Sean Hayden wrote:Does his definition of sexual attraction seem reasonable to you? It strikes me as contrived for the sake of his argument.
I think allowing factors beyond first impressions --christ, just beyond seeing-- to be part of attraction seems reasonable. But he doesn't. If you were sexually attracted upon sight alone, and then not upon learning something else, you're no longer talking about sexual attraction.
I doubt such a convenient delineation exist.
Yeah, it's a rather 'surface level' definition, but his view starts with the point that you don't choose whatever 'general type' you're attracted to. Sexual attraction may involve more factors than just appearances but he's not talking about getting to know someone's personality, interests, and/or values here but about us making casual, surface level assessments on whether someone else is 'fuckable', or not - which we do all the time without even wanting or having the opportunity to get to know them.
I, for example, might find the idea of fucking an ardent neo-liberal, rampant racist, or religious zealot repulsive, but before getting to know them I could still consider them attractive enough to shimmy with. And finding out a hottie is a fash doesn't mean I reject their gender or sexuality, nor does it challenge or undermine my own gender or sexuality or the fact that I find that general type of person attractive.
I'm pretty sure that, at some point, once we've got to know someone we've all found that person more or less sexually appealing than we first imagined. In this context, is my apparent sexual aversion to fascists morally equivalent to a transphobe's utter rejection of the gender and sexuality of all trans individuals?