Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1a 12/4/83; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!seismo!rlgvax!guy
From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: thoughts on desperation
Message-ID: <2010@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-Jun-84 17:21:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.2010
Posted: Sat Jun  9 17:21:52 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Jun-84 07:02:05 EDT
References: <19573@wivax.UUCP>, <746@pucc-h>, <19@ut-sally.UUCP> <764@pucc-h>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 56

> Some of Wendy's homo/bisexual friends comment

> > that you shouldn't cut yourself off from the possibility of
> > loving and being loved by someone of your own sex.  Rationale
> > for this includes believing that someone of the same sex can
> > share more of your feelings, since you have more in common.

> Here we have to define terms.  Most of my closest friends are male.  I can
> honestly say that we love each other deeply.  We have indeed shared a lot of
> feelings (many of these friends of mine are fellow dissatisfied celibates).
> But we don't have to have sex with each other to love each other.

You're both right.

Whether one expresses affection sexually or not, and when one does, is purely
a matter of individual orientation.  The comment should have been stated
"...you shouldn't cut yourself off from the possibility of expressing
affection sexually with someone of your own sex."  Whether this is true or
not is a different story; sexual interest and love are two different things,
and don't always go hand-in-hand.  Some people don't get interested in their
own sex; some people don't get interested in the opposite sex; some people
don't get interested in either sex; some people (of *both* sexes) only get
interested in dumb blondes; and so forth.

I've seen nothing that indicates to me that anybody's figured out *why* some
people get interested only in the opposite sex/same sex/dumb blondes/etc..
There have been, however, a lot of "explanations" of why heterosexuality,
homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, etc. are "better"; they all come across
as after-the-fact rationalizations.  The human personality is the product
of a lot of complicated biological, cultural/social, and personal factors.
Beware of ascribing a part of your personality to a small number of those
factors.  Just be what you are, and learn not to worry about it.  Learning
that can be hard, given the number of images we're flooded with about what
we're "supposed" to be; if we aren't what we think we ought to be, we worry
about it.  For some things, this is good; if we worry enough about breaking
little sister's/brother's toys, maybe we'll stop doing it and little sister/
brother will be happier.  Unfortunately, it also makes us guilty about things
which shouldn't have any guilt associated with them, such as sexual orientation.
All the tools of social indoctrination can be used by a dominant group to
inculcate their attitudes, even if the only benefit of those attitudes
accrues to the dominant group.  I'm sure most gays reading this group can
testify to that.  So can blacks other minorities, and so can women.

If you feel heterosexual, don't worry about it and don't feel any need
to defend it.  The only way to defend it, except as a personal orientation,
is to find fault with other orientations, and such fault simply doesn't exist.
A particular person may be gay and unhappy, and may even be unhappy because
of their gayness.  But that's just that one person; and even for that person,
the unhappiness may come about because of the image that it's "unnatural"
and wrong, not because it isn't right for them.  (John Varley's "Demon" has
an interesting bit about a woman who grew up in a lesbian separatist society
and discovered, relatively late in life, that she was "queer" - i.e., straight.
She felt quite guilty about it, and had a lot of trouble dealing with it.)

	Guy Harris
	{seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy