About the only humans who can choose their sexual orientation are those born bisexual. We simply are wired how we are wired and nothing in this age can change that. In my article "Probably Not The Final Word, But . . .", I presented my somewhat alien theory that an increase in gay and lesbian populations in each great empire may be caused by overcrowding, and it would still be physiological if that were to prove the case. I will even venture to say that if you are absolutely sure that it is a choice because, based on your experience, you made the righteous choice, then you are probably wired both ways. Apparently Freud was, as he saw all humans as being closet gays.
Picture the struggle of the young male, who with the children in his neighborhood, called the enemies by the worst word they could think about -- faggots. Have you ever thought of the mental issues derived from his struggle when he begins to realize he is gay? This is not his choice. This is how he was born. I've seen it happen.
I think the problem of the human species, which shows its ugly head in a lot of controversies, is that we want to hold ourselves as superior to all other species. We think we are better than a cow or a horse or a worm or a snake and therefore we spend our time and efforts in trying to prove so.
"They are acting like animals," is a frequent complaint. Well, they are animals and so are the rest of us. So generations of humans have exerted great efforts to prove their basic wish that they are better than other species and better than each other.
The Jewish and Christian scriptures tell of God creating first man and first woman. First man was placed in the garden which God had made in the east of Eden. He was told he could eat from all the trees but the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Many cultures today still translate sex as the "fruit of that tree" from which Adam was not to eat. Big error, folks! Adam was put in the garden and told not to eat of the tree even before God made the animals . . . way before He made Eve. So, the forbidden fruit really was about knowledge and good and evil. It was not about sex.
It's easier, now that we have spent so much time worrying about the Middle East and seeing the ugliness of the hate there, for us to understand how the oral stories of early man became so conflicted that sex became the eternal sin. But when you think about it, modern man can turn anything into a sin. "If it tastes good, it must be bad for you." "If it is greasy thou shalt not touch it." "Oh, wow, we were wrong! It's sugar we should avoid." And, "I'm so much superior to you because I don't touch either one."
Sex of some sort is how animals of all sorts reproduce. Sex is not only physiological, it is a biological requirement of maintaining the species, no matter what kind we are.
Now, we get to the chemistry of it all. Our bodies respond chemically -- physically -- to each other, or not. Since the demise of my marriage, I've spent more than twice as many years single as I was married. I've had plenty of time to figure out a "type" to which my body can and cannot respond. Ideal man almost always would be between size 5'8" and 5' 10" or 11". He would have some shade of brown hair or either pure white. He would be of stocky build and barrel chested. He would almost never have blonde or black hair. And he should be within a decade of my own age, either way.
I even classify "turn-ons" as primary or secondary. You know how some people swear they fell in love at first sight, but others say that's not possible, because they don't know each other. That love at first sight is chemistry at first sight and for rare people, it can be so strong that it lasts a lifetime. There are, of course, exceptions to all "rules" of chemical attraction -- like a predilection for scrawny little redheads, even after their hair has gone white.
A secondary "turn-on" is a relationship that wasn't much at first sight, but grows from getting to know each other and appreciating each other's good qualities like kindness, intelligence, compatibility. Herein lies the love part, folks.
I think the primary turn-on has a basis in physiology that goes even beyond simple attraction. Let's say, a 6' 7" man and a 5' 0" woman were to marry. It doesn't take much brainwork to anticipate that she will have trouble delivering his children, does it? So the body usually makes subtle and subconscious choices for us from the get-go.
You see, chemistry rules some choices in and some choices out. But it is how we get on outside the bedrooms that should choose our mates. If we have to place a "religious" evaluation on sexual orientation, perhaps we can choose to leave sexual orientation and choice of mates in God's hands. Since God remains mostly silent these days, we might have trouble reading his wishes. But still, whether we have a choice of whom our bodies respond to is based on how God created us. Whom we choose as mates depends on how well we get along with each other. The longer we spend together, the more the love grows, or not.
No wonder people revel in the right to choose their own mates. How can our parents know what person inspires our chemistry or what one repels us? How can the right person who can work things out best with us be chosen by a father who has his eye out toward building his own empire?
Yet, people want to ignore their animal instincts -- chemistry -- by referring to all sexual attraction as "love", and the more romantic, the better. You can help whom you love. Whom you hang around with, grow close to and eventually marry is a choice. It's just that the body responds without control, but love grows when we choose the best people to whom the body responds -- the ones who meet our nonsexual needs as well.
We should not place ourselves as critics of another's choice, especially the physiological part which is not in our control. We should not choose another man's mate any more than we would want him to choose ours. And we bloody well are not superior to any other being whether our species or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment