Religious Understandings of Homosexuality

[Rival]

I'm mostly interested in the views of religious folks here (those belonging to what I might call established religions, rather than New Age, SPNR etc.) I'm also not really looking for debate but felt this would be best placed here at any rate.

It's been well noted that almost before the early 20th century, the word and concept of 'homosexual/ity' didn't exist and sex was thought of as what one did with whom rather than to whom one was attracted. This led to a greater freedom in areas of sexuality, as far as this article is concerned, rather than labelling folks,

Sex and Gender in the Victorian Era - The Atlantic

For the Victorians, the situation was much more fluid. A woman’s romantic interest in another woman could be seen as excellent preparation for marriage. Though sex between men was a criminal offense (in Britain, lesbianism was invisible before the law), there was, as yet, hardly a homosexual identity defined by same-sex desire. Until the early 1950s, a man could have sex with another man without thinking himself in any respect “abnormal”—as long as he steered clear of the feminine dress or behaviour that marked a so-called pouf or queen. To pry off the Benson roof is to ask the question: What was it like to live before and during the invention of modern sexuality?

[...]

Absolute as Victorian moral certainties appeared to be, they nonetheless permitted a great deal of ambiguity in matters romantic and sexual, even in the most respectable of families. The marriage of Minnie and Edward—“intricate, sensitive, caring, and deeply committed,” as Goldhill describes it—ran alongside her love for women. True, the complications of the Benson marriage caused some anguish on both sides and undeniably left their children confused as to the state of their parents’ feelings for each other. But to his credit, Goldhill doesn’t attempt to tidy up the Bensons’ complexities.

One man who we would now label homosexual had this to contribute,

Was it possible, Arthur wondered, that he had “the soul of a woman in the body of a man”? Even though the term homosexual was coming into currency, he did not use it until 1924, the year before he died. And when he did use it, after a theoretical conversation on the subject with Fred, he wrote the word out—“the homo sexual question”—in a way that suggested unfamiliarity.

Even as late as 1924, apparently, people we'd now call gay or lesbian didn't see themselves as having any innate identity. And finally, this,

The same year, Virginia Woolf (who had both a husband and a female lover) lamented the erosion of sexual ambiguity. Unlike Fred Benson, she was unsentimental about her Victorian upbringing, yet as the dichotomy between homosexual and heterosexual solidified, she could see what had been lost: “Where people mistake, as I think, is in perpetually narrowing and naming these immensely composite and wide flung passions—driving stakes through them, herding them between screens.”

[...]

The irony of all this is something that no gay liberationist would have thought possible when the campaign for homosexual rights was regarded as a grave threat to the social order. Sandwiched between the fluidity of the Victorian years and the proliferating sexual and gender identities of the new millennium, the late 20th century’s straight-gay paradigm looks decidedly old-fashioned—maybe even a little stodgy.

Now my main question here is a simple one, but I had to preface it with the above as a way of really getting into what I mean.

Are there any religious folks here who subscribe to the notion that human sexuality is fluid (as the pre-20th century people saw it) or are you on board with the new view? I tend to agree with the former view, but would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

I'm mostly interested in the views of religious folks here (those belonging to what I might call established religions, rather than New Age, SPNR etc.) I'm also not really looking for debate but felt this would be best placed here at any rate.

It's been well noted that almost before the early 20th century, the word and concept of 'homosexual/ity' didn't exist and sex was thought of as what one did with whom rather than to whom one was attracted. This led to a greater freedom in areas of sexuality, as far as this article is concerned, rather than labelling folks,

Sex and Gender in the Victorian Era - The Atlantic

For the Victorians, the situation was much more fluid. A woman’s romantic interest in another woman could be seen as excellent preparation for marriage. Though sex between men was a criminal offense (in Britain, lesbianism was invisible before the law), there was, as yet, hardly a homosexual identity defined by same-sex desire. Until the early 1950s, a man could have sex with another man without thinking himself in any respect “abnormal”—as long as he steered clear of the feminine dress or behaviour that marked a so-called pouf or queen. To pry off the Benson roof is to ask the question: What was it like to live before and during the invention of modern sexuality?

[...]

Absolute as Victorian moral certainties appeared to be, they nonetheless permitted a great deal of ambiguity in matters romantic and sexual, even in the most respectable of families. The marriage of Minnie and Edward—“intricate, sensitive, caring, and deeply committed,” as Goldhill describes it—ran alongside her love for women. True, the complications of the Benson marriage caused some anguish on both sides and undeniably left their children confused as to the state of their parents’ feelings for each other. But to his credit, Goldhill doesn’t attempt to tidy up the Bensons’ complexities.

