Tuesday, July 13, 2010


As a male who likes to identify more with females, and yet is still more attracted (sexually) to females than to males, I feel like there should not only be a split between biological sex and psychological gender, but also between what sex/gender one identifies as, and what sex/gender one is attracted to. The terms "straight" and "gay", and even their more technical counterparts - heterosexual and homosexual - imply two things: what a person is and what that person is attracted to. Being attracted to "the same sex/gender you are" or "the opposite sex/gender as you" is all fine and dandy when we assume that there are just two easily defined sexes/genders. But for someone whose identity is more fluid and/or confused, those terms fall short.

Here's a question for you, if a guy has an operation to become a girl, and likes guys, is s/he straight or gay? Your answer will betray your opinion on trans-sexuality. But what about transgendered people who don't change their sex? Let's say, for example, a guy who thinks he's a girl, but keeps his guy body. If he likes girls, is he straight because he's got a guy's body, or gay because he's got a girl's mind? If he likes guys, is that gay or straight? It's not so clear-cut.

I'm gonna leave those questions open and switch gears a little bit. Keeping with the general theme, I'm aware of a disconnect between a) what I like and what I do, and b) my audience and who I am a fan of. This is all in relation to my work as a photographer. I shoot male nudes for the sake of convenience, when really I'm interested in female nudes (and non-nudes). My artistic goal is to shoot beauty, and yet what I see as beauty isn't what I'm shooting.

Granted, I do like the work that I do, and I think there is beauty in it. But, to put it one way, it's not my first choice. Inevitably, I get pigeonholed as an artist who works with male erotica. But I'm not interested in male erotica. So the people who like my work, and produce similar work, are outside my sphere of interest. On the other hand, I like artists who capture feminine beauty, yet I do not produce works depicting (true) feminine beauty. The result is that I'm not generally a fan of my fans (but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate them), and the people I am a fan of aren't fans of me.

It's kind of frustrating because I don't get the kind of feedback and community participation I'd like to have, because the community that would accept me doesn't interest me, and the community that interests me won't seem to accept me. The only solution is to start shooting models. Which is something I've wanted to do. But I'm having trouble finding them. Because, you know, I don't have the kind of community access I want. You've got to know people, and I'm a loner. I'm willing to take suggestions.


  1. It seems to me that if a person (regardless of genitalia) identifies and presents himself as male, he's straight if he's attracted to individuals who are genetic women or who identify and present themselves as women. He's gay if he's attracted to individuals who are genetic men or who identify/present themselves as women. And he's bi if he's attracted to all of the above. If a male is attracted only to non-genetic women and not to genetic women, then i have no idea how his sexuality should be labeled :). And vice/versa for women.

  2. Haha, wow, that was really confusing! I'm gonna have to read through it again.

    It seems that maybe there should be a label for people who are attracted to trans-persons only and not genetic whatevers. Does that exclusive attraction exist? Myself, I'm partial to genetic whatevers (in my case females), but I try to be as tolerant as possible. It's a mad, confusing world out there, and it'd be simpler if we could all just say "he/she/it is attractive" on a case by case basis...