I seemed to pretty much understand the idea of adventure that seems so
pervasive throughout the readings this week. I think the whole love
affair analogy really helped me, concentrated on pgs. 53-55, Lyman and
Scott.
HOWEVER, I was really disturbed by the, what seemed to me, blatantly
biased attitude against homosexuals throughout the reading of Lyman and
Scott. They relate homosexual relations to some sort of cladestine meeting of
social pariahs. For example, pg. 56 "Homosexual liasons are typically of
short duration, episodes in an otherwise uneventful life. The constitute
in the majority of cases a momentary departure from respectability, a
short trip into a deviant interlude...Sex and affection are more
separated into the homosexual "one night stand" or "tearoom trade" than
they are in the heterosexual affair."
I was and still am shocked and disturbed by this attitude of the
authors. I checked to see the publication date; it's 1989. That
initially seemed relatively recent, but I suppose minds have opened
considerably within the past 7 years. Or at least I HOPE that they
have.
Did anyone else notice this bias? Is it perhaps intentional on the part
of the authors? (I couldn't imagine why, but you never know) I was
just astonished that such a mind-expansive field as Sociology would
require reading such mind-stifling material.
---I realize that this has little to do with the topic of adventure, but
I am interested in hearing what everyone thinks---
-Lynsey Wood