Re: [UUPoly-L] Orientation vs. Choice?

[Desmond Ravenstone <desmondravenstone@yahoo.com>]

IMHO the whole "orientation/choice" or "nature/nurture" debate is much more complex than most people seem to see.

I don't like coffee, for example -- have never acquired a taste for it.  That could be an inherent characteristic, perhaps based on genetics, perhaps something else, perhaps a combination.  It could also be based on psychology, as my parents were not ones to "push" my brother or I to eat or drink something which we found extremely unpleasant.  Of course, one could argue that their approach, and my receptiveness to it, could be rooted in some genetic or neurological disposition, or that the psychology merely reinforced existing biological predispositions.

We could argue that 'til the cows come home.  Or, we could insist that people be allowed to find ethical and productive ways to respond to their desires.  If I don't like coffee, does that mean I should berate and belittle those around me who enjoy it?  No -- in fact, I can appreciate the science and art of good coffee making, even if I cannot appreciate the results myself.

Some people may be attracted to people of the same sex, or both sexes.  Some may be attracted to much older people, or much younger.  Some may be attracted to blondes, brunettes or redheads.  Some may be aroused by the sight of a shapely leg, or a stiletto heel, or the sound of a singer's voice, or an ineffable quality of a person's eyes and smile.  Some may find delight in a simple touch, or a pleasant word, others in strokes of a leather flogger upon the back, or being securely bound in rope.

In the end, the question is not so much where such desires come from, but in what context we act upon them, and to what end.  Do we do so out of love and respect for oneself and the other, with honesty and care?  Or do we see the other as merely a toy to be used and discarded, where any means is justified to acheive the end of immediate self-gratification?  I would hope that we would all strive to do the former instead of the latter.

Desmond Ravenstone

********************

http://www.myspace.com/desmond_ravenstone


--- On Sun, 9/28/08, CWLee <cwlee@post.harvard.edu> wrote:

> From: CWLee <cwlee@post.harvard.edu>
> Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Orientation vs. Choice?
> To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
> Date: Sunday, September 28, 2008, 1:08 AM
> Norm wrote:
> 
> > Just anecdotally, I believe age-gap relationship 
> > preference, like polyamory, may be an orientation, and
> not 
> > merely a choice. For those of you who are unfamiliar
> with 
> > this particular debate - orientation versus choice -
> it is 
> > identified by poly legal scholars as the fundamental 
> > problem we have in the legal system. ...
> 
> Citation please, for the legal scholars and their 
> publications.  :-)
> 
> > ... For perspective, realtize that it was the
> acceptance 
> > of homosexuality as an 'inborn' orientation
> and not a 
> > choice that paved the way for treatment of sexual 
> > preference as a protected class under law. ...
> 
> Again, citation please, to support this assertion.  :-)
> 
> (I'm not hostile to your ideas, just looking for
> further 
> support for them.)
> 
> Best regards to all. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives.
> Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal
> about yourself.
> UUPoly-L mailing list
> UUPoly-L@uupa.org
> http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l