this is the happiest goddamn story
(I’ve been asked this elsewhere and thought others might find it helpful.)
The modern use of the word “monosexual” was invented along with “bisexual” by European scientists in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Back then, “bisexual” meant having a combination of male and female anatomical features, or a lack of sexual differentiation between male and female anatomy. “Monosexual” meant clear differentiation between male and female anatomical traits. Later, when bisexuality came to mean “having masculine and feminine psychological traits” (which is how Freud used it), “monosexuality” meant having the psychological traits of one “sex”. Under that framework, bisexuality also came to be understood as a form of attraction: it was presumed that people who had the anatomical sexual traits of “both sexes” also had “male and female” psychological traits, which meant that they also were attracted to “both sexes”. It was assumed that their “male side” desired females, while their “female side” desired males. Under this definition, “monosexual” meant someone with clear anatomical and psychological “male” or “female” traits, who is attracted to one “sex”. Note that they didn’t at all differentiate between sex, gender and sexuality. These were all considered as one and the same.They also used gender-binary language.
This term also had a particular value judgement: while bisexuality was firmly connected with immaturity, “primitiveness”, non-white/West-European (i.e. “savage”) cultures and with animals, monosexuality was strongly associated with maturity, advancement, “cultured” (i.e. West-European) humanity and whiteness. In this framework, monosexuality was clearly and explicitly superior.
Quite a bit later, in the 1990’s, the bisexual movements in the US and the UK used the word in a similar, but different context. Obviously, the meaning of bisexuality has changed considerably (it meant pretty much the same thing as it does now - referring only to desire rather than “anatomical sex” or “psychological gender”). Bi activists and writers used it to mean people attracted to no more than one gender, as part of a political dialogue about oppression. This is where I took it from and is pretty much how I use it. I will say that even then, the term was met with inner-community criticism, basically on the same grounds as now - that it created an unfair conflation between gay and straight people, and that it created a harmful binary dichotomy (bisexual/monosexual).
While I think that these criticisms have really good points, I also think we can take them into account, and use the term carefully, sensitively and contextually, without necessarily making those same mistakes. I think it’s one hell of a useful term for talking about structural oppression of bi people, so I guess you could say I use it tactically in order to raise those issues.
This answers a lot of question.
I actually like the word’s roots in the time when they though sex=gender=sexuality, because then “monosexual” can be taken to mean first and foremost cis straight people.
Dom & Sub is a body of illustrative work in digital media that attempts to humanize practitioners of BDSM and offer a representation of kinky sex that not only refutes negative stereotypes but informs the audience that sadomasochistic play is done best between happy, healthy, and consenting adults. I portrayed the couple in the work not only engaging in S&M play but also building a “scene” together and nurturing one another after the play has concluded; these are moments often left unconsidered or completely ignored in visual representations of S&M. I believe it’s important to see how kinky scenes are crafted with care, commitment to safety and enthusiastic consent in order to limit those times when sadomasochistic play is used to abuse or dehumanize other human beings. It is my hope that my audience will learn from the illustrations that sadomasochistic play is not always dark or scary, and that fellow ‘kinksters’ can enjoy tender representations of S&M that do not ridicule or pathologize them. I’ve designed the work to engage sadomasochistic imagery, material and theory with an ethical conscience.
YES YES YES
cute cute cute! <3
I like it.
And I know the artist knows what they’re talking about, because of that glass of water. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it depicted in BDSM art before! But the post-scene glass of water is A Thing. You get thirsty!
The only thing that could make me happier is if this series goes on to depict a bowl of M&Ms.
Love this. Brilliant view of what BDSM relationships really involve.
Especially the glass of water xD
I really like these. For reasons.
you folks wouldnt believe how many messages i get about what i do here being
- too black
- too queer
- too much about sex
- not “conscious” enough
- too atheist
- too religious
so everybody that sends me a thank you. please know you are appreciated
I’m laughing at your haters, they cannot appreciate the perfection that is your blog. Thanks for existing and keep up the good work.