Saturday, August 18, 2012

Acts or feel?


Okay... Last time I posed the question of what makes one a homosexual. Is it the act of gay sex, or is it the specific desire/preference within the individual? I feel that this is an important question to answer, since some will claim that animals that show homosexual tendencies but still breed with the opposite sex are bi-sexual, rather than homosexual. In some cases this may be true. Bonobo's do seem to have no preference and will have sex with both male and female. But what about those gulls I mentioned? True, they do mate with the males during the mating season, but is this instinctual propagation that is needed to preserve the species enough to classify them as 'bi' rather than 'gay'? Remember, the rest of the year, the female/female grouping seems to be preferred. Does 2% heterosexual partnership through the year, and 98% homosexual really make them bi-sexual? I would opine that it does not.

When we are talking about sexual orientation, I feel that we are talking about sexual preference. These birds prefer the same sex partnership, yet briefly break that partnership in order to procreate. To say that this means they are not gay because they've had heterosexual sex, would be folly in my opinion. If that were the case, what of some fraternity hazing rituals where you may be forced to make out with another guy. Would that mean that that person is no longer straight? What if someone is confused about what they feel and experiments? Are they then 'bi' by default? Or is it more accurate to say they are straight if they find that they like the heterosexual intercourse, and not the homosexual? What if someone is in a heterosexual marriage simply for appearances or to meet family expectations? They may not like the heterosexual sex, and may even have kids. But does they lack of 'gay' sex acts mean they are straight? Any what about those gulls... What if they enjoy their same sex partnerships, but the annual breading is simply 'doing a job' to them?

In my opinion, it isn't who you go to bed with and have gone to bed with that defines one's sexuality. It's rather a question of what you get out of it or how it makes you feel. Heck, you needn't even have to 'try' both options if one doesn't even appeal to you from the word go. I didn't, and didn't need to to find my sexuality. I enjoy my wife and am filled with boundless joy from every moment we share, be it the little every day things, or those intimate moments. She fulfills my life in ways that no one else can. But the simple prospect of homosexual relations doesn't raise any personal interest in me. With those facts in mind, I'm best classified as heterosexual. But lets go back to that guy that may have been experimenting. What if he 'sampled' a few men, but simply didn't like it. Yet he did find that the women filled his desires. Do those few 'homosexual acts' force him into a lifetime label of bi-sexual? I say no, and think that calling him anything other than heterosexual would be silly. Lets compare... Say your favorite pizza is the meat trio. But it's the only pizza you've ever had. So one day you decide to try the veggie supreme, but find that you just don't like it. You've now had both kinds of pizza, so if you are going to call the hypothetical man that experimented 'bi', then you would also have to say that the 'meat trio' and veggie supreme' are BOTH your favorite pizza, even though you didn't like the veggie. SO if you want to argue that the meat trio pizza remains your favorite, you are forced to concede that the man we discussed earlier is best classed as heterosexual, despite his experimenting.



What if  you're that woman in the fake marriage and has kids? She doesn't enjoy the sex, so what does that make her? Well, there are two options. One possibility would be that she prefers a female partner. if this is the case, she would be classed as a homosexual. It may be that she has had sex with another woman, and enjoyed it, or it may be that she hasn't yet, but the prospect of it is desirable to her. This preference for a same sex partner (male or female), and lack of meaning in a heterosexual partnership would clearly tell me that they are homosexual. There is a second possibility for our hypothetical woman. The reason that she doesn't enjoy her heterosexual sex could also be because she just doesn't like sex in any variation. If this were the case, she would tick the asexual box.

Lastly, we have the opposite of the asexual. There is a chance that our guy that was experimenting liked both men and women, and derived great enjoyment from sex with both. In this case we find the true bi-sexual. These people will no confine their sexual enjoyment to just one sex, unlike those we've mentioned earlier that have had sex in both 'hetero' and 'homo' fashions, yet enjoyed one and not the other.

So I feel that is should be very clear that the claim that a person or an animal isn't really gay because they've had 'homo' and 'hetero' relationships is actually just an attempt to hide from the fact of the matter that classifying sexuality isn't remotely that easy. You have to look into their head and determine what they prefer or desire. With people it is easier, because you can just ask them. But with animals you have to watch their behaviors closely. When we do that we will find heterosexual partnerships, bi-sexual partnerships, and to the dismay of those that argue otherwise, homosexual partnerships as well. Like the old saying goes, you can't always judge a book by it's cover. This is just another example that it's what's on the inside that makes of who and what we are. In this case, acts don't define, but rather internal preference.

-BH

No comments:

Post a Comment