Depends. I wouldn't go as far to say that sexuality is the biggest part of everyone's identity - only a small percentage. And, it's up the individual what parts of their identity they consider the most important. For example, a gay person may consider their sexuality important, if they do a lot of activism work. Another gay person may not. One Christian may consider the fact that they are a Christian the primary part of their identity, another Christian may not. One mother may consider herself as a mother, another mother may consider herself as a her occupation, her hobbies, her beliefs, etc., before her identity as a mother.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's irritating how this whole sexuality thing got out of hand anyway. It used to be just one of those things, like your favourite colour, which really didn't matter, but now it's like OMYGOD HOMOSEXUAL? I HOPE THEY DON'T RAPE ME.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Um it was worse in YESTERDAY'S society... You wouldn't even be allowed to be on the computer (had they been invented).

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Wut?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

She claims sexuality inhibits ideas and beliefs in "Today's society". If this was 100 years ago she wouldn't even being saying this, she'd be in the kitchen being a woman. If she was gay, she probably wouldn't be allowed to speak at all. Just be locked up in the house like Emily Dickinson.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Oh, I thought you were saying that gays weren't allowed to use computers...I was confused. Anyways, yes women were much more restricted a century ago than gays are restricted today, but that doesn't make it any less important. I could do the same thing with women's rights by comparing it to civil rights. But none of this is even relevant to the post. All the post is saying is that people make their sexuality too big a part of their self-identity.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Eh, if she hadn't implied society was moving backwards, I might have agreed.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Emily Dickinson kept herself inside of her house because of depression. She still had whoever she wanted over, but she wouldn't even sit with them, she'd sit behind a curtain. And I wouldn't have thought to put gender under sexuality.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No, actually she was a lesbian in a Calvin-ist (sp?) community, with her father as the priest. And gender plays a role in sexuality.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I knew she was lesbian and that her father was a priest, but for a few of the years she shut herself in her father was already dead. I think the fact that she still spoke with and wrote whomever she wanted but rarely let people see her face is proof that she was severely shy in her later years. I wrote a research paper about her and I've never found anything to note that her seclusion was not by choice. And I know it plays a role, but I was thinking primarily of homosexual and other stereotypes.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I would choose to seclude myself as well if my community deemed my thoughts and desires as the devil's work. Perhaps if she felt society would have accepted her, which they would not have, she would have emerged.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't know if I would seclude myself to the degree that she did, but I wouldn't want to associate with most people. What sucks the most for her is that she was in love with her sister-in-law, and a few people knew it. I can't really imagine a more awkward situation.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I read some of her work in my poetry class. It was borderline heartbreaking. Plus, that she wanted her work burned! I mean it's got to be awkward if you'd still ashamed after you're dead IMO.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's really sad, but then there are a lot of poems that are pretty happy, but that's when it's not regarding people, like, "I taste a liquor never brewed." It's not exactly what you call cheerful, but it's nice.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't see why people need to post their sexuality on the internet at all, since it's not like you're going to hook up or anything. Unless you're on a dating site of course.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't see why gay people are so in your face with the sexuality thing. They either make it extraordinarily obvious in their mannerisms, or they say "Hi, I'm so and so, I'm gay" and I don't see why they include that. It's unnecessary information, I don't care what you do in the bedroom, but keep it there.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Again, that's a small percentage of people, that isn't a representative of an entire group. Also, homosexuality isn't just about sex, just like heterosexuality isn't just about sex.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I didn't mean it like that, i meant it as "i dont care if you screw men women or animals, because it probably has nothing to do with what we'll be talking about"

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Ah, I get it now, I agree - if I'm buying something at the supermarket, I don't really want to know the cashier's sexuality; if I'm talking to someone about the value of Pi, I don't need to know whether they fancy men or women.

by Anonymous 12 years ago