and much like a thought they are rare to be not founded or surrounded by related thoughts. unfortunately there is an awful lot of brain washing of people by groups & societys which attempt to validate things like slavery & anti-abortion anti-homosexuality anti-non church run government etc etc. to use a simplistic example a basic engine like a lawn mower. it seems mysterious and amazing to an enquiring mind, yet to an engineer it is a simple process they can draw on a piece of paper and easily explain in a conversation. much the same with "SOME" aspects of the mind. sexuality personality emotions belief etc etc... you are lucky to have attracted the interest of some people who have an ability to explain how the mysterious lawn mower works. indeed it is a discussion forum. continue if you feel like it. err-go... do you think that someone who only percieves sexuality as their own thoughts of sexual-attraction(be that gay straight or somewhere in between or as dave says 'spectrum') can define a nature of groups' sexual-self-ideation for a collective-engagement of mutual-balance ?
a "societal norm" does not dictate the mind & desires of the individual. regardles of brain washing torture and cults. the great minds in our history have managed to find a way to discover the telescope, newtonian physics, a round earth, a life without slavery etc etc. sociology is the study of people sexuality as a social norm is a little more specialised. complex interactions of sexuality and how it interacts and evolves as a form of social expresion, social conduct, anthropological behaviours, culture and individual self expresion inta & intra modality is quite complex indeed.
wondering if your refering to the caveman emotional man-boy who has never been allowed as a child or teen to develop deep emotional relationships with the opposite sex like single sex schools and all the gender specific segragation talk (sounds the same as pro slavery/segragation talk). interestingly enough i found myself pausing on a culture(general geographic conglomoration) how slavery & gender cult-ism seemed to co-exist as flath earth theory to flat earthers. noting recent media outburst about how domestic help should not be allowed days off.
Actually, I'm thinking back over the years. There's also a Mark Steel joke in there about "more birds for us", except therein lies the hook. If this was just about men like me, society wouldn't muster an anti-gay argument. The two components include the point, and, yes, Steel has a joke for this one, too, but that's beside the point, that some men, for some reason, presume a gay man wants to get on them. And it's one thing to remind Captain Racingstripe he's a disgusting slob, but, I mean, y'know, no, we ain't going there because ... right, this isn't geology class, and we simply aren't going to discuss drilling all the way through the crust. The thing is, this is also about lesbians. If it's just about gay men, then hetmen can say, "More birds for us", and women can actually choose to ignore us if they want. But if it's also about lesbians, that means there are women having comfortable and enjoyable intimacy with each other instead of servicing men, and that is simply unacceptable within American traditionalist circles. And it's also about men becoming women, and that is unacceptable because it gives some men a reason to pretend an excuse to stalk women in public restrooms; note the men aren't demanding to see each other's junk, though that's the real problem, that some females are no longer available to them according to their desires. • Kent, Le'a. "'Abnormal, Wrong, Unnatural and Perverse': Taking the Measure (9) of the Closet". (n.d.) Internet Archive. 12 October 2006. web.archive.org. 10 August 2018. https://web.archive.org/web/20061012064151/http://cultronix.eserver.org/kent/ That paper is older than its snapshot date; I'm going to guess late '93 to early '94, by the works cited, but I probably picked it up five years later; I have memory of reading a paper copy around '97-98. It's one of my favorites, and will keep you feeling creepy for a while, and is probably a much eassier read than Butler, who provided the great excerpt including the phrase, "family as the unregulated sexual property of the father". The Gay Fray was always about women. The thing is that, within the topic post pseudo-whiteroom argument, what it means is that, left to their own, people would figure out what to do with their parts, and the only reason to make a big deal out of it would be that some dude wants to stick his part in some woman who would rather be having funparts fun with that woman over there. The question of rape as a civil right is kind of breathtaking at first glance, but it should be obvious to everyone else that the tantrum is thoroughly objectified; if the one cannot figure out the problem with his thesis, it is because he cannot properly recognize other people. It's one of those interesting questions where competency as a question of culpability runs up against functional danger. It's either real or not, but, it's probably best to not tempt fate. Spoiler
