Reply #4: There's always going to counter-culture groups, and more prominent in excluded minorities.

[TheWraith]

It's the same sort of impulse that spawned the Black Panthers and black supremacy, the urge to reject the values system of the majority which is mistreating the minority.

That said, the reason that "normal" is defined as it is is because, despite anecdotes to the contrary, humans ARE a pair-bonding species. The majority of people--gay, straight, socialist hermaphrodite, whatever--end up seeking someone with whom they can share a special bond which goes beyond sex. Whether they find that person or not, the bell curve still shows that most individuals choose to look for one mate. It could be debated how much of that is social pressure, but there's strong evidence that we're biologically wired to be pair-bonders.

That, however, doesn't necessarily reflect on whether or not the surrounding culture is sex-positive. People pair-bonding doesn't bear any reflection of whether sexual behavior between consenting adults is viewed as "obscene," no matter how unusual it may be for current attitudes. Seeking a single loving mate is not exclusionary to a healthy appreciation of gay male orgies, or transwomen, or what have you.

There's a distinction to be made, in my view, between the superficial non-conformist elements of what you're talking about--the "shock value" of intersexed nuns and costumed performers--versus the much more lasting impact of creating a new definition of what is a normal level of openness to sexual behavior. Although the most valuable thing that could be done, in my view, is the breaking down of the gay/straight binary archetype, to find a social recognition that human sexual behavior and tastes are a little more complicated than just two or three such classes.