Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxi.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxi!cher
From: cher@ihuxi.UUCP (Mike Musing)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: gay...
Message-ID: <913@ihuxi.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 11-Jun-84 21:11:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxi.913
Posted: Mon Jun 11 21:11:29 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Jun-84 05:03:09 EDT
References: <2074@mit-vax.UUCP>, <8007@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 52

>Which instinct is that?  Human beings are certainly sexual creatures, by
>nature, but it seems that people *learn* to focus those feelings, i.e.,
>to associate the sexual drive exclusively with one particular act.

This act is the instrument for procreation, which is the instinct behind it.
In that sence it is central, hence the focus.

>People are always talking about what's 'natural'.  What is natural?  Have
>you looked at other cultures?  Is this 'basic human instinct' you speak
>of universal?  (What is that you say?  It is universal, except in those
>places where it's been perverted?  :-)

I meant animal life. If you accept evolution theory, it is the thing to
compare against. Also, "sex - procreation"  pair looks like an example
of a "tool - goal" relationship.

>What about other sexual acts -- oral sex, masturbation, etc.?  Are these
>also perversions of a basic human instinct?  Why pick on homosexuality?

Well, these are the ways of getting gratification. Homosexuality seems
to be different in that it implies re-orientation ("re" is valid only
if you think that reproduction is the purpose and the reason for the
existence of sexes -- could be a big topic itself!!)
of the sexual drive to motss from motos. Masturbation is a more valid point,
but the distinction is that it does not make you attracted to yourself
in a way that... 

I probably was not careful choosing the terms. Anyway, the instinct implied
attraction to the opposite sex and (occasionally) competition with the 
members of the same sex. The orientation of the attraction differs. O.K?

                                 Mike Musing


  >You are lumping the two groups again. In the case of the natural gay it
  >isn't deviant, it is a lifestyle. In the case of the others it needs to be
  >treated as a symptom just like the others. The problem gays have had in
  >society is that us 'normal' people tend to lump them all in the clinical
  >category simply because we don't think (or feel) like they do. 

What clinical group?
I was trying to make a remark about the similarity between the 2 phenomena
(bulimia & homosexuality), not on the health problems of some people
influenced by these %-(   :-). It (simularity) is, probably, of limited value,
since h is not known to lower life expectancy or undermine health like b.

But:
What makes a bulimic person deviant - public opinion or some 'clinical'
affiliation? For some people it is a lifestyle. Are they 'natural' if
they are happy?