If any of them were inclined to same-sex attraction, they did not act out enough arouse suspicion or rumors.Onyx wrote:Del, I'm almost tempted to agree with you. I noted this in the recent publicized hunts against bachelors like Cliff Richard and Edward Heath. With no real evidence, their rights and privacy were compromised with innuendo that their confirmed bachelor status was somehow suspicious. It's perfectly fine to be single, and no explanation is required.Del wrote:As to Jocose and the OP:
It used to be a lot easier. My wife and I both had bachelor uncles and spinster aunts on both sides of our parent's families. Our culture respected such people. We did not think them to be weird, or deprived, or desperate.
No one thought they were unnatural in their choice to live chastely.
Still, some of your relatives might have been gay.
For the most part, our individual proclivities regarding sex are learned behaviors, imprinted and formed by habit.
This means that when the culture had a number of unmarried, chaste adults in circulation, some of us grew into that life.
A guy could say, "I'm not dating or anything." And that was adequate and acceptable.
And when the culture wasn't so gay, there weren't as many gays around.
But when we started sexualizing children at a young age, the cultural notion of chaste adulthood became difficult to imagine.
And liberalization of attitudes toward gay sex and experimentation.... well, get them when they are young, and the gayness grows like weeds.
Sex is still a choice. But (as Thunker tried to tell me), it does not exist in a vacuum of freedom. We are formed and imprinted by the cultural norms of our youth.