Subject: For Distribution
From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 18:04:16 -0500 (EST)

Two Items for Publication

I hope you find the two items below thought-provoking enough to publish or
otherwise distribute.

    Curt Pavola, Co-Director
    Lavender Action
    P.O. Box 7703
    Olympia, WA  98507-7703
    360.943.4662
    (or, [email-masked])

  ***************** ITEM #1  **********************

Human  Sexuality  Fact  Sheet

Q.	Why is the phrase "sexual preference" inaccurate and misleading?
A.	Because heterosexuals have not consciously chosen to love, or stated a
"preference" for loving, members of the opposite sex; they just feel it, and
always have.  No conscious, free-will "decision" is made to be heterosexual.
 "Orientation" is a more accurate word than "preference."

Further, heterosexuals are not oriented toward just "having sex" with members
of the opposite gender; they have feelings of caring, affection, and love for
them--and sexual activity is a reflection of those feelings to the same
degree as it is a reflection of sexual attraction.  "Affectional" is a more
illuminating word than "sexual."

A more accurate, descriptive phrase for human sexuality is "affectional
orientation."

The same is true for homosexuals and bisexuals

Q.	Is heterosexuality unnatural?
A.	No.  About nine out of ten children are either born heterosexual or become
heterosexual within the first few years of life for reasons of nature that
are not yet clearly understood.

The same is true for homosexuals and bisexuals
 [About one child out of ten is born or
  becomes homosexual or bisexual]

Q.	Should heterosexuals be given "special rights" in employment, housing,
marriage, et cetera?
A.	No.  Heterosexuals should be guaranteed the basic rights afforded everyone
else; nothing less than civil equality, and nothing more.  Heterosexuals
should not face discrimination because of their nature.

The same is true for homosexuals and bisexuals

Q.	Is heterosexuality a "mental disorder"?
A.	No.  The  American Psychiatric Association and the
American Psychological Association say that affectional orientation is not an
indicator of mental illness.

The same is true for homosexuality and bisexuality

Q.	Is heterosexuality a "lifestyle"?
A.	No.  Affectional orientation predetermines no particular way of living or
acting, and no particular belief system.  Who one loves has nothing to do
with a person's "lifestyle," those chosen activities supported by a certain
level of income and guided by a person's belief system.

Some heterosexuals are married, some are single.  Some
are bankers, some are mechanics, some are grocery clerks, some are elected
officials, some are hair dressers...Some are square dancers, some are
joggers, some are gardeners,   some are couch potatoes...Some are
grandmothers, some are fathers, some are sisters, some are cousins, some are
sons....

The same is true for homosexuals and bisexuals

Q.	But don't gay men and lesbians live an "alternative lifestyle"?
A.	Not necessarily.  Although, just like some heterosexuals, they might
choose an "alternative lifestyle" for any number of philosophical reasons.
 An example: imagine two guys who've never met each other.  Both are
mechanics who like baseball, enjoy a long-term love relationship, expect to
rear children within the next couple of years, read Timesweek, go camping on
weekends, prefer staying home rather than going out on the town, visit their
parents on holidays, and are active in local politics.  Which one is gay?  We
can't tell because their "lifestyles" are the same.  Only their naturally
determined focus of loving emotions and sexual attraction is different.
 Neither man leads a lifestyle we might label as an "alternative" to  the
"average" American lifestyle.

By Curt Pavola, P.O. Box 7568, Olympia, WA  98507.
(Permission to reprint, with attribution, granted; revised May 1996)

***************** ITEM #2  **********************

It's Not Just A Matter Of Semantics
by Curt Pavola

"Why do you say affectional orientation?"  When I hear someone say this after
reading one of my articles or hearing me speak, I know my language has made
an impact.  I've caused someone to pause and consider the meaning of my words
instead of unthinkingly continuing their assumptions about me based on
inaccurate language.

Let's examine briefly the language often used to describe homosexuals and see
if we can develop a consensus on the phrases "affectional orientation" and
"affectional minority": homosexual, sexual preference/minority/deviant/et
cetera, and alternative lifestyle.

The common theme in the above terms is the root word "sex" or the idea of
abnormal sexual activity.  Let's be honest with each other.  Is the
difference between homosexuals (or bisexuals) and heterosexuals only based on
who we have sex with?  Or is it based on the more fundamental level of who we
are attracted to?  Do we experience sexual relations with people of the same
gender merely because we make a conscious decision to have sex with them, or
do we seek sex because of the innate affection and attraction we feel?

It seems clear that, for all orientations, the emotions present themselves
and any response to those emotions is up to each individual.  So, focusing on
activity to define the difference between orientations misses the mark.  The
difference appears before anyone chooses their actions in relation to their
feelings.

For example, is a person with only same-gender feelings of affection and
sexual attraction who nevertheless chooses to couple exclusively with an
opposite-gender partner for socially imposed reasons really a heterosexual?
 Or, is a homosexual who chooses to have sex with a person of the opposite
gender just for the experience now classified as bisexual?

In both instances, choices in activities are not related to basic
orientation, but rather to other motives.  The same could be said of prison
inmates who fulfill their sexual needs behind bars despite their basic
heterosexual orientation.

My decision to use the phrase "affectional orientation" is not just a game of
semantics.  Rather, it is a challenge to each of us, of all orientations, to
examine the bias and cultural baggage inherent in the language used to
discuss human sexuality and label homosexuals.  If we are more accurate about
ourselves, understanding and acceptance will follow.

We can see the effect of biased language in the various anti-gay initiative
campaigns and Republican Party platforms.  Phrases such as "sexual
preference" and "alternative lifestyle" misinform the heterosexual public
about gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals.  Such phrases preach choice in
orientation, not just activities, and focus on sexual acts as the defining
aspect of our identities.

In reality our lifestyles do not depend on who we feel loving emotions for,
and our differentness from heterosexuals is not in what we feel or even how
we address those feelings, but merely in the object of attraction; and this
we do not choose.  The Religious Political Extremists' attempts to label us
as wicked people who choose to offend society by going against nature rest on
the inaccurate presumptions of choice.  So in addition to defending our
constitutional right to individual liberty, let's use more accurate,
educational language that better explains ourselves and our lives, thus
eviscerating their rhetoric.

Human language, like human knowledge, is an ever-changing, hopefully growing,
endeavor.  If you have any thoughts on this topic, please contact me at
Lavender Action, P.O. Box 7703, Olympia, WA  98507.

(Curt Pavola is co-director of Lavender Action, which is an education and
advocacy organization for affectional minorities.)

   ********************* end ********************