I guess I would say human sexuality doesnt require validation, depending on what you define validation as.

If you mean we are attracted to what we are attracted to...fine.

If you mean it gives an "OK" stamp of approval for any deviant behavior...no.

An adult sexually attracted to and aroused by children for example, is not OK.

Here for my two cents is my take on this whole sexuality thing, especially pertaining to the "foot fetish."

First, let's determine if we (we each need to determine this for ourselves) have a classic fetish or an attraction. For me, I love the female foot. I find it sexy and arousing. I enjoy sucking toes, massaging their feet, and sometimes even the smell. Kissing them, licking them, touching them are certainly things I look forward to in a sexual/sensual moment. But is that a fetish? Some may want to kiss, lick, suck and touch a womans breasts. Is that person a breast fetishist? I think not. It may not even be related to a person or body part. Perhaps a particular scent can arouse such feelings. Perhaps the feel of running your hands on a nylon leg. Maybe the sound of a woman walking in heels across a tile floor. All these things and more can be arousing, sexy, or a turn-on. But once that arousal becomes a focused need for sexual stimuli, then you have a fetish on your hand, which is dangerously close to sexual disfunction, or at least deviancy. (some people on this board will disagree with me by what I am about to give as example, but again this is my opinion) Take for instance those that seek out and receive sexual gratification outside the parimeter of mutual involvement. The person who masterbates to shoes. The person who engages in "sleepy feet", the act of fondeling a womans feet while she is unconcious or unaware. This isnt just about feet, it could relate to the panty sniffer, the upskirt picture taker, or the guy who sniffs the bicycle seats at the women's gym. These and more I am sure are examples of sexual deviancy and sexual disfunction. Deviancy in the sense that the deviancy is behavioral. Since none of the above examples involve the consent of a willing partner, I label it deviant. Disfunction could be where without said object of adoration, sexual function is improbable to impossible, ie: the panty sniffer cannot perform unless that is involved in his lovemaking. No panties, no sniffing, no climax.

So attraction to things, feet, breasts, butt, lips, hair, scent, etc is perfectly normal. It's when such things are obsessed over that becomes a problem. But to get back to your dilema, being attracted to something is not the defining quality of your sexuality. If your sexual drive is toward a person of the opposite sex, then you are normal (normal in the context of you and your friends discussion). What attracts you to that person can be a myriad of memories and stimuli during your development that shapes what arouses you. Dr. Frued said that most men are attracted to womens breasts because they are a source of comfort, a subconcious memory of breastfeeding when they were a child.

Gay, Straight, or Bi, that's your sexuality. Again, in the parameters of Sex=reproduction=nature than yes, anything that deviates from straight is a sexual deviation. Being attracted to same sex, or children, old people, sheep, dead people, or a curvacious tree is a deviation.

Spectaculon wrote:

---

I was having a discussion with one of my friends about gay marriage. He was arguing that human sexuality does and should follow logic. Homosexuality is inherently wrong because being attracted to another man is not natural, and therefore incorrect.

I dont think your friend understands what "logic" means.

There is nothing "natural" "unnatural" about attraction. Attraction is a completely irrational emotional (usually subconscious) response. Its why you may have a friend who agrees with you that these 5 women are hot but disagrees about this 6th one & in fact finds her completely nasty. Now, you can certainly argue that homosexuality makes no sense from a "sex is reproduction" standpoint - no doubt about that. But I think its wrong for you friend to conclude that the mere attraction aspect is unnatural. Whatever is beautiful to us is what is "natural" to us. Thank god or there would be a LOT of ugly people who never had a date ;)


Anyway, your thought process is interesting & will probably spur some good discussion :P

I am playing devil's advocate though and I'm curious what others think about labeling sorednax's "sexual deviancy" as a luxury.

Not sure if I am comfortable with the term "luxury." Is necrophelia, pedophelia and beastiality a luxury of our species/society?

Perhaps "indulgence" is a better word. A small tribe of man may need to procreate for the survival of the species, as in your example, sure. But a society that is well established and dominant in an area can indulge in activites that are outside the necessities of survival. Some of these indulgences may be good, others harmful. And it is the luxury of that society to deem what is good and what is bad about what it indulges in. For example, in todays society pedophelia is forbidden (unless your the King of Pop) but in ancient Greek and Roman times it was part of a young man's education. At some point society deemed that luxury good, then decided it was bad. Even today, homosexuality is more and more accepted, but not even 20 years ago, they were considered dirty, AIDS was a "gay disease", and they were forbidden to join the military. So now we live in a period where society is once again passing judgement on its indulgences.