as a whole is not taken seriously. The idea being, clearly they don’t know what they’re talking about if they can’t even get their words right. Or an even worse consequence, it’s approached as a false science altogether. As the term science suggests, precision in language is essential.
As sexuality becomes less and less taboo to discuss in public, a science on it will no doubt become more accurate. We are seeing its formation, now, and as such, need to tread carefully. And so, the definitions written on the board that didn’t seem to end was frustrating. This isn’t a science—it’s a hodgepodge. A “throw everything at it and see what sticks.”—it all stuck.
Philosophically, or biologically, sex, not consciousness, is what connects us to all life. As such, it makes sense that a science of sexuality is a late bloomer, so to speak. We’re a bit embarrassed of it as a species. (On the whole –see ‘preaching to the choir’) We like to think of ourselves as separate from species—we’re the ones who create taxonomy, and as such, aren’t really in it per se, at least not relative to everyday life, as is all other life. i.e. we’re not homosapiens first –maybe humans, but even that’s a stretch. We usually don’t even bother looking at ourselves, but assume our reference point is universal.
Ultimately, the conference illuminated where we really are in the creation of a science of sexuality. This is not to say that there hasn’t been truckloads of serious research already done—I’m sure there has been. But the fact that it was an open dialogue---a sharing of personal experiences—something anecdotal as opposed to concrete in theory, is a good indicator of where we are in the process (early). We just need to be able to first speak about it in the open, with all our cards on the table. This is why the seminar as a whole was particularly useful, as well as frustrating.