Re: Mind's Eye Re: sexual orientation

Probably, the gay-straight-bisexual thing is a shorthand for more
complicated realities. Though my own sexual attention, for instance,
is towards other men, I occasionally have het fantasies. I welcome
these as part of a healthy sexual imagination and leave it at that,
though a romance with a woman my age and sharing my interests seems like
a grand idea as I picture it at the moment. This sort of comfort with
a sexual orientation not one's own seems more prevalent among gay men
than straight. Gay folks, and both gay and straight people in
alternative sexuallity communities --SM, poly, etc.-- simply have more
exposure to erotic schemes not their own. Straight men, on the other
hand, usually don't get exposure to erotic cultures not their own and
are trained early on to despise them, and to beat them up if they get
the chance. Present company excepted, of course.



--Bill








On 9/10/2012 9:30 AM, archytas wrote:
> I think the hope is to optimise away from being so boring on the issue
> of sexual orientation as gay, bi, lesbian and straight. Only
> godswank prejudice could ever have led us to be bothered.
> Orientation towards violent, predatory and exploitative sex does seem
> worthy of consideration and there is sadly plenty of it. I suspect
> this pathology is the model for our political economy.
>
> I can sympathise with being Molly - Heidegger tortured it death. I
> came across a paedophile case recently in which the perpetrator had a
> brain tumour. Once removed the behaviour disappeared. The scalpel
> saved him rather than introspection. I agree, of course, that we need
> more reflection on what we can be and how to live. If life as we know
> it (Jim) was a holiday destination, I wouldn't be coming back.
>
> Women (as in cosmetic adverts) make me sick, as would anyone attracted
> to Marks and Spencer by its latest clothes-horse marketing. It seems
> I have little orientation towards bimboism. Anthropology gives us
> reason to suppose sexuality is culturally manufactured in large
> degree. I suspect we don't think very clearly about it
>
> Much as I don't like rules, I think we can value them in minimal
> form. I'd guess one we're missing on sexuality is its use in
> distraction, much like religious rituals. I have to say, Gabs, that
> the sexuality of any offspring would be of less concern to me than
> general health - thus no doubt making be ableist against the social
> model of disability. One might ponder whether one would prefer a
> child to carry potential to be a fast-bowling all rounder or born
> straight (no contest for me). The Italian aristocracy model from the
> 17th century was essentially gay - women were just breeding machines.
> I am not an aristocrat and, having watched England thrash the West
> Indies in women's cricket, am a little sad I'm too old to make a fool
> of myself with the whole eleven.
>
> On 10 Sep, 16:33, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This translates that there is hope for mankind to be able to optimize
>> their offspring's sexual orientation to the desired one. An old
>> belief.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'd say that genes only rule rationality when rationality or "mind" rules
>>> being. A quiet mind opens endless possibility. Epigenetics is changing the
>>> paradigm as we find our genetic code in flux and responsive to our internal
>>> environment. Twins separated at birth match their adoptive parents genetic
>>> code more than their biological. All quite fascinating.
>>> On Monday, September 10, 2012 7:35:52 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote:
>>>> I watched some gorillas on television a couple of days back. An all
>>>> male group were practising homosexuality, but then the women moved in
>>>> and they reverted to straight. The alpha appeared to dominate the
>>>> sex, but in fact the others got on with life behind his back. All
>>>> very human. A couple of weeks back I had a bit of a blow out down the
>>>> pub. I was accused by a psycho of fancying his wife - all very ape.
>>>> I find sexual orientation pretty boring. I still get the smarts from
>>>> time to time, but find sex as commercially presented dull. I'd say
>>>> each to his or her own if my old job hadn't exposed me to utter
>>>> perversion. I have a mate into bondage and pain and that's his
>>>> business. I can't say the same about sex tourism and child abuse such
>>>> as getting sex from young kids by giving them mobile phones. Most
>>>> cultures have abusive sex rings and weird rituals. I have a
>>>> particular disdain for men in skirts waiving incense, pretending
>>>> holiness and abusing kids.
>>>> I'm a cuddly sort under whatever enigma I present or is (more
>>>> accurately I think) perceived by others. Derrida had it somewhere
>>>> that the pen scratching paper is violence. My favourite sports are
>>>> violent (cricket and rugby). Sex itself is somewhat more violent than
>>>> scratching paper with a nib, though our ludic gasps are not usually
>>>> about pain.
>>>> I'm not at all sure sexual orientation is about straight, gay, lesbian
>>>> and so on. Sue's dog has a thing for my duffle-coat, teenage legs as
>>>> he approaches 'maturity' and is devoted to our female cat. What
>>>> consenting people do between themselves is generally of no account,
>>>> though the taboos we have on age and incest are about right.
>>>> Genetically, we are close to not needing sexual relations for
>>>> reproduction - either sex can, in principle, reproduce without the
>>>> other, and again in principle, we could build the 'next model' from
>>>> chemical constituents.
>>>> I suspect our economic affairs are little more than some sublimated
>>>> ape genetics. I'm interested in how gang-rape and abuse cultures come
>>>> about in an attempt to understand how a sexual orientation infringes
>>>> emancipation and consenting mutuality - and how we might live free of
>>>> the domination of genes over rationality (itself somewhat gene-driven).
>>> --

--