Disturbing article/complexity of sexuality

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@

> >> So *something* physical

> is going on, this isn't always merely a " lifestyle choice " . <<

>

> Heidi, what the hell are you talking about? I can't see how it's

EVER a " lifestyle choice. " My " lifestyle " and my lesbianism are not

related.

>

> Christie

@@@@@@@@

Christie,

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.

Her point makes perfect sense in the context of the widely diverging

views of homosexuality in our culture, which certainly includes the

popular religion-based view of " sinful psychological disposition " .

As much as more educated people like us on this list dismiss such

views as kin to " flat-earth " and " geo-centric " theories, their

prevalence is still readily apparent.

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.

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

is not inherently insulting at all. It's a perfectly accurate term

in the ontogenetic context in which it was used; the meaning is that

a womb constraint overrides a genetic constraint. This is

potentially distinct from the natural genetic variation you cite.

@@@@@@@@@@

I suppose there's some degree of choice, presumably inversely related

to

your distance from neutral (which I guess would mean purely bisexual)

on

the axis, but if you're attracted to men and not women, where's the

choice? Aside from those who believe in the fiction of reeducation, I

suppose some religious types would say the decision to indulge

homosexual

desires is the " choice " , but that position assumes that homosexuality

or

homosexual behaviour is sinful. I have extremely little conscious,

volitional control over which *women* I find attractive; I can't

imagine

being attracted to men, let alone " choosing " to be attracted to them,

so

how on earth are gays and lesbians supposed to " choose " to reverse the

polarity of their sexuality? And if we discard the notion that

homosexuality is sinful, then even the choices (whether imagined by

external observers or actually real) made by people with more

malleable,

middle-of-the-spectrum sexuality have no inherent morality or

immorality,

desirability or undesirability, at least as far as gender goes.

-

@@@@@@

,

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 "

(which mistakenly assumes a binary opposition) with respect to your

genes and womb-experience (the " biological " dimension), but you

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

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

healthy.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania