Another Zine from Meg-John. Again, sexuality is not so simple as often assumed. To quote part of the Zine:
“A major problem is that most models of sexuality focus narrowly on one aspect of sexuality: the gender of the people we’re attracted to. That’s like saying our landscape is only made up of forest, and completely ignoring all other terrains.
“Other features of our sexuality that we could equally pay attention to include the following, and many more. You might want to think which are relevant to you, and in what ways:
- Our levels of sexual attraction (from none to high)
- Physical aspects of attraction that aren’t related to gender (e.g. smile, eye colour, or body shape & size)
- The number of partners we like to have (from none to many)
- The age or experience of people we’re attracted to in relation to our own
- Whether our sexuality is linked to power, and where we like to be in relation to that (e.g. dominant, submissive, both or neither)
- Roles we like to play sexually (e.g. active or passive, initiating or receiving)
- The kinds of sensations, fantasies, & experiences we enjoy sexually
“These can all be just as important as the gender of people we’re attracted to in defining our sexuality.”
So it can be complicated.
I’m happy and comfortable to work with people of all sexualities.