From: FoxMetaIsimilarly, if i see a chick like this
From: Jacehan | Posted: 4/13/2010 11:47:14 PM | #016I had a string of female crushes from elementary through high school, but there wasn't a single guy I knew in person that I found attractive/crush on. I didn't have one until college.
From: mimir227Let me explain my own opinion in more detail. What I'm claiming, essentially, is that sexual orientation is not like handedness. In the case of handedness, we have two classes (right-handed and left-handed), one of which is significantly more popular than the other, but almost all people can meaningfully be said to belong to one and not the other. Ambidextrous people are the exception rather than the norm. In the case of sexual feelings, on the other hand, it seems like nearly everyone is at least slightly attracted to both sexes, and while there are doubtlessly individual differences in how much one likes each, there is no empirical basis for a clear-cut straight%u2013gay distinction. In other words, there's a great deal of diversity in how much people like each sex; further, as has already been mentioned in this topic, some people like the two sexes in qualitatively rather than just quantitatively different ways.
So Cheez, I bet these hormone differences you're referring to (whatever you're exactly referring to%u2014the language you use here is vague) are indicative less of a straight%u2013gay distinction than of this wide variety of individual differences.
And Willis, it should be clear now that I am in no wise disbelieving in heteronormativity. It's obvious that most guys like girls more than guys, and vica-versa. So how can we meaningfully distinguish a social construct from a psychological variable? Well, differences in sexual preference are cultural universals, so that's a clear case of a psychological variable. The straight%u2013gay distinction, by contrast, isn't universal. To use your own example of ancient Greece, there was a socially constructed idea of normal male sexual behavior, but it wasn't the same as our idea of heterosexuality, because, for example, it included pederastry. Individual differences in sexual preference existed, in spite of opposition to them, because (I claim) they are innate to our species. I hope you agree that this kind of distinction between a social construct and a psychological variable is meaningful without recourse to positivo-relativism or whatever.
From: Jacehan | Posted: 4/13/2010 11:47:14 PM | #016
I had a string of female crushes from elementary through high school, but there wasn't a single guy I knew in person that I found attractive/crush on. I didn't have one until college.
Coincidentally, I too had crushes on girls in middle and high school and now have crushes on boys in college. Strangely, there was no overlap between these periods, and my crushes on girls were consistently strong whereas my crushes on boys are consistently weak. Perhaps it should now be clear why I prefer a concept of sexual preference as "a weird constellation of individual differences" over "a single variable on a nominal scale". (I mean "nominal scale" in the sense of .)