Spring Break
Sexual orientation is not a choice
Kaley Relaz
Issue date: 1/30/08 Section: Opinion
When a debatable topic comes up in a class, there are usually one or two very vocal people on each side while everyone else sits and thinks about what they would say if they weren't too scared to speak.
In my gen ed sociology class a couple of years ago, a topic came up concerning whether or not we would be comfortable with our future children being taught in elementary school by a homosexual teacher.
After about 15 minutes of a few opinionated people arguing, someone who had only been listening finally raised his hand and simply asked why this topic was even being discussed.
He was right. Sometimes we need a reminder of what year we're living in. And except for some of our ignorant grandparents, no one should have an excuse for believing that it's acceptable to judge someone based on his or her sexual orientation.
We don't get to choose whether we're gay or straight the same way that we don't get to choose what makes us attracted to specific individuals.
I assume we all know by now what features we're sexually attracted to, but how did we find them out? Did the average straight guy get the choice to prefer a woman with full lips, slightly blushed cheeks, large yet perky tatas and a small waist that begins the smooth curve down to her voluptuous hips and backside? Since the majority of women do not exhibit all of those features, wouldn't it be convenient not to prefer them? Perhaps another part of his body made that decision for him.
And women, why do many of us wear make-up and push-up bras to try and fit that mold? Overwhelming amounts of research has been performed on the science behind sexual attraction. The average straight man is generally sexually attracted to bigger and redder lips because it triggers his thought of a southbound set of ladies' lips during sex (yes, vaginal lips become engorged with blood during sex, making them slightly bigger and redder), blushing because women's cheeks become flushed during sex, big boobs because they seem to best accommodate the needs of his offspring and a small waist and bigger hips because it suggests she's physically fit and able to bear his children.
In my gen ed sociology class a couple of years ago, a topic came up concerning whether or not we would be comfortable with our future children being taught in elementary school by a homosexual teacher.
After about 15 minutes of a few opinionated people arguing, someone who had only been listening finally raised his hand and simply asked why this topic was even being discussed.
He was right. Sometimes we need a reminder of what year we're living in. And except for some of our ignorant grandparents, no one should have an excuse for believing that it's acceptable to judge someone based on his or her sexual orientation.
We don't get to choose whether we're gay or straight the same way that we don't get to choose what makes us attracted to specific individuals.
I assume we all know by now what features we're sexually attracted to, but how did we find them out? Did the average straight guy get the choice to prefer a woman with full lips, slightly blushed cheeks, large yet perky tatas and a small waist that begins the smooth curve down to her voluptuous hips and backside? Since the majority of women do not exhibit all of those features, wouldn't it be convenient not to prefer them? Perhaps another part of his body made that decision for him.
And women, why do many of us wear make-up and push-up bras to try and fit that mold? Overwhelming amounts of research has been performed on the science behind sexual attraction. The average straight man is generally sexually attracted to bigger and redder lips because it triggers his thought of a southbound set of ladies' lips during sex (yes, vaginal lips become engorged with blood during sex, making them slightly bigger and redder), blushing because women's cheeks become flushed during sex, big boobs because they seem to best accommodate the needs of his offspring and a small waist and bigger hips because it suggests she's physically fit and able to bear his children.
Viewing Comments 1 - 7 of 11
ar-schrift
Alex Schrift
posted 1/30/08 @ 5:26 PM CST
Dear Kaley,
I loved your article. I am a homosexual myself and I did not choose this path, but I feel so lucky to be on such a journey. What you said is so refreshing. (Continued…)
Choice?
posted 1/31/08 @ 7:01 AM CST
Everything is a choice. You can choose not to act on it like anything else.
Alex Schrift
posted 1/31/08 @ 3:40 PM CST
Why would someone choose to not act on what's natural to them? Should I be with a girl even though I'm not sexually attracted to them? I, as well as many others deserve to live a life of happiness and not a lie. (Continued…)
Chad
posted 2/01/08 @ 4:54 AM CST
Dear "Choice?",
You disagree with homosexuality because you don't see any use for it in nature? What a bogus argument. Then do you disagree with religion (what does that do for nature), ballroom dancing, the color orange, or the carpet? All pretty unneccessary in the grand scheme of things, but why should they bother you if they don't have a biological purpose?
With regards to "coming at things from a military perspective". (Continued…)
Matt
posted 2/01/08 @ 8:23 AM CST
Ah yes, the famous "I don't have a problem with it, I'm not going to judge you, do what you want, just don't force it upon me or then we have a problem" disclaimer. (Continued…)
Edward
posted 2/02/08 @ 4:05 PM CST
It's disordered! I know a lot of men who acted out homosexually and later cut it out. You have these people that think they are practicing charity because they don't want to say something is wrong or make nice homosexuals angry. (Continued…)
Debi
posted 4/22/08 @ 8:15 PM CST
Dear "choice"
So you can choose not to want to be heterosexual then?
Why not do something that is natural to you?
Post a Comment