Views on homosexuality
Mar 1, 2009 Author: Crystal | Filed under: SexRe: Chelsea’s question
“Not to mention what are your views on homosexuality? What is your sexual orientation?”
In this discussion, I want to stay away from identifying and using labels such as “homosexual”, “heterosexual”, and “bisexual”, for two reasons:
1) Each person may define those terms differently. For example, someone may identify him or herself as a homosexual, but may not be considered such by others. To avert confusion, I will discuss behaviors and feelings rather than personal identifications.
2) I believe that these classifications are human constructions that only serve to divide, exclude, and subjugate. By fitting people into distinct categories which we then assign blanket moral and personal judgments to, we justify and open the floodgates to all sorts of discrimination and acts of intolerance.
In my world, everybody is a bisexual. The only things that exist are feelings and actions, and not artificial identifiers. I once said that I believe sexuality is a spectrum, with people falling somewhere in the middle. Yet now that I think about it, sexuality is not just something you can linearize, or even spatialize. Your sexuality just is, yet people feel the compulsive need to place individuals on an axis. Sexuality is only a function of two things: feelings and actions.
Feelings refer to what attracts you. I’m not just talking about if you are attracted to males or females, but also generally. For example, if you are attracted to large, burly men, or skinny dorky guys; hot women with big breasts, or small cute girls. I firmly believe that all individuals feel attracted to both sexes; everyone at some point has had sexual fantasies about someone of the same sex. For example, I find female breasts extremely attractive. They are so soft, pale, and beautiful: the paragon of femininity.
Actions refer to how you react to those feelings. This doesn’t just mean whether you have sex with males or females either. For example, I enjoy looking at female breasts, especially in artistic portraits and paintings. Some people choose to act on their feelings, while others choose to repress them. Does someone who only has feelings yet doesn’t act on them constitute a homosexual?
Finally, I don’t care who you are. Everyone has or will perform sexual acts with someone of the same gender: yourself. Everyone masturbates (at least once), and enjoys it.
Therefore it is pointless for us to talk about opinions on homosexuality because it just exists. Everyone experiences it, just like any other feeling. There are no heterosexuals, or homosexuals, only people with sexual feelings.
mood:8 finished chorus concert + friends watched in (including My Crush) + close friend visiting me again!
physical tiredness: 3 not much sleep all week, accumulated sleep debt
spiritual tiredness: 5 still no time to think of such things
Categories
- Academics (31)
- blogging (3)
- Budget (2)
- Childhood (1)
- China (17)
- Cooking (3)
- Cool Stuff I Think You Should Try (10)
- Current Events (12)
- Diet (3)
- England (22)
- Exercise (5)
- Family (12)
- Fiction (2)
- Friendship/Social relations (13)
- Hobbies (2)
- medical school (19)
- Medicine (4)
- New Places (2)
- Personal Character (9)
- Personal Development (8)
- Pictures (1)
- Ramblings (22)
- Rants (4)
- Relationships (40)
- Sex (16)
- sleep (15)
- Social Relations (4)
- Special Events (1)
- Travel (6)
- Uncategorized (1)
- Unoriginal works I want to share (1)
- Vegetarian (7)
Archives
- January 2012
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- June 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
5 Responses for "Views on homosexuality"
Not to denounce your theory about bisexuality, but hasn’t it been scientifically proven that GLBT’s have different brain structures? And don’t other scientists suspect involvement of genes in the determination of sexual orientation? Of course, I do agree with you that everyone has feelings for both genders at some point and sexuality cannot be linearjzed, but I wouldn’t go so far as to categorize him/her as gay or bi. If you had feelings for your dog, would you say you’re attracted to canines/animals? I doubt that. Same for your family members.
Dear Dyslexia,
1) Not enough sound evidence to support the claim that there is something genetically different with homosexuals
2) Genetics are so varied that is impossible to pinpoint any one gene as the “gay gene” like we do with color blindness or Huntington’s. We don’t say that tall people are categorically different than short people, rather that each person falls on a different place in the same spectrum. Thus, each person is different but equal; when we start to make essentializing categories, that allows us to tip the equation towards subordination.
3) Even if we were to accept that homosexuals are biologically different, that doesn’t necessarily translate into social reality. Some people might have a genetic predisposition to obesity but their behavior can prevent that. Does just having the homosexual genes make someone act on them? Does not having the genes mean someone will be straight?
4) Like I said, just because you have feelings for someone of the same sex does not make you a “homosexual”. It just means you have a homosexual feeling. If you have sexual feelings for your dog, or your family member, it doesn’t make you a “incesto/canine-phile” or whatever, it just means you had those kind of thoughts.
Thanks for engaging me on this topic and forcing me to defend my position!
Dear Perhaps- You’re- The- One- Who’s- Dyslexic,
1) You may be correct that there probably isn’t enough sound evidence to associate genes with orientation, but there is plenty of evidence to associate orientation with brain shape.
2) I understand your spectrum theory, but even with a spectrum, we can always categorize people. In a political spectrum there are some socialists who lean towards the right and some towards the left, but they’re still categorized as socialists. More precisely I believe that instead of eliminating the existence of categories, there should be additions to the bi, homo-, hetero- categories.
3) Obesity and sexual orientation are two different aspects of humans. Obesity is a physical trait, but sexual orientation is more of a mental trait. Sexual attraction is, like you said, feelings. Physical appearances are always easier to change, whether through plastic surgery or some other means, but the innate predisposition will always be there. Mental traits, on the other hand, such as retardation, are difficult, if not impossible, to change. If one’s genes predisposes one to be homosexual, then one will always be homosexual. Perhaps only through societal pressure or confusion will one become heterosexual.
4) Hmm..so if one had feelings for the same sex and if that does not make one homosexual, then technically, people can be categorized as hetero, homo, or bi. How can a person be 90% straight? Wouldn’t the residuous 10% be filled with feelings of homosexuality?
I hope this does not offend. I’m not trying to criticize you. I just find it interesting to talk about these things.
Interesting points. I’d like to preface that I am in no way offended by your points of debate. And my Dyslexia appellation was not meant to be an insult, so sorry if you took it the wrong way.
I’d like to clarify that my views are not a “spectrum”. A spectrum necessarily denotes a line with two poles. While there may be instances in which categorization is useful, sexuality is not one of them. Politics categorizes people because of the strength of numbers; many is louder than one. What use does placing people into homosexual or heterosexual have; or dividing people into 10% gay 90% straight? Adding more categories to the currently established ones would only exacerbate existing problems of delineation.
When categorization provides strength, it should be promoted. When it justifies subordination, it should be eliminated.
Dear Crystal,
You are mistaken. I did not at all take offense. Instead I found it quite invigorating and amusing. I, on the other hand, thought you took offense.
On the other hand, why try and eliminate subordination? It’s everywhere. Might as well embrace it because even if you denounce it, you can’t convince everyone to denounce it, and one bad apple may spoil the whole basket.
Also, can’t one also argue that categorization in politics also causes subordination? And technically can’t a spectrum also be seen as more circular rather than delineated with two poles? Even in politics fascism and communism seem to come together at some pont.
Leave a reply