butterfly | Evidence of Homosexuality Occurring Naturally (Reply)

And so, the evidence keeps piling up that homosexuality is natural, not an artificial construct of society and not a sickness and not a choice.

Most recently (mentioned first by

earis), it was announced that the celebrated swan couple of Boston dubbed 'Romeo and Juliet' are, in fact, a lesbian couple. And the picture of them is adorable, btw. I am tempted to make an icon.

A while back, it was reported that gay men respond differently than straight men to male sweat. Of interest to me is that while the study covered het women and men and gay men, there is no mention of any study of gay women. Because, you know, they don't exist. Or maybe men are just more important. One of those. (I can understand not studying bisexuals (my particular pigeonhole) or transexuals as that might 'confuse' the study, however silly that reasoning might that seems to me, however, gay women seem like the obvious fourth side of the pyramid).

I have a limited amount of patience for bigotry. More precisely, for continuing to be a bigot in face of contrary evidence (which is why Draco Malfoy gets slack from me for being 'a kid' and thus, quite literally, not knowing any better, and why now that he's shown that he has grown into himself, I will be more critical of any bigotry that may appear in the future).

Now, instinctively, I feel that certain things are not useful as a means of determining the merit of a person -- sexuality, gender, race, class. Anything that the person is born into. The argument against homosexuality is often centered around the absurd (to me) notion that it is a choice. It isn't. One can choose whether or not to act on feelings, but the feelings themselves are natural. I don't look at, say, Kate Winslet and choose to think that she's hot. I look at her and think that she's hot. There's no choice involved. The sexual thoughts that exist when I look at a picture of Ewan McGregor exist when I look at a picture of Kate Winslet (my brother is one of the people I know who clings to the 'choice' theory).

But there are, again, two ways of looking at it, depending on whether you value thought or action more highly. Some people say that they're fine with other people being gay as long as they aren't actively being gay. As long as they aren't acting on their homosexual impulses. Which is the attitude that has led to all sorts of horribleness. Repressing a part of one's true nature is something that I believe to be inherently unhealthy.

More than that, repressing something natural often leads to it, under pressure, becoming more intense. Russell T Davies talks about this on one of the QaF commentaries, about part of the reason that gay men are so flashy and obvious when they come out is due to the fact that they've been bottling up who they are and have built up a considerable backlog of homosexual desires. Hence, 'exploding' out of the closet.

The other side of the repression coin is that it's all right to act gay as long as you don't think gay. QaF (UK) ex -- It's okay to get blowjobs in a bathroom stall as long as you don't kiss the guy who's about to blow you. Which Stuart immediately, and rightly, calls 'bullshit' on.

You also used to see this approach in a lot of slash fiction (and it's still there, though less frequently). The whole "I'm not gay/bisexual, I just happen to be hopelessly in love with a man" thing. If a guy is in love with another guy, that's homosexual romantic desire. If a woman is in a sexual relationship with another woman, that's a gay relationship.

I'm with Kinsey in believing that 'pure' straights and gays are far more rare than bisexuals of varying degrees (but as a bisexual, that's a position that I'm inclined to agree with), and also, I believe that within any given person, sexuality is fluid. Some days, I'm more attracted to men and other days, I look at women first.

Of course, even within the category of pure straight/gay, fluidity is known to occur -- over time, a person's type can, on occasion, change.

Personally, I have a vast range of people that I find attractive. Some people have more limited sets of people that they find attractive. Which means that I'm often in the position of going 'but ___ is so hot!' and having someone who just agreed with me about another hot person disagree completely. Because, often, the people that I find hot don't have a whole lot in common and thus don't match to people who do have very specific types. The people who agree with me that Kate Winslet is hot, may not also agree that Sarah Michelle Gellar is gorgeous.

To sum up -- people are attracted to the people that they're attracted to. It isn't a choice. Thank you and good day.