Why are we, as a society, obsessed with knowing whether or not people are single, and whether they're interested in your sex/gender combination, preferably in the first five minutes of conversing with them?
Okay, obvious of obviousness. It's so that they can treat people differently depending on the answer. Because it's something that will shape their interaction. Or because they won't talk to someone at all if they're not a potential date or conquest. Now, I imagine that right about now, if anyone were actually reading this, they would object to the word "conquest". But if you're only approaching someone because they're available, if you wouldn't have been willing to spend the time or effort to talk to them if they hadn't been, then you're placing their only value in whether or not they're going to be sexually satisfying to you, and that makes them a conquest instead of a friend or lover. By only talking to people who might be available for you to have sex with, then you're undermining their worth as a person. And say you still talk to them, but treat them differently... How? By not hitting on them? Then that means your default mode of communication is hitting on people, which is also a problem. At best, it means that you should probably re-evaluate the way you make friends and view people, and at worst you expect every member of whatever sex/gender combinations to which you are attracted to be available for sex at your demand.
I'm being deliberately gender-neutral here, because I've seen this sort of thing happen to both men and women, by both men and women. Often, the context and nuances are different because heaven forbid men and women actually approach sex and dating the same way, but the objectifying nature of what's occurring remains the same.
Yes, knowing if someone is single or not can be useful, but as the first thing you need to know? I like knowing so that I can say "Oh, and say hi to [partner(s)] for me" or remember to inquire as to their health and well-being, but that's about it. I think that we, as a culture, need to fundamentally redesign the way that we gather and prioritise information about other people. Because really, their sex, gender, orientation, age, and attachment status have far less to do with who they are than their hobbies, favourite media, opinions, goals, and personality. Yet, in this supposedly highly individualised society, we often have to battle to be seen as more than "that gay guy", "that old lady", "so-and-so's girlfriend", or "that cute single dude".
This kind of behaviour is reinforcing the idea that sex is (one of) the most important thing, about a person as well as in general. And not just sex, but a certain kind of socially acceptable sex. Where you haven't just just met, but the other person is new and fresh and interesting. Where it's exciting without being *gasp* kinky. Where gender roles are adhered to religiously. Where both parties are single and young and conventionally attractive, as well as preferably heterosexual. Where it's passionate but slow and moving at the same time. Where there's absolutely no communication necessary, and where communication doesn't occur even if it is necessary. In short, this attitude is reinforcing ideals that are basically screwing everyone over. Because seriously, no one can live up to the oxymoronic ideals of sex that are so disgustingly prevalent in our world.
You're getting into hysterics here, and need to calm the hell down for a second. ;) Going from the (wrong) assumption that everyone asks someone if they're single in a few minutes of meeting them to "our culture is absurdly retarded about sexuality" is a little extreme.
ReplyDeleteNow, you're right about our culture, it *is* absurdly retarded about sexuality, but it's not because of the actions of a relatively small percentage of the population's perspectives of gender roles. Instead, those individuals and their actions are symptoms of the culture's sickness. You've got the right idea, but appear to be coming at it from the wrong angle.
Better to ask, "why does our society think that?" instead of casting stones willy-nilly. Eventually, you're going to cast the wrong one at the wrong thing and it's all downhill from there.
As to the question posed above, it's complicated. Personally, I'd attribute a large amount of the stigma to the Puritan influences on the early nation, which have persisted amazingly well. That gets into religion, and is far larger in scope than this blog post is capable of handling, but c'est la vie.
Of course, you shouldn't mistake this comment for insult, merely food for thought. You know me well enough to catch the difference in my writing (I hope o.O).
-A