There is no such as "sexual orientation" as having intrinsic character. Why? Because "sexual orientation" arises out of discriminatory attraction. Discriminatory attraction arises out of the confusion that equivocates lust and love. This confusion of lust and love is specific to a certain understanding of human relationships. Because this certain understanding of human relationships is specific to the individual and the culture in a specific historical context, "sexual orientation" cannot arise through an understanding that removes lust from love. In effect, our sexualization of everything, from our relationships to people and people themselves, leads to a social reality in which there is such a thing as "sexual orientation." Therefore, "sexual orientation" can only arise from a specific cultural context that arises from a certain understanding of human relationships, and is not part of fundamental human nature.
Because "sexual orientation" is not part of fundamental human nature as is socially-constructed, we have the potential to assess its merit and either continue using it or discard it. Because "sexual orientation" has no merit, and causes suffering, "sexual orientation" should be abandoned as a social reality and individuals should cultivate themselves away from manifesting "sexual orientation." Because lust is the intrinsic evil that leads to "sexual orientation," cultivators should rid themselves of lust as much as possible in order to abandon "sexual orientation."
"Sexual orientation" arises out of discriminatory attraction. Sexual orientation can only exist under the assumption that an individual can be sexually attracted to one form, but not another. We understand sexual orientation through affirmation and negation; homosexuals are sexually attracted to the same sex, but not the opposite sex. Heterosexuals cannot be sexually attracted to the same sex, but are attracted to the opposite sex. Bisexuals are attracted to both sexes, and cannot be attracted to neither sex. Therefore, our concept of "sexual orientation" only arises out of a concept of discrminatory attraction.
However, the nature of attraction is that it is neither truly discrminatory nor truly non-discriminatory, but rather empty of inherent nature. Attraction cannot be truly discriminatory, because it has no bounds and changes over time. One can find one's spouse attractive, and then in a few years find them unattractive or even repulsive. In purely sexual terms, one can find human beings sexually attractive, and then later find animals sexually attractive. Sexual attraction in minimal before puberty, grows during puberty, and declines after a certain age. Attraction, and especially lust, constantly changes and has no bounds. People can literally be attracted to anything. However, attraction cannot be truly non-discriminatory, because no one is attracted to every thing simultaneously. In fact, attraction can only exist in the context that certain things are either attractive, unattractive (neutral), or repulsive (direct opposite of attractive). Foods taste good because other foods are tasteless or taste bad. Some people are beautiful because other people lack beauty or are ugly. (Though the perciever can possibly attain a state in which of all food tastes good or all people are beautiful, this transcendent perception cannot give rise to attraction. If every food is equally tasty and every person equally beautiful, what is there to be attracted to?)
Because discriminatory attraction has no inherent, unchanging, fixed basis, neither can sexual orientation. Sexual orientation cannot then be an inherent, unchanging, fixed characteristic of any individual. Furthermore, sexual orientation can only arise out of lust, which can be, to a fair extent, controlled and diminished through proper self-effort, and can be shaped in certain directions through the conditions and environment one finds oneself in.
Romantic discriminatory attraction arises out of the confusion that equivocates lust and love. Whereas true love can be extended to all beings, caring and cherishing them regardless of condition, circumstance, form, and history, lust does not work this way. The nature of lust roots itself in attraction, which as explained, must intrinsically find other things as unattractive or repulsive. This process of finding things attractive, non-attractive, or repulsive is discrimination. That is why attraction necessarily involves discrimination. Because this discrimination into attractive, non-attractive, and repulsive has no fixed characteristic and can be changed, shaped, and suppressed or developed, discriminatory attraction has no inherent nature nor intrinsic character. That is why one person can find his spouse attractive one year, less attractive the next, unattractive another, and eventually repulsive, without the spouse radically changing. Same with favorite foods, clothing styles, friends, dating partners, and so forth. Whereas love can be unconditional, attraction is everchanging. Therefore, romantic discriminatory attraction cannot be explained by love, but by the confusion of attraction as love.
Because sexual orientation discriminates based on gender or sex, this discrimination cannot be explained by attraction in general, but only specifically through lust, which is attraction in its sexual form. Without lust, there cannot be sexual orientation.
This confusion of lust and love is specific to a certain understanding of human relationships. What is this understanding? This understanding is that other human beings can be related to as objects of pleasure, objects of attraction, objects to be discriminated among for the sake of one's self. This is hedonism as applied to human relationships. Specifically with regard to "sexual orientation," people extend this hedonistic understanding to the conception of "romantic relationships" as being intrinsically lustful and sexually-based, with the understanding that this sexual attraction is unchanging, fixed, and inherent to one's personality.
However, this is not the case. Attraction is malleable, changing, unfixed, and not inherent to one's individual personality. Because this certain understanding of human relationships is specific to the individual and the culture in a specific historical context, "sexual orientation" cannot arise through an understanding that removes lust from love. When one understands love as separate from lust, in their purest forms, one understands that love necessarily involves unconditional care, boundless benevolence and compassion, and willingness to suffer for the other person. These elements are separate, and in practical expression often contradictory, to attraction (lust or otherwise). Because attraction is by nature fickle, changing and unfixed, attraction can only impurify true love. That is why many individuals in the Victorian era had and expressed deep love for those they had intimate relationships with, whether friends or family, whether male or female. To them, "sexual orientation" would be nothing more than the direction of one's lust, because one could love someone regardless of which gender or sex that person is.
Therefore, in effect, our sexualization of everything in our modern, Western culture, from our relationships to people and people themselves, leads to a social reality in which there is such a thing as "sexual orientation." Everything is sexualized these days. Commercials constantly appeal to sexual attraction. Our clothes emphasize bodily contours. Dating is not about finding the right marriage partner, but about a sexual relationship. Mainstream music is inundated with sexuality. Pornography is becoming more and more acceptable. People are taught to believe that they are little more than thinking animals, and so are encouraged engage in lust this way (even though animals simply do not experience lust the same way humans do), and social "scientists" take current historically-specific modern trends of our hypersexuality as "evidence" that we are, "in fact," little more than animals. Because sexuality is so inundated is everything we do and experience because of our hypersexualized culture, we have trouble understanding that lust and love are actually separate, and we have trouble perceiving this separation correctly. Because we cannot separate lust and love, we believe that romantic discrimination is love, and because lust is intrinsically sexual, this discrimination manifests itself as "sexual orientation," which we falsely understand as being part of love.
Therefore, "sexual orientation" can only arise from a specific cultural context that arises from a certain understanding of human relationships, and is not part of fundamental human nature. Because one can understand love and lust as separate and mutually exclusive, and change one's heart to expand one's love and diminish one's lust, romantic discrimination, sexual attraction, and therefore "sexual orientation" ceases to become neither meaningful concepts nor social realities. There is, in fundamentally human reality, no such thing as heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, or asexuals. These concepts only arise out of lust and sexual attraction, which is ever-changing, unfixed, malleable, changeable, given direction by self and society, encouragable, and supressable.
Because "sexual orientation" is not part of fundamental human nature as is socially-constructed, we have the potential to assess its merit and either continue using it or discard it. Because lust hinders true love, lust should be diminished as much as possible. And because "sexual orientation" can only arise out of sexual attraction, which is lust, "sexual orientation" must necessarily be abandoned when one abandons lust. "Sexual orientation" provides no good for individuals or society, self or others. When people define their marriages and love based on "sexual orientation," they define it on sexual attraction, which will hinder the cultivation of true love. "Sexual orientation" also divides people, not simply because of discrimination, but because attraction discriminates. When 1.5% of the population is "homosexual," "homosexuals" will have difficulty finding marriage partners simply because of reduced demographics. Finally, when people marry those who they cannot have children with, a greatly wonderful aspect of life is absent. Therefore, because "sexual orientation" has no merit, and causes suffering, "sexual orientation" should be abandoned as a social reality and individuals should cultivate themselves away from manifesting "sexual orientation."
Because lust is the intrinsic evil that leads to "sexual orientation," cultivators should rid themselves of lust as much as possible in order to abandon "sexual orientation." Why is lust evil? Because it reduces other people to being objects from which to extract pleasure from. When one person is lusting after another, he or she is not concerned with the well-being or benefit of the other person; rather, he or she simply wants something from the other person for his or her own pleasure. Therefore it is a great impediment to true love, which is based on unconditional care, boundless benevolence and compassion, and willingness to suffer for the other person. Thus, lust should be abandoned.
The sexualization of everything and the cultivation of lust brings upon a confusion between love and lust, which then defines "love" as "attraction." Further emphasis on lust results in "sexual attraction," which by its discriminating faculties creates socially-constructed divisions of "heterosexual," "homosexual," "bisexual," "asexual." This hypersexualization and lust at extremes results in pedophilia, sexual abuse, rape, and other sexual wronghoods and abnormalities.
No comments:
Post a Comment