One man who we would now label homosexual had this to contribute,

Was it possible, Arthur wondered, that he had “the soul of a woman in the body of a man”? Even though the term homosexual was coming into currency, he did not use it until 1924, the year before he died. And when he did use it, after a theoretical conversation on the subject with Fred, he wrote the word out—“the homo sexual question”—in a way that suggested unfamiliarity.

Even as late as 1924, apparently, people we'd now call gay or lesbian didn't see themselves as having any innate identity. And finally, this,

The same year, Virginia Woolf (who had both a husband and a female lover) lamented the erosion of sexual ambiguity. Unlike Fred Benson, she was unsentimental about her Victorian upbringing, yet as the dichotomy between homosexual and heterosexual solidified, she could see what had been lost: “Where people mistake, as I think, is in perpetually narrowing and naming these immensely composite and wide flung passions—driving stakes through them, herding them between screens.”

[...]

The irony of all this is something that no gay liberationist would have thought possible when the campaign for homosexual rights was regarded as a grave threat to the social order. Sandwiched between the fluidity of the Victorian years and the proliferating sexual and gender identities of the new millennium, the late 20th century’s straight-gay paradigm looks decidedly old-fashioned—maybe even a little stodgy.

Now my main question here is a simple one, but I had to preface it with the above as a way of really getting into what I mean.

Are there any religious folks here who subscribe to the notion that human sexuality is fluid (as the pre-20th century people saw it) or are you on board with the new view? I tend to agree with the former view, but would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

I will say “yes” to your question.

My experience in Christianity has been quite eye opening the past few years.
When I attended church, starting about 7 years ago, I bought the “stuff” that was being peddled, but never really embraced it, so I did a lot of research, on numerous topics surrounding the issue. Bottom line, after being “enlightened” I could no longer attend a mainline church.
I also discovered why they believe the false narrative that they are so adamant about regarding homosexuality, but that’s another very long subject.
But, I do recognize also, that these erroneous beliefs, and the accompanying militant attitude, is what is causing a decline in Christianity. (A good thing imo)
And also, the increase in atheism.

BTW, the true interpretation of the very few verses being used against homosexuality, have nothing to do with homosexuality as seen today.
Those were very different times.

 

[Vinayaka]

I'm mostly interested in the views of religious folks here (those belonging to what I might call established religions, rather than New Age, SPNR etc.) I'm also not really looking for debate but felt this would be best placed here at any rate.

It's been well noted that almost before the early 20th century, the word and concept of 'homosexual/ity' didn't exist and sex was thought of as what one did with whom rather than to whom one was attracted. This led to a greater freedom in areas of sexuality, as far as this article is concerned, rather than labelling folks,

Sex and Gender in the Victorian Era - The Atlantic

For the Victorians, the situation was much more fluid. A woman’s romantic interest in another woman could be seen as excellent preparation for marriage. Though sex between men was a criminal offense (in Britain, lesbianism was invisible before the law), there was, as yet, hardly a homosexual identity defined by same-sex desire. Until the early 1950s, a man could have sex with another man without thinking himself in any respect “abnormal”—as long as he steered clear of the feminine dress or behaviour that marked a so-called pouf or queen. To pry off the Benson roof is to ask the question: What was it like to live before and during the invention of modern sexuality?

[...]

Absolute as Victorian moral certainties appeared to be, they nonetheless permitted a great deal of ambiguity in matters romantic and sexual, even in the most respectable of families. The marriage of Minnie and Edward—“intricate, sensitive, caring, and deeply committed,” as Goldhill describes it—ran alongside her love for women. True, the complications of the Benson marriage caused some anguish on both sides and undeniably left their children confused as to the state of their parents’ feelings for each other. But to his credit, Goldhill doesn’t attempt to tidy up the Bensons’ complexities.

One man who we would now label homosexual had this to contribute,

Was it possible, Arthur wondered, that he had “the soul of a woman in the body of a man”? Even though the term homosexual was coming into currency, he did not use it until 1924, the year before he died. And when he did use it, after a theoretical conversation on the subject with Fred, he wrote the word out—“the homo sexual question”—in a way that suggested unfamiliarity.

