Tuesday, 15 April 2008

There Is No Such Thing As Homosexuality

There, I've said it - there is no such thing as homosexuality. Now before a gay-rights lynch mob arrives to sodomize convince me otherwise, let me make it clear that I don't think that heterosexuality truly exists either.

I think that one of the problems with modern westernized societies is we have set up this false "either/or" dichotomy when it comes to our sexual identities. People are regarded as either completely heterosexual or completely homosexual with very little wiggle room in between (perhaps a few bisexuals who can't make up their minds). Rather, I think that each of us falls somewhere along a sexual continuum - a bell curve somewhat skewed towards the heterosexual side of the equation.

In ancient societies, as well as in many current ones outside of the western world, this concept was well understood. The ancient Greeks are perhaps the most famous example. Although the literature is full of examples of rampant homosexual behaviour, very few would have identified themselves as gay. They were merely sexual beings doing what they felt like without regard to labels. Over the past few millenia, western society somehow lost that connection and has thus suffered under a strict, sexually repressive moral code.

In a way it has only been the freedom of the Internet that has once again revealed the full depth of human sexual desire and the diverse ways in which those urges can be expressed. It has shown that there is so much out there that can't be easily pigeonholed into neat little categories.

So where do we go from here? The gay rights movement has served an important role in liberating all of our sexualities, but I think it is now time to move past such labels and embrace a true sexual continuum for all people. At least I think that has to be the ultimate goal.

Posted by Brian at 20:32 Wednesday, 9 April 2008

Anonymous said...

Also, Aboriginals see sexuality as being on a continuum.Some even have up to 8 genders in their traditions. Traditionally they do not have our western "gay" or "straight" boxes that we tend to want to shove people into. sexuality is not as static as society would like us to believe

Interesting topic!

Laurie said...

I've always explained to people that I think homosexuality and heterosexuality fall along the same continuum. My ex-husband is gay, but as we have a son, he probably falls closer to the center. His partner, who can't even think about being with a woman obviously falls a couple of standard deviations farther out.

Anonymous said...

Lets be honest Brian. Any gay mob would have to have pretty low standards to 'sodomize' a fatty like you. Too many burgers?

AphroditeRising said...

My sentiments exactly. Hence my latest blog, LOL. Hey, maybe my DNA test would point to greek origins?

Yet another interesting point you've made. Cheers!


seventyandtwo said...

Alláh-u-abhá Brian,

I agree wholeheartedly. I have an aunt who says "I am not a lesbian, I just have never met the right man to make me straight" and I think we all fall along those lines. I think the most heterosexual of us are just far more attracted to women, and far more socio-culturally comfortable with that aspect of their sexuality.

As someone who has come to realize relatively recently that I am equally attracted to both gender, I have noticed how strong my culturally ingrained "straightness" is.

Attraction ought not need to fit into a label. We are attracted to who we are attracted too, and that should be label enough.

God Bless,
Ruhi (Gerald)

Aldrin F.T. said...

There we go. *THUMBS UP* Excellent one, Brian. Simply done yet beautifully.

seventyandtwo said...

(double post)

The Ridger, FCD said...

Ah, but until gay rights are set, how many people will be willing to go over to that end of the spectrum? It's not time to stop fighting yet.

Which doesn't mean I don't agree with you about the spectrum, because I do.

the chaplain said...

Over the past few millenia, western society somehow lost that connection and has thus suffered under a strict, sexually repressive moral code.

There's no question about how the connection was lost, is there?

Mercurious said...

I think you're absolutely right on this. Surely there is something libidinous about the male penchant for bonding through sports, for example.

Same gender sexual activity in prisons, for example, is far in excess of the incidence of classic homosexuality in the general population. This suggests you're right: sexuality is sexuality.

Aldrin F.T. said...

By the way, Brian, permission to cross-post in my blog please? With your name and url of course.

sacred slut said...

I've thought this for some time. I consider myself primarily hetero, but I did have an intense sexual crush on a colleague at one time. She was married, so I never said anything, but I imagine if I thought she had been receptive I might have done...

I think if there weren't this strict delineation people might fall in love (or just lust) and have sex with either gender at various times. Gay people are more likely to have experimented this way, it seems.

Brian said...

Great comments everybody (except for the wit who called me a fatty). I especially like the personal stories that have backed up my thoughts.

Aldrin, yes you have my permission to cross-post.

Chaplain, in that exact paragraph you're talking about I started spelling out the somehow a little more clearly, but I didn't want to sidetrack the main point.

It is starting to seem obvious that most people would act very different if there wasn't this strict seperation of sexual choices. Far from being "immoral", I think embracing our true sexualities might actually be the healthiest thing we could do psychologically.

jeber said...

From those of us who have been trying for years to express this point, substantiated by our own lives, thank you.

There's too much either/or, black/white thinking on a host of topics. Life is far more gray than many people make it out to be.

Saturday, 12 April 2008

A Name For Something So Complex

People are always asking what I call my "religion". The simplest truth is that it does not have a name, nor should it be expected to have one. Cults have names (Cult of Christ); so do movements (Christianity) and institutions (Roman Catholic Church). But religion in its raw form shall always be nameless like a god. Perhaps it can be called many names for the sake of comfort or articulation, but never just one. One cannot separate it and name it like fruit. It is spiritual culture; spiritual art. It cannot be contained in a box.

Mine is a religion of many names - reminding us that we can never confine it. It is a religion of blood and land, tied to ancestry and geography – where origin and future are a continuous line. A religion of here and there, past and present, experience, raw passion and cultivated philosophy, identity and consciousness, free thinking, logic and emotion, and conscience. It would probably take me a full day to describe it in words.

But Nana is a good name for my religion. It means mother or parent. It appeals to my sensibilities. It means origin, binding force, sustenance, birth, death, and so much more. Perhaps in casual speech, I can call it that.

Tuesday, 8 April 2008

Wanted: Intelligent Conversation

It is a disappointing world we live in today. “Is Enchong Dee Gay?” was the topic raised in one blog I passed by this morning. There were almost 50 comments, all talking about whether the poor, unsuspecting kid was "a closeted gay" [sic]. I have seen them do that to Victor Basa, Piolo Pascual, Sam Milby, Brent Javier, and Apollo-knows-who-else in the past.

Ayusin niyo muna ang mga buhay niyo. We have bigger problems in the world and our country, you sad fucks. But even if we had none of them, you should still be minding your own useless lives. To think that you know nothing about what you are talking about!

Brainless crustaceans. If intelligent conversation was hot water, they would be krill - they would all curl up and die immediately.