> Plenty of heterosexuals don't have sex.
Maybe we need a new category of "retired heterosexual" in the spirit of Willie Mays being a retired baseball player.
Michael:
> So are you opposing this idea? If so I'd be
fascinated to hear what your arguments are against
it.
I am still grappling with gay by choice versus being gay by orientation. I can understand that the way I manifest my sexual identity is a choice, but wanting to suck dick doesn't feel like one. I have tried to choose to eat pussy, but though I could choose to commit the act, I seem unable to choose to have the desire to do so.
Even those sexual acts involving portions of anatomy that are similar on both men and women, e.g., backs, buttocks, anal sphincters, are not ones I seem to be able to choose to have a desire to do with women. If sexual desire is a choice, shouldn't I be able to choose to desire to be sexually attracted to women?
Yoshie:
> . . . sexual orientations as transcultural and
transhistorical universals
If a person wants to view sexual orientation as transhistorical, they should be free to do so, just as a person should be allowed to view it as not being transhistorical. Whatever works best for them.
Maybe sexual desire is both transhistorical and culturally constructed, and what need.
Miles:
> Only if we are willing to falsely impose our own
sexual categories on societies in the past.
Without imposing our own sexual categories, we can look backwards and find desires and practices that resonate with our lives now.
I know men in earlier times are not gay the way I am, but I do not believe that their experience is completely alien from mine either. I recognize and respond to the desires, the expressions, even the subterfuges that came into play in their lives.
Brian