Even as late as 1924, apparently, people we'd now call gay or lesbian didn't see themselves as having any innate identity. And finally, this,

The same year, Virginia Woolf (who had both a husband and a female lover) lamented the erosion of sexual ambiguity. Unlike Fred Benson, she was unsentimental about her Victorian upbringing, yet as the dichotomy between homosexual and heterosexual solidified, she could see what had been lost: “Where people mistake, as I think, is in perpetually narrowing and naming these immensely composite and wide flung passions—driving stakes through them, herding them between screens.”

[...]

The irony of all this is something that no gay liberationist would have thought possible when the campaign for homosexual rights was regarded as a grave threat to the social order. Sandwiched between the fluidity of the Victorian years and the proliferating sexual and gender identities of the new millennium, the late 20th century’s straight-gay paradigm looks decidedly old-fashioned—maybe even a little stodgy.

Now my main question here is a simple one, but I had to preface it with the above as a way of really getting into what I mean.

Are there any religious folks here who subscribe to the notion that human sexuality is fluid (as the pre-20th century people saw it) or are you on board with the new view? I tend to agree with the former view, but would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

Fluid, but depending on the individual. Part of the diversity of mankind on this planet.

 

[Rival]

I will say “yes” to your question.

It's... not really a yes or no question, so I'm confused.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

It's... not really a yes or no question, so I'm confused.

You are quite correct.

Are there any religious folks here who subscribe to the notion that human sexuality is fluid

I read that part and then responded.

So, to clarify, I subscribe to the notion that human sexuality is fluid.

So sorry about that.
I got pretty sloppy there.
Your confusion is understandable.

 

[Kenny]

It's been well noted that almost before the early 20th century, the word and concept of 'homosexual/ity' didn't exist

I'm not sure I quite understand...
"It was accepted in some forms in ancient Greece. However, in later cultures influenced by Abrahamic religions, the law and the church established sodomy as a transgression against divine law or a crime against nature."

History of homosexuality - Wikipedia

Seems like it existed way before (not trying to derail those who want to chime in on fluidity but rather just want to correct the statement (at least in my understanding)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm mostly interested in the views of religious folks here (those belonging to what I might call established religions, rather than New Age, SPNR etc.) I'm also not really looking for debate but felt this would be best placed here at any rate.

It's been well noted that almost before the early 20th century, the word and concept of 'homosexual/ity' didn't exist and sex was thought of as what one did with whom rather than to whom one was attracted. This led to a greater freedom in areas of sexuality, as far as this article is concerned, rather than labelling folks,

Sex and Gender in the Victorian Era - The Atlantic

For the Victorians, the situation was much more fluid. A woman’s romantic interest in another woman could be seen as excellent preparation for marriage. Though sex between men was a criminal offense (in Britain, lesbianism was invisible before the law), there was, as yet, hardly a homosexual identity defined by same-sex desire. Until the early 1950s, a man could have sex with another man without thinking himself in any respect “abnormal”—as long as he steered clear of the feminine dress or behaviour that marked a so-called pouf or queen. To pry off the Benson roof is to ask the question: What was it like to live before and during the invention of modern sexuality?

[...]

Absolute as Victorian moral certainties appeared to be, they nonetheless permitted a great deal of ambiguity in matters romantic and sexual, even in the most respectable of families. The marriage of Minnie and Edward—“intricate, sensitive, caring, and deeply committed,” as Goldhill describes it—ran alongside her love for women. True, the complications of the Benson marriage caused some anguish on both sides and undeniably left their children confused as to the state of their parents’ feelings for each other. But to his credit, Goldhill doesn’t attempt to tidy up the Bensons’ complexities.

One man who we would now label homosexual had this to contribute,

Was it possible, Arthur wondered, that he had “the soul of a woman in the body of a man”? Even though the term homosexual was coming into currency, he did not use it until 1924, the year before he died. And when he did use it, after a theoretical conversation on the subject with Fred, he wrote the word out—“the homo sexual question”—in a way that suggested unfamiliarity.

Even as late as 1924, apparently, people we'd now call gay or lesbian didn't see themselves as having any innate identity. And finally, this,

The same year, Virginia Woolf (who had both a husband and a female lover) lamented the erosion of sexual ambiguity. Unlike Fred Benson, she was unsentimental about her Victorian upbringing, yet as the dichotomy between homosexual and heterosexual solidified, she could see what had been lost: “Where people mistake, as I think, is in perpetually narrowing and naming these immensely composite and wide flung passions—driving stakes through them, herding them between screens.”

