Re: Disturbing article/complexity of sexuality

February 12, 2004

Mike-

>I hate to take you to task here, but I think your take is pretty

>fuzzy. Sexuality is multi-dimensional and exists along continua

>within those dimensions. You can't choose to " reverse the polarity "

Fair point, but I was being deliberately reductive to make a point, and

while overall sexuality is certainly occupies many more than two

dimensions, I think the basic male-vs-female preference doesn't.

>but you

>certainly (even if only temporarily) change or expand your aesthetic

>preferences (the " cultural " dimension), which seems common and

>healthy.

I do think there's a difference between saying the cultural component

(again being deliberately reductive) is malleable and saying you can change

the cultural component, the assumption generally inherent in the latter

being that you can change it in a controlled, deliberate way. I think most

cultural-dimension(s) changes are primarily environmental rather than

volitional in nature and origin, though obviously an individual's

open-mindedness and flexibility will play a limiting or enabling role. And

again, there appear to be significant biological limiters operating in most

individuals (though apparently much more so in men than in women) even in

this domain.

-

February 12, 2004

@@@@@ :

> Fair point, but I was being deliberately reductive to make a point,

and

> while overall sexuality is certainly occupies many more than two

> dimensions, I think the basic male-vs-female preference doesn't.

@@@@@

I'm not a scholar of sexuality, but I think others would disagree

with that binary opposition. It may relate to the existence of more

than two genders. I've heard counts as high as five.

@@@@@@@@@@ Mike/:

> >but you

> >certainly (even if only temporarily) change or expand your

aesthetic

> >preferences (the " cultural " dimension), which seems common and

> >healthy.

>

> I do think there's a difference between saying the cultural

component

> (again being deliberately reductive) is malleable and saying you

can change

> the cultural component, the assumption generally inherent in the

latter

> being that you can change it in a controlled, deliberate way. I

think most

> cultural-dimension(s) changes are primarily environmental rather

than

> volitional in nature and origin, though obviously an individual's

> open-mindedness and flexibility will play a limiting or enabling

role. And

> again, there appear to be significant biological limiters operating

in most

> individuals (though apparently much more so in men than in women)

even in

> this domain.

@@@@@@@@@@

It was perhaps a happy typo that I accidentally left out the

word " can " in my post! Your point about the relative influence of

environmental vs volitional factors in cultural/aesthetic

malleability is a penetrating one. I would certainly defend the

statement with " can " ; in other words, that volition has the potential

to override environmental influence. Nevertheless, it is an

empirical matter which dominates in practice across a population, and

your speculation seems reasonable. Certainly it's hard to even make

this distinction in practice; despite years of intense reflection on

the matter, I wouldn't be able to pin down my preferences for

extremely esoteric avant-garde music to either environment or

volition, and this is not such a bad analogy either. The statement

without " can " conveniently captures the total, undifferentiated

malleability of culture. (For the math/computer science types on the

list, we'd have to define away the " zero change " option, but that's

an irrelevant detail.)

And of course, one can use volition to change one's environment! So

we are forced to wipe-out on the waves of cause and effect.

By the way, I want to acknowledge your speculation about genetic

variation in potential cultural flexibility, to paraphrase what you

said in reply to Chris. That's not only a deep speculation, but one

that makes my head spin in non-linear confusion! Probably a

statistically insignificant mechanism if it exists though...

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

February 12, 2004

>> I think you're completely misreading Heidi here and also ignoring the

obvious meaning of " lifestyle choice " . Heidi's point is that there

is a biological component independent of any cultural components. <<

I don't disagree with that, as my subsequent comments should have made clear. It

is the choice of the word " lifestyle " that just makes my blood boil. There is a

reason this is the word of choice for right wing analysis of homosexuality, and

that is because it trivializes the issue. Let me say that I do NOT believe that

is why Heidi used it, but it did take me aback that she did. Even, dare I say,

hurt my feelings.

>> You use the word " ever " despite the extremely obvious point that many

people choose homosexuality in the absence of a " biological "

disposition. In those cases (obviously not all cases), it is

patently a " lifestyle choice " , as clear as the sky is blue. As a

lesbian intellectual, I'm surprised you wouldn't be the first to

acknowledge this! I elaborate on this point in my reply to

below. <<

I know exactly what you mean by " college lesbians. " My first girlfriend went to

Mt. Holyoke (did I spell that right?), so trust me, I know. <G> But I think

you'll find most gay and lesbian people don't really consider them to be gay or

lesbian. And this is really extremely uncommon among men - they appear to be

more likely to sexually experiment with other guys when young than women are

with other women, but I don't know of a male equivalent of " college lesbians, "

ie, self-identifying as gay when in fact, they are not. But that doesn't matter.

Genuine homosexuality (I don't mean exclusive, I mean arising in your sexual

desires rather than your intellectual choices) is not, in my opinion, EVER a

choice, and while it influences lifestyle it is not in and of itself a

" lifestyle. " If you are truly not sexually attracted to men or women, I don't

think you can choose to become that way. You can choose to live as if you are, I

suppose, but I don't really think that changes the fundamental nature of sexual

attraction.

>> Also, I think you're personalizing her use of the word " awry " when it

is not inherently insulting at all. <<

You know, this opens the whole " If it offends me, doesn't that make it

offensive? " vs " If the person had no intention to offend, then any offense taken

is YOUR problem " debate, to which there is really no resolution. I am sure Heidi

didn't mean to offend me or any other lesbian on the list. I do think that,

nonetheless, there is nothing suprising that it did offend me. " Awry " is not a

neutral word in our language.

Christie

February 12, 2004

On a jestful note of this serious conversation.

If I was a female I would really dig to be a lesbian :-) haha

Maybe this is my man brain just thinking out loud?

_____

From: Anton [mailto:michaelantonparker@...]

Sent: Friday, 13 February 2004 7:20 AM

Subject: Re: Disturbing article/complexity of sexuality