All of my ideas are relative, and I would say that nothing is without some aspect of relativity.
As for Political correctness; Cartesian, Rosaveltian, it doesn't matter, my attack was upon its reality and implications, the relegation of freedom of speech, control speech, control the argument, that is part of lennin's ideology. Offense is not grounds to justify control of speech.
There are many studies indicating neurological difference in males and females. The differences are biggest in formative years, where males and females develop different areas of mental functioning in different succession.
I wonder if it is not true that women objectify men? Is this never the case? What of when I hear a girl observeing a muscular, tan, 6'2" guy exclaim "Omg, he is sooo hot!", is this not similar objectification? When a woman prefers a man who is fit, with a certain set of physical features, is this not objectifying him? Case in point on a different level: An old friend of my mothers is very concerned with appearences, and seeks out mates who she can present as though they were trophies. Her first husband was a mathematician, then a theoretical physicist, then an engineer, and she loves to brag about them and she very much desires to be viewed as an intellectual and acts on and for a certain type of status. Is this not objectification?
On the other hand, is it not true that many women play into the objectification? Do they not enjoy being viewed as somthing that holds such power over men? I know that some do or at least express that they do. One looks at a woman as an object that stimulates sexual urges when they do not know this woman and she seems desireable. I do not think that what is desireable is formed by social opinion, but it is more individual. I am not very attracted to every supermodel I see, I am much more specific and look for specific traits. I do not like how most super thin models look, I do not like how blonde porn stars look very much.
Early man mated by selecting traits of utility to ensure strong young. Today, the healthy model has come along and we are all encouraged to adhere to this norm. Get fit, don't smoke, don't have view X, Y or Z, but rather P, Q and R. The shifting social machine might define what is desireable to some extent, but people define the social machine and genetics paired with experience defines people. I would argue that perhaps the social machine and genetics combine to form identity and all which that entails.
Sexual interaction is entirely biological, any 'metaphysical' aspects are a result of lack of scientific inquiry/development in regards to this subject. I view people as entirely physical or at least entirely undivorced from anything else by their nature. The social theories, one can only hope, shall be dissolved into scientific theories, as social science is quite insufficient and only a crutch to hold up certain ideologies until a sounder process can take over. Since these theories are our best bet for this subject now, I suppose we have no choice but to try to work them out.
Is gay a choice? Is it biological, or maybe in certain cases a pathology? Many gay men were abused as boys. I cannot make myself attracted to men, I find gay sex quite upsetting, just as I find a number of fetishes disturbing. Where does gayness divorce itself from a fetish, where does any sexuality divorce iself from a fetishistic complusion?