Sometimes on the weekends, after I’ve written two to three news cycle-related pieces, I kick back and write about something light. You know, out-of-the-mainstream kinda stuff. It’s like The concept of heterosexuality is not new.It was It was created in1934. Ok, maybe not. light,However, it is not mainstream.
So suggests BBC Future in an article titled “The Invention of ‘Heterosexuality.” Shall we dig in?
The 1901 Dorland’s Medical Dictionary defined heterosexuality as an “abnormal or perverted appetite toward the opposite sex.”
More than two decades later, in 1923, Merriam Webster’s dictionary similarly defined it as “morbid sexual passion for one of the opposite sex.”
It wasn’t until 1934 that heterosexuality was graced with the meaning we’re familiar with today: “manifestation of sexual passion for one of the opposite sex; normal sexuality.”
Here it is, boys and gals.
The author then opined, “Whenever I tell this to people, they respond with dramatic incredulity. That can’t be right! Well, it certainly doesn’t Feel right. It is. It feels good as if heterosexuality has always “just been there.”
Perhaps because Heterosexuality was always there.
You don’t have to do it all. science-yand other stuff. However, heterosexuality can be Not always just been there — heterosexual desire, as it were — where did all the people come from who were (are) Not heterosexual? I’m being facetious, but, I mean, yeah.
So, the author tells a story about a “man on the street” video, “from a few years ago,” in which people were asked if they thought homosexuals were born with their sexual orientations. Responses were varied, said the author, with most respondents saying something like, “It’s a combination of nature and nurture.”
The interviewer then asked a follow-up question, which was crucial to the “experiment.” Experiment? The non sequitur question — obviously asked based on the interviewer’s POV:
“When did you choose to be straight?” Most were taken back, confessing, rather sheepishly, never to have thought about it.
Feeling that their prejudices had been exposed, they ended up swiftly conceding the videographer’s obvious point: Straight people, like gay people, were also born gay.
The author’s conclusion from the so-called “experiment”?
The video’s takeaway seemed to suggest that all of our sexualities are “just there”; that we don’t need an explanation for homosexuality just as we don’t need one for heterosexuality. It does not seem that anyone, including the million of people who shared the video, realized we need to provide an explanation for each.
Au contraire, per the author: “Heterosexuality has not always ‘just been there.’ And there’s no reason to imagine it will always be.” Sorry pal, I — and billions of my heterosexual friends — beg to differ; based entirely on my earlier, non-science-y observation about procreation and the beginning of mankind. You know what else?
The author then goes off on a long narrative about the differences between heterosexuality and reproductive intercourse, with which I’m not going to waste column space, but suffice it to say he views “sexual instincts” and “cultural production” as non-mutually-inclusive. You see what I’m referring to?
This article focuses on sexuality in the 1800s and 20th centuries. Again, click on the link and read the whole damn thing if you choose; I just don’t recommend the time sink.
Then this, as the train finally nears the station — and not a minute too soon (emphasis, mine):
In order to show who we are, modern human beings needed heterosexuality.They had to explain why they were there, and defend their rights to remain where they were. However, this label may limit our ability to understand each other’s desires, loves, and fears as we age..
[…]
Heterosexuality is losing its “high ground,” as it were. There was once a time that homosexual indiscretions were scandalous. du jour, we’ve since moved on to another world, one riddled with the heterosexual affairs of politicians and celebritiesThis includes pictures and text messages as well as a variety of video tapes. Pop culture is full of images showing dysfunctional marriages and straight relationships.
[…]
The line between heterosexuality and homosexuality isn’t just blurry, as some take Kinsey’s research to imply – it’s an invention, a myth, and an outdated one. Both men and women will have sexual relations with one another until there is no human being. But heterosexuality – as a social marker, as a way of life, as an identity – may well die out long before then.
It’s hard to know where to start. Obviously, the piece was written from a narrative we’ve come to know and Not necessarily love. But, my fellow heteros, it appears that “our kind” might die out before “climate change” — AKA: “The existential threat of mankind” — comes for us. [sarc, of course]
Seriously, though, how long before this insanity makes its way into America’s public education system? God knows it wouldn’t be the first example of an attempt to program young kids. And it is soooo quintessentially leftist; it’s not enough to accept and treat with respect the LGBTQIA community (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, and agender). Radical left must destroy and attack the radical Left. heterosexuality.
Are there any more questions? Yeah, I got nothin’.
Let’s get to the bottom of it:
You can live, let it be. Just don’t force yours on mine, and I won’t force mine on yours.
RedState is related to:
Loudoun County Parents Discover Chilling CRT Teacher Training Material Decrying “Heterosexism” and Parental Autonomy
In the LGBT Community, there is a huge rift.
Schoolin’ All You Straight, Sorry Saps: California Professor Says Heterosexuality’s ‘Very Tragic’
About Post Author