[...]

The irony of all this is something that no gay liberationist would have thought possible when the campaign for homosexual rights was regarded as a grave threat to the social order. Sandwiched between the fluidity of the Victorian years and the proliferating sexual and gender identities of the new millennium, the late 20th century’s straight-gay paradigm looks decidedly old-fashioned—maybe even a little stodgy.

Now my main question here is a simple one, but I had to preface it with the above as a way of really getting into what I mean.

Are there any religious folks here who subscribe to the notion that human sexuality is fluid (as the pre-20th century people saw it) or are you on board with the new view? I tend to agree with the former view, but would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

I will only say this on this topic: sexuality is as fluid as you'd like it to be. Situations (prisons, army service, monasteries, convents) can lead to humans reacting in ways that they may well not outside of those situations. Many men in prison have engaged in satisfying homosexual relations and felt no impulse at all to repeat them when free to find heterosexual outlets.

The sex drive is very strong -- in all animals, not just humans. It WILL be satisfied, unless mortified by bizarre beliefs. That latter only in humans -- other animals don't pay any attention to dogma, and do as they will. And a surprising number of them do as they will in same-sex and opposite-sex arrangements.

 

[Rival]

I'm not sure I quite understand...
"It was accepted in some forms in ancient Greece. However, in later cultures influenced by Abrahamic religions, the law and the church established sodomy as a transgression against divine law or a crime against nature."

History of homosexuality - Wikipedia

Seems like it existed way before (not trying to derail those who want to chime in on fluidity but rather just want to correct the statement (at least in my understanding)

It's about the concept of homosexuality and sexual identity in general not being concepts before the 20th century. Before then humans were seen as sexually fluid and not bound by a sexuality. It was understood that any individual human could be attracted to whoever took his fancy regardless of gender at any given moment.

Talking about our modern western concept of homosexually in regards to pre late Victorian cultures is anachronistic.

 

[Brian2]

I'm mostly interested in the views of religious folks here (those belonging to what I might call established religions, rather than New Age, SPNR etc.) I'm also not really looking for debate but felt this would be best placed here at any rate.

It's been well noted that almost before the early 20th century, the word and concept of 'homosexual/ity' didn't exist and sex was thought of as what one did with whom rather than to whom one was attracted. This led to a greater freedom in areas of sexuality, as far as this article is concerned, rather than labelling folks,

Sex and Gender in the Victorian Era - The Atlantic

For the Victorians, the situation was much more fluid. A woman’s romantic interest in another woman could be seen as excellent preparation for marriage. Though sex between men was a criminal offense (in Britain, lesbianism was invisible before the law), there was, as yet, hardly a homosexual identity defined by same-sex desire. Until the early 1950s, a man could have sex with another man without thinking himself in any respect “abnormal”—as long as he steered clear of the feminine dress or behaviour that marked a so-called pouf or queen. To pry off the Benson roof is to ask the question: What was it like to live before and during the invention of modern sexuality?

[...]

Absolute as Victorian moral certainties appeared to be, they nonetheless permitted a great deal of ambiguity in matters romantic and sexual, even in the most respectable of families. The marriage of Minnie and Edward—“intricate, sensitive, caring, and deeply committed,” as Goldhill describes it—ran alongside her love for women. True, the complications of the Benson marriage caused some anguish on both sides and undeniably left their children confused as to the state of their parents’ feelings for each other. But to his credit, Goldhill doesn’t attempt to tidy up the Bensons’ complexities.

One man who we would now label homosexual had this to contribute,

Was it possible, Arthur wondered, that he had “the soul of a woman in the body of a man”? Even though the term homosexual was coming into currency, he did not use it until 1924, the year before he died. And when he did use it, after a theoretical conversation on the subject with Fred, he wrote the word out—“the homo sexual question”—in a way that suggested unfamiliarity.

Even as late as 1924, apparently, people we'd now call gay or lesbian didn't see themselves as having any innate identity. And finally, this,

The same year, Virginia Woolf (who had both a husband and a female lover) lamented the erosion of sexual ambiguity. Unlike Fred Benson, she was unsentimental about her Victorian upbringing, yet as the dichotomy between homosexual and heterosexual solidified, she could see what had been lost: “Where people mistake, as I think, is in perpetually narrowing and naming these immensely composite and wide flung passions—driving stakes through them, herding them between screens.”

[...]

