> Miles writes:
>
> "When people like me say
> "sexuality is socially constructed", this is what we mean:
> the translation of sexual activity into sexual identity is
> historically and culturally contingent, not natural and
> necessary."
>
> What confuses me is the need to build an identity around an act.
> Sometimes I am inspired to make love to a woman; sometimes to a man. So
> what? Why do we have to construct an ideology, or an identity, or
> anything out of that?
>
> This is not pretended obtuseness; it's a real question.
It's a good question. It might help to look at it this way. Imagine a guy who has developed a complex and comprehensive philosophy of aesthetics based on whether a rock band Sucks, Rocks, has Sold Out, has hired a commercial Producer, or has made a Stupid Comment in an interview. Imagine someone who has an overreaching need to combine his or her aesthetic senses, personal joys, and every conceivable act under a single, unified dogma. That's the extreme version of what you're questioning.
No, there is no necessary reason to build a political ideology around one's sexuality. But we live in a time when certain acts are stigmatized. In such times, people assign greater significance to the act than they might do otherwise. In 1967, growing your hair and beard long, wearing certain styles of clothing, and smoking grass were acts that carried a lot of cultural weight. Nowadays, they don't. So maybe it's best to conduct yourself as though you live in the future, when the acts have no political baggage, and you can get on with enjoying yourself without having to worry about fuckheads who'll snipe at your sexuality because _they_ have this weird, judgmental _need_.