Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 15:36:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Handelman <mhandelman1-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: AGAINST CONSERVATISM--FOR COMMUNISM


Didn't the Kinsey Report on Human Sexual behavior,
show that there is no such thing as a "pure
homosexual" or a "pure heterosexual" rather, it's more
like a spectrum—there are some people who are more
inclined to heterosexual than homosexual, and some are
more homosexual than heterosexual, but it is a mixture
of homosexual AND heterosexual desire.


--- Tom Messmer <messmer-AT-endpage.com> wrote:
> Ilan,
> I'm sorry about my lumping you in with Floyce's
> silliness, but I was 
> responding to this:
> 
> >>>   Homosexuality and other deviations in the
> sexual domain
>   are a deviation that is of entirely different
> domain.
> 
> "Deviation" is a value laden term, as in "filthy
> deviates", but not 
> necessarily and apparently you didn't mean it that
> way. 
> 
> 
>  >>> It is of the same processes of "mental
> imprinting" like
>   these that cause the new born duckling to follow
> any thing
>   of the correct size and speed encountered in few
> hours
>   after it get out of the eeg.
> 
>   >>>The same process (though a bit milder) that
> cause people to
>   look for intimate partners who resemble the parent
> of the
>   opposite sex.
> 
> I must admit I don't even understand what you mean
> here by "mental 
> imprinting". There is some theoretical orientation
> that I am unfamiliar 
> with at work here, would you mind elaborating some?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   >>>Even the reactionary establishment of mental
> health re-labled
>   the homosexuality as personality disturbance and
> no more as illness.
> 
> The reactionary establishment does not label
> homosexuality as a 
> personality disturbance any more and has not for
> some time, unless you 
> mean some fundamentalist christian clinician
> somewhere?
> 
> >>> I claim that humans are bi-sexual and those who
> are
> >>>"heterosexuals" or "homosexuals" are deprived of
> some
> >>> of the potential for joy love and pleasure due
> to 
> >>> harsh capitalist upbringing.
> 
> I would not necessarily agree that "humans are
> bi-sexual", this seems 
> to be an essentialist position to me and therefore
> proscribing.  If 
> someone prefers this or that, I say more power to
> 'em, what's messed up 
> is that people don't tend to feel able to explore or
> ask themselves if 
> there ARE options, this is the crux of the matter to
> me and like you I 
> attribute this to the effects of Capitalist society.
>  
>  
> >>> I do not regard my heterosexuality as less
> deviant than the
> >>> homosexuality and other limitations.
> 
> Again, I wouldnt define any sexual orientation
> necessarily as a 
> limitation. 
> 
> 
> 
> >>> What is reactionary in tracing the horible
> effects of capitalist 
> >>> upbringing on deprivation of people from inborn
> options we all have?
> 
> I agree completely as long as we are talking about
> options. There is a 
> subtle but important difference to me between saying
> "everybody is 
> naturally bisexual" which I seriously doubt(though
> it would be nice :) 
> ) and "everyone ought to feel free to explore their
> sexuality with a 
> free, fun and open spirit." 
> 
> >> 
> > As one who was not deprived of his bisexual
> potentials you
> > You could do better than defame or not caring.
> > Ilan
> 
> If I defamed, I apologize.  As far as not caring, I
> obviously do care 
> or I wouldnt be on here, I meant more that the
> "nature vs. nurture" 
> argument is very tired, seems obvious to me that its
> a little of both 
> and differs from person to person, culture to
> culture, etc. 
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list
> aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---