I think humans are always considering each others sexuality.
I think you're right, but the difference I was trying to point up is between a quick assessment of a person (hot or not?) made at a barely conscious level, and the need to take that into account in how you deal with someone. I don't think sexuality (which is, as you say, about more than just purely sex) needs to be the basis on which we conduct all interactions. Gay, straight, bisexual, or however someone thinks of their own sexuality: it shouldn't result in different treatment from someone.
Equally, I am not advocating that we all wander around in some asexual limbo. Just that we don't have to base simple social interactions on sexuality. I don't need to know your sexual orientation to tell you the time of day, and equally it shouldn't matter to me what your orientation is unless I am pursuing a different interaction.
Remember that study that said men think about sex some outrageous amount of time like ten seconds out of every minute or something like that? So, men at least, think about sex all the time practically. So if your shopkeeper was gay and you walked in, he'd take notice. If he's straight, he probably wouldn't think about it. But if he was straight and a woman walked in, he'd think about it. Men are always speculating about it. The stereotype of construction workers ogling women as they walk by their work is a stereotype cause it happens alot, appropriate or not.
I think that study has been bastardised and misrepresented enormously. Nonetheless, I don't think that a shopkeeper is speculating as to whether I am gay or straight right away. I think instead they are working out if they fancy me or not.
My orientation is of secondary importance, or no importance at all in a casual encounter. It's all about beauty being in the eye of the beholder.
Your example of stereotyped Construction workers (and I happen to know some well behaved ones to balance that out
) will be whooping and yelling at lesbians, bisexuals and transvestites, just as readily as straight women. It's not about the sexuality of the other person, but about their own.
That makes sense in the context of most people, but public celebrities are in another realm all together. All those nightly entertainment shows thrive on those things and seem to have few boundaries.
See, I differ from the media view here, in that I don't believe appearing in a film, TV show or newspaper instantly voids all right to a private life. Just because people are interested, doesn't mean it's any of their business. If Jake wants to be grinning on TV 24 hours a day 7 days a week on the "All Jake Channel" (I'll stop and wait for a few people reading this to wipe the drool off their keyboards
) it doesn't mean that anyone has some right to treat him as public property.
Sure, the media does this right now, but it is point blank wrong. Jake is a man who works in a job that requires publicity. That doesn't give the media carte Blanche to follow him about and try and work out who he may or may not be sleeping with. His sexuality may be interesting to fans, but it is not a matter for public record. We have no right to pry into his life, anymore than he has the right to flick through your web browser history at night, checking up on what you were looking at ("Google: are velociraptors afraid of fire?"; "Google: What to do in case of velociraptor attacks" ; "Google: can velociraptors open doors?").
It is sad that a gay celeb can't feel free to mention their sexuality. Worse than sad, it's abhorrant to me that such a climate prevails. On the other hand, if Jake is straight, it's still nobody's business but his own. People close to him may well know the truth of the matter, but as friends and relatives, it's only right that he shares things with them. We haven't earned that intimacy with him, and it is perfectly understandable, to me, that he would wish to keep as much of his life as anonymous and secretive, as the rest of us do.
I know sexuality matters and worldwide we are incredibly hung up on what people do with their genitalia, and to whom, and when. I agree it's the case just now. I just hope that one day people realise it's not such a big deal and stop feeding the gluttony of the media, granting it the power to invade the private lives of others for the satisfaction of our curiosity.