The irony of all this is something that no gay liberationist would have thought possible when the campaign for homosexual rights was regarded as a grave threat to the social order. Sandwiched between the fluidity of the Victorian years and the proliferating sexual and gender identities of the new millennium, the late 20th century’s straight-gay paradigm looks decidedly old-fashioned—maybe even a little stodgy.

Now my main question here is a simple one, but I had to preface it with the above as a way of really getting into what I mean.

Are there any religious folks here who subscribe to the notion that human sexuality is fluid (as the pre-20th century people saw it) or are you on board with the new view? I tend to agree with the former view, but would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

I would have thought that the new view is the one that says human sexuality is fluid.
But what do you see as fluid. These days fluid can be very unstable, one in which someone can identify as a man one week and a woman the next and something else the next.
That said, mental sexuality does not always fit with biological sexuality and stereotypes for what is male or what is female are definitely out of place these days and that is becoming the case more and more.
Is there a like past which society has gone too far? I think so.
Is that line identifiable without a moral compass? Probably not. The line keeps moving as the morals of society keep moving.
Is it even a matter for morals to be involved with? Religions and moral compasses in societies of the past have definitely said yes and still do.
Should religions force their views onto everyone? Good question. Someone is going to be forcing their moral views onto us in law and religious people have a say also. But I'm for freedom,,,,,,,,,,and it is becoming increasingly more difficult to know where to draw a line on what freedoms should not be granted in law. In the future it no doubt will be science that does this even if science, by definition, has no moral views. Law making will become a methodologically naturalistic process.
Anyway I'm rambling and probably have not even answered what you were asking.

 

[Rival]

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding this thread because they are so conditioned into their understanding that homosexuality exists.

Imagine that you live prior to the word 'homosexual' and the concept of innate sexuality whether it be hetero or homosexuality doesn't exist. There's no such idea that a person is exclusively one or the other. One's sexual attractions are not the focus, but one's sexual actions. If you are a woman who has sex with women, there's nothing to suggest that is an innate part of who you are - instead it's just a sexual activity you enjoy doing. Same with men who have sex with men. There's no personal identity that goes with it. There's no idea that you are different to those around you in your mental state, but that every human being has the capacity to be attracted to and sleep with various kinds of people.

That's the view of pretty much every culture prior to the idea that one is born innately one or the other and that one's attractions mark one as different.

That's what the article I pasted is saying.

Or do you believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality are true?

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's about the concept of homosexuality and sexual identity in general not being concepts before the 20th century. Before then humans were seen as sexually fluid and not bound by a sexuality. It was understood that any individual human could be attracted to whoever took his fancy regardless of gender at any given moment.

Talking about our modern western concept of homosexually in regards to pre late Victorian cultures is anachronistic.

This is factually incorrect, at least if you're talking about pre-Victorian cultures in general and not just Western ones. A particular verse in the Qur'an has even been used for centuries among other verses and hadiths as a basis that homosexuality is unnatural and homosexual sex is "sinful"/haraam, and one argument many scholars make for that is that the People of Lut were supposedly admonished by Lut for lusting after other men instead of women, implying strict heteronormativity:

Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people."
— Saheeh International

Surah Al-A'raf - 1-206

 

[Rival]

This is factually incorrect, at least if you're talking about pre-Victorian cultures in general and not just Western ones. A particular verse in the Qur'an has even been used for centuries among other verses and hadiths as a basis that homosexuality is unnatural and homosexual sex is "sinful"/haraam, and one reason given is that the People of Lut supposedly lusted after other men instead of women, implying strict heteronormativity:



Surah Al-A'raf - 1-206

Yes, but it's the desire and approach here that's being chastised. There's no notion of or word for homosexual exclusive people. This verse is actually proving my point because it assumes a degree of choice in what the participants are doing. There's no condemnation of a specific sexual orientation. The verse suggests the emphasis is on the approaching of men, i.e., it's about what these people are doing.

 

[Brian2]

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding this thread because they are so conditioned into their understanding that homosexuality exists.

Imagine that you live prior to the word 'homosexual' and the concept of innate sexuality whether it be hetero or homosexuality doesn't exist. There's no such idea that a person is exclusively one or the other. One's sexual attractions are not the focus, but one's sexual actions. If you are a woman who has sex with women, there's nothing to suggest that is an innate part of who you are, instead it's just a sexual activity you enjoy doing. Same with men who have sex with men. There's no personal identity that goes with it. There's no idea that you are different to those around you in your mental state, but that every human being has the capacity to be attracted to and sleep with various kinds of people.

