Dear Earthlings:


The EcoSex course at U Conn is complete.  It was a great experience.  We spent time reading amazing books.  And here we resume posts to be shared with you.  Thinking out of the box and across disciplines.  Students had been sending their responses in, with discussion questions.  In class, we did connected the dots: a holograph of what we’ve read together, the “required readings.”  Multiple perspectives and good synergy.  Here, we offer a glimpse.  Lisa Diamond’s Sexual Fluidity was one of two cultural-theory theory books.  We got five responses: from Adam, Michael, Alissa, John, and Rhiann. 


Here is Michael’s take:

Overall, I found Sexual Fluidity to be a fascinating book to read. The early chapters discussion of the various sexual orientation studies were particularly interesting for me because I had

never realized the degree to which these studies had focused on male sexual orientation and excluded the experiences of women because they confounded the data. Similarly, I was also engaged by the books discussion of the genetics of sexual orientation and particularly the hormonal doses in utero and the effects these had. Given that all of this discussion was an application of epigenetics I found it to be particularly compelling from a scientific perspective because Diamond’s findings seemed to indicate there were a plethora of yet undiscovered interactions between which genes are activated by androgen hormones and what effect the over-expression or inactivation of these genes by differing levels of androgen have on the genetics of human sexuality. This early groundwork certainly helped direct me towards her subsequent research with curiosity and a more open mind, confident of its grounding in the biology underlying her research.

Once I had finished reading the book, I think I connected to the idea of the attraction to the person and not the gender. While I certainly agree with Diamond’s idea that certain characteristics that we may find attractive are gender neutral, I think there is a lot of truth to her claim that the individuals she studied could be attracted to the person and not the gender. I think this is true to a degree even amongst those who are less fluid in their sexuality, either because they are males or are not attracted to both genders. There is certainly plenty of anecdotal evidence of fleeting attractions by otherwise non-fluid individuals in a direction more analogous to the fluidity that Diamond investigates.

Do you agree with her general hypothesis regarding women’s sexuality being more fluid than males?




Michael Maranets
Published with permission

WGSS 3998 – Ecosexuality and the Ecology of Love
Prof. Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio
U Conn, Storrs, Spring 2013

Dear Earthlings:
Let “nature” be your teacher in the arts of love.  Education is the heart of democracy, education to love.  Come back for more wonders: Students Responses have resumed, to appear now every Tuesday.  More Book Reports to be scheduled soon, every other Thursday.  

Namaste,
 
Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio, PhD
Gilf Gaia Extraordinaire
Author of Gaia, Eros, and many other books about loveProfessor of Humanities
University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez
Join Our Mailing List
   
Follow us in the social media
Poly Planet GAIA Blog: 
http://polyplanet.blogspot.com/ 

Be Appraised of Ecosex Community Project PostaHouse  Become a Fan: www.facebook.com/GaiaBlessings 
Author’s Page/Lists all books: 
YouTube Uploaded Videos: http://www.youtube.com/SerenaAnderlini
 

Find us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterView our profile on LinkedInView our videos on YouTubeVisit our blog 

http://polyplanet.blogspot.com

Recommended Posts