After all, it's possible for a straight man to receive sexual pleasure from another man - without necessarily wanting it or seeking it out, or particularly enjoying it from anything other than a purely physical standpoint. The potential for a sexual response exists; the differentiating factor is our psychology. Why, then, should a preference for a particular form of sexual anatomy be held sacred above other discerning factors, like body type, nationality, profession, et cetera?
I'm not saying that, in a sexual utopia, everybody would freely be having sex with just anybody, because, hey, it's all the same - people would still have their preferences. I'm just saying that if your preference is for one sex or another, that doesn't make you any more "special" than somebody who has more discerning tastes. (I've long maintained that though I am preferentially attracted to females, I am not automatically attracted to every human being with a vagina. In fact, I do not doubt that there exist beautiful men with whom I would sooner have sex than the world's ugliest women).
Nowadays, in the political realm, it seems like the distinction between "preference" and "orientation" is being wielded like a weapon to justify some sexual preferences (the common and most accepted ones), while vilifying others (so-called "fetishes" and "fringe desires"). In other words, a sexual orientation is just a sexual preference for which you can't legally be discriminated against. Well, I reject this strategy. The only thing more vile than religious devotion is political affiliation. If religion is the antithesis of reason, then politics is the natural enemy of truth. "Anything to bolster the cause."
No comments:
Post a Comment