That's the view of pretty much every culture prior to the idea that one is born innately one or the other and that one's attractions mark one as different.

That's what the article I pasted is saying.

Or do you believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality are true?

It is hard to consider a world where homosexual and heterosexual was not thought of as real.
I suppose years ago those things were not spoken of as much and so it was not realised as widely that some people have an exclusively same sex attraction.

 

[Rival]

It is hard to consider a world where homosexual and heterosexual was not thought of as real.
I suppose years ago those things were not spoken of as much and so it was not realised as widely that some people have an exclusively same sex attraction.

They were spoken of a great deal but the focus was on various sexual acts not sexual identity, which wasn't a concept.

I thought this would have been a cool conversation but I guess a lot of folks find it difficult.

 

[Brian2]

They were spoken of a great deal but the focus was on various sexual acts not sexual identity, which wasn't a concept.

I thought this would have been a cool conversation but I guess a lot of folks find it difficult.

I can see that there are people who have exclusively same sex attraction and others who have exclusively other sex attraction and others with a bisexual attraction.
It is hard for me to understand the fluidity of sex however.
To me it is one of the 3 above.
I guess I can see the fluidity in what sex someone wants to be known as or identify as.
This aspect is certainly a today issue with changing gender operations but apart from that issue I don't know.
In Australia sexual fluidity is being pushed into schools as if it is a sexual fact that should be accepted by all and taught to the young. This is part of an anti bullying programme.
From a religious pov it is hard to accept this because of the taboo on same sex sexual practices in most if not all religions.
It's like the anti religion league is pushing their morality onto all children and calling it scientific fact.
I prefer to stick to the known and accepted historical categories (what I see as the historical categories) and to do the anti bullying programme without indoctrination in the area of sexuality.

 

[Rival]

I can see that there are people who have exclusively same sex attraction and others who have exclusively other sex attraction and others with a bisexual attraction.
It is hard for me to understand the fluidity of sex however.

Imagine if all people were capable of being sexually attracted to all sexes and kinds of people, so instead the focus was on the sex act (sodomy, cunnilingus etc).

That's the quintessential view before the notion of homo and heterosexuality.

 

[Rival]

This is also interesting Sexual orientation versus behavior—different for men and women? - Contexts

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I've always been more to the side that humans are sexually fluid, or sexual opportunists as I prefer to say. This whole dividing people up into discrete categories, which are now orientations and identities, is totally recent and doesn't follow the reality of the matter. There's still many groups who fall outside the standard orientations (gay/lesbian, bisexual, straight) and no one knows where to put them (like downlow men who refuse to be called gay or bi, and those attracted to trans people), and people with various fetishes. Then there are people who suddenly end up liking a type of person they've never liked before. Sexual "orientation" does not seem to be something hardwired in the human species, but varies dependent upon culture and shaped by culture. For example, it was expected that all men in ancient Greece would be attracted to both men and women. However, in modern US culture, male bisexuality is taboo and you're expected to be either gay or straight.

As for religion, my faith leads me to believe that it's bad for us to place our sense of self (identity) in such things as sex. It just leads to anxiety and confusion, along with policing and suspicion. Our identity should be rooted in God.

 

[Meow Mix]

I don’t think anything has really changed despite labels existing: I think the Kinsey scale is a good way to think about it in most respects. A majority of people don’t fall on the extreme ends, so it really is sexually situational.

I could perhaps see why people would take something up as an identity maybe, and then say “well I don’t do that” to the sex they’re less attracted to? Maybe? But I have my doubts.

I don’t think it depends on when I was born, if there’s a man I would want to have sex with, I’ve never seen or met him. Who knows what I’d do if locked in prison for 20 years though? Hard to fathom. I still think I’m probably just on one of the Kinsey extremes. Which I think would make sense in the ancient world as much as it does today.

 

[Meow Mix]

I did fool around with a young man in high school actually. I’ve never had sex with a man but I’ve done other things. I remember being turned on just because humans being turned on is arousing. But I remember vividly just being totally neutral-feeling about this being a male. Like that affected me sexually not at all. I think that’s a big indicator. It’s not disgust, I mean, bodies are just bodies and there’s nothing gross about men being men. But I was just not aroused at all by his maleness. Not one bit. It was the arousal that aroused me. It wasn’t until I was more openly with women that I was like “oh this is what arousal really is”