From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: A Few Questions
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:19:42 GMT

In article <1hbc3aINN1pp@leela.CS.ORST.EDU> bob@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (robert s. richardson) writes:
>
>Please re-read what I said carefully:  "The only reason I would become
>straight, if I could, would be to escape society's persecution of gays."
>*I* would be selling out, because I would be changing my sexuality not
>because I prefer to be straight but because I want to be politically
>viable.  

Most of what we do is related to what is seen as good or bad by our
society: The way we dress, act, etc.
If we cannot change something that is not socially acceptable, we will
start by saying that we are "proud" of being that way, and that we would not
change even if we could. However, the truth is that we cannot change and that
we cannot do anything about that but find self-assurances.

>I did not mean to imply extrapolating that to anybody who
>wants to be straight.  But, in the current social climate, I am skeptical
>of those who claim to have converted and are happier and say its not
>because of social approval.  

What if the persons wants to change because of the social approval?
I never understood that idea about people having to stay the way they
are and not having to "sell out".
Why? 
People have no control about the way they are born. Why should a person
who is born in some way have to accept it and "never sell out", if s/he
had no control on that? 




>It is a question of
>being true to yourself.  

This is because you are justifying yourself. You cannot change the way you
are, so, you are being true to yourself: You are gaym there is nothing you
can do about it. Period.
Because you cannot do anything, you assume that doing something would be
selling out.
Some people would be happier changing because they cannot resist social
pressures. So, they are "true to themselves": They want to change.



>To use your "nose" anology, suppose I had a big
>nose and had it fixed via surgery.  This act is neutral because I have
>not stated a context for my decision.  If I actually *LIKED* my big nose,
>but reduced it to a smaller one that I *DID NOT* like just so people
>would accept me, I would feel guilty for abandoning the "cause" for the
>rights of large-nosed people.  On the other hand, if I woke up one
>morning and though "I think it might be cool to try a new nose", then
>this is an entirely different motive altogether.  

Tell me, how many people who have their noses changed via surgery,
that you know, did it because they woke up one morning.....?
People do it because there is a social image of beauty.
If there were no surgical way to fix the nose, they would be proud
of having big noses.



>Never have I advocated
>preventing people from trying to change their sexuality, noses, hair
>color, skin color, etc., but I am concerned about the damage that might
>be caused as a result of improper motives.

I believe that doing to avoid social condemnation is a proper motive. 




>
>Bob Richardson
>bob@atlantis.cs.orst.edu
>(503) 758-5018

AAP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality