<p>Homosexuality is a social construct. Abe Lincoln slept with Mr. Stead for 12 years, exchanged love letters with him when they were apart, and were basically inseparable when they were in the same town, but the idea that he was gay would never have crossed his mind, as the social construction didn’t exist at the time (you’ve got to look to the 1890s for that.)</p>
<p>Spartan males were expected to have sex with each other, with older men instructing younger ones in the practice, until the age of 28, when they were expected to marry and have kids for the good of the state, but here again, the idea that they were gay would never have crossed their minds. Depending on the emperor of the time, Romans were expected to have a range of sexual preferences that would exist on a continuum, but the idea of someone being exclusively hetero or homosexual would have struck them as odd.</p>
<p>Trying to figure out the degree to which objects of our affection are socially constructed is fraught with difficulty. It might be neither nature nor nurture. Without the social construction, there might not even be such a thing as gay or straight.</p>
<p>The labels are a social construct, but I do know that one’s attractions come from within. </p>
<p>Also, being attracted primarily to members of the opposite sex doesn’t preclude a person from practicing homosexual behavior (example: Saudi Arabia where, according to The Atlantic, it’s normal for straight older men to casually refer to a teenage boy walking by as a “hot little number.” Also, only “bottom” boys are perceived homosexual there. I suppose this behavior became accepted because women are off-limits). In other words, the social meaning attached to “homosexuality” differs from culture to culture (this is a large part of what made Borat so hilarious to me).</p>
<p>HOW do you know? You’ve never lived without social constructs.</p>
<p>I have known people who would claim to be heterosexual but are attracted to one - just one - person of the same gender. And I have also known folks who say they would be gay - except that they are attracted to their wife. Point being that we don’t have any clue as to the degree to which social attraction is tied to gender at all.</p>
<p>…because sexual preference is irreversible, showing how little the environment plays a role. Perhaps the environment played a role during a person’s critical period, but if sexual preference truly were a social construct, then people would be able to change it even after that period. This view accommodates the idea of a sexual continuum.</p>
<p>I must be missing something. Since when did these children’s shows have any underpinnings of reality anyway? I used to watch Captain Kangaroo. Here is a man who lives with a talking clock and a dancing bear. Why must people read something into every little thing???</p>
I find that hard to believe … it sure seems like there is only 1 episode that gets played over and over again … or more like 5 minutes of (un)original content that gets played over and over again. (and yes tele-tubbies are on the short list of things that might make me go postal … along with Barney)</p>
<p>The Teletubbie discussion is just another absurdity in today’s Poland. Its government is made up largely of boorish, nationalistic, bombastic, sexist, antisemitic simpletons. It’d be funny if it weren’t so depressing. Just ask any half-educated Pole and watch their eyes roll in disgust.</p>
<p>Wow, a full-grown grown man who loves the Teletubbies. As Paris Hilton would say, “that’s hot.” No really, that’s awesome dude.</p>
<p>Btw, I’ve read studies saying that gay people are more likely to have older brothers… something about the way in which older male fetuses affected the womb, making it more conducive to develpment of a child greatly predisposed to homosexuality. </p>
<p>So people can have gay pets? Dogs? Goldfish? Hermit Crab? How would they know? How do you even know if your goldfish, angelfish, hermit crab, etc, is male or female? (The sex of dogs/cats are obvious.)</p>