Charles Brown wrote:
>I gotta preach it again: this whole "root" or "underneath" metaphor for
>biology has been contradicted time and time again by research on human
>behavior patterns, including sexuality. Sexuality is a product of a complex
>interplay of genetic, biological, psychological, social, and cultural
>factors (did I leave anything out)? There's no "root" here to discover,
>just the strands that make up the patterns in the behavioral
>fabric.
>
Words are very seductive. Not only do they put us in the false position
of picking the right one but they further encourage us to think that
whatever is, is immutable.
I'm just on the other side of fifty. Looking back on my life and that of people I know closely, I would say that sexual preference is a gray and ever-shifting area. Early childhood locates the erotic all over the damn place and seems to be very inclusive, early adolescence can also be inclusive. The child-bearing years tend to narrow things down, but that's not surprising. Then, at least for women, there is a tendency to get more interested in women after the children have outgrown childhood. I see sexual life as shifting from pan sexuality to homosexuality to heterosexuality and back. The only problem is trying to step into the same river twice. Calling it instinct just gives a Lawrentian glow to a purely mental effort.
I know I've said this before and I apologize for being boring, but the problem is not so much with sexuality as it is with the desire for control, which makes us insist that our sexual identity be one thing only and that it never change. That's really as odd as any sexual "perversion" you'd care to name.
Joanna