Ten speakers with diverse perspectives on gay rights debate before high school honors students in the Toledo area on May 10.
Among the speakers was ex-gay activist Greg Quinlan of Dayton, Ohio, who frequently lobbies in defense of discrimination against gay people.
His decision to attack the mental health of gay people does not appear to have been very persuasive, for many students said they knew someone who is gay.
Isn’t that funny. I always thought that blatant hate and fighting to discriminate against groups of people was a personality disorder. Has anyone ever noticed that the most mentally disturbed people tend to hang around churches. Probably just my “typically homosexual” observation.
Some of the pro-gay speakers go to church and know their Biblical history better than the antigay speakers, so I kinda doubt churches, in and of themselves, are the common denominator.
I agree, however, that there are specific religious and pseudo-religious (political) movements that disproportionately recruit either hateful or emotionally wounded people, who seek to lash out in anger against others instead of healing their own wounds. There are also numerous religious leaders and activists who — wallowing in hubris and worldly prosperity — are eager to expand their own power by dividing and conquering everyone else.
Today’s news about the U.S. Roman Catholic bishops serves as just one example. Once again, the bishops are resisting efforts to stop sexual abuse in the priesthood, using their power to thwart accountability.
I don’t know what else to call it actually — this psychological inability to properly relate to members of the opposite sex — if not a personality disorder…
I’ve met very, very few gay people who don’t relate well to the opposite sex, Marty.
Marty, I have straight male friends, I have straight female friends — in fact, I’ve had some of both for most of my life — and I’ve never had any trouble relating to any of them.
Marty, do you know the number of straight men I’ve met who absolutely hate women? Not most straight men of course, but quite a few feel this way. They call them c*** and whore and say they’re only good for one thing. They have sex with women, and are certainly not gay. Yet they don’t “get” the opposite sex and are proud of that.
I had to laugh at the pastor who was going on and on about how much he enjoyed sex. He seemed a bit defensive. Maybe it’s because of all the guys on his church’s homepage, he’s the least attractive (by a wide margin). A few of those other guys look a bit…erm…unable to relate to the opposite sex.
http://www.monclovabaptist.org/church/Merrin.JPG
http://www.monclovabaptist.org
Do i really need to clarify? Fine.
I don’t know what else to call it actually — this inability to relate to members of the opposite sex in the physical way for which we were so obviously designed — if not a personality/psychological disorder…
That better?
James, would you not also agree that these men who are unable to relate emotionally or spiritually with women are also suffering from a personality disorder?
>>which we were so obviously designed
Oh, my, another Wholly Babble thumper.
Designed?
Regardless of what one believes regarding same-sex sexual attraction, it is clear beyond peradventure that people who believe that a book of myths and fairy tales have anything to do with reality–conservative christians, of course–are suffering from a mental disorder.
Still trying to force that square peg into a round hole, eh raj? Good luck with that…
Gee I didn’t know the only way to relate to the opposite sex – was to have sex with them. Who would have thought.
No, Marty, I do not and will not agree that anyone who is not attracted to the opposite sex has some kind of a personality disorder. That is what we feel inside, and what many of us have felt since we are too young to recall.
Remember Marty, that falling back on the “designed-for” theory, that you are falling back on shaky ground. Was cow’s milk designed to be made into cheese and yoghurt for human consumption? But that’s what we do with it. Were grapes designed to make wine? Probably not, but that’s what we do with them. Was the cross designed to be worn around a believer’s neck? But that’s what Christians do. Was the ocean designed to have sewage dumped into it? But that’s what happens. Was worship designed to be turned into a record industry? Probably not, but it has been. Was the human body designed to live on this planet? It would appear not, otherwise we wouldn’t need clothes.
Assuming that the way our bodies are “designed” indicates what we should do with them is a big leap of faith considering that the reality of human history and even nature itself defy that thinking. The giant rainforest trees are not neccessarily “designed” to accommodate creeping ficus vines that wrap around them, eventually killing them, but they seem to fulfil this purpose. Dolphins have sex all the time with members of the same sex. It wouldn’t appear that they are “designed” for that purpose, but they still do it. Are they going to hell? Should we legislate against gay dolphins too?
The arguement of avoiding an activity because the tools you have were not “designed” for that activity, and then drawing some religious parrallel denies the reality that the world’s great inventions occurred through using things for purposes that they were not designed for. The telephone, the computer, the television, the elevator, the printing press that prints your Bibles was invented out of materials and tools that were used against what they were designed to do.
I see conservative Christianity as a psychological disorder because it’s proponents deny the reality of the world around them, hiding behind cliched statements of faith and creating what seems to rational people to be a fantasy scenario about a big invisible God in the sky, a neurotic fear of a big bad Devil underground, and forming repetitious rituals based upon a book that no one can really prove who wrote, and despite the most concerted academic mobilisation in human history, no one can definitively provide what it actually means.
Now THAT, sounds like a psychological disorder to me.
[Antigay expletives deleted and commenter banned. — Moderator]
Yeah, I think the “designed-for” argument isn’t that useful unless the listener has any respect for the concept of a Designer. This is part of my concern with the political “Christian Right”. How can you force people to accept any interesting moral precepts of God (profound though they might be) if they don’t first accept His existence? You’re better off starting with the core stuff, with love as a maximum priority. The way I see it, the Western world has become more and more like the one in which Christianity first began, so we can no longer start from this position of being the “established” religion.
Beautifully written and argued, Dalai Banana. That one is going into my favourite quotes file.
“Beautifully written and argued, Dalai Banana.”
Although the last paragraph is a little uninformed, or just intentionally sneering and judgemental. I’ve never read of any conservatives who think that God is “in the sky” and a Devil is “underground”.
I did not bring religion into this discussion, so your attacks are somewhat revealing. I could just as easily have said “created for” or “evolved to” to make my point. Regardless of how they got there, there is no denying the essential nature of those wonderful little playthings we were born with, and that nature — being essential — requires a physical interaction with it’s opposite.
Dear Dahlai, remember to thank your parents that they were able to recognize the obvious function of their hardware, allowing you to participate in todays debate.
Marty, in my case, unfortunately, I was conceieved by an unknown paying customer of my prostitute drug-addicted late biological mother. A perfect example of the higher value and purpose of heterosexual coupling I am sure. If I knew who my father was, I would thank him. As for my mother, well, I never got the chance. I doubt whether the function of procreation was on their minds at the time. Enough fodder in that basket to forge a personality disorder I guess.
Aside from the point though. I appreciate your retort and will take it on board. Always good to hear from the other side.
Marty is a troll. Just ignore him.
The comparison of homosexuality to a mental disorder is quite curious.
If we assume that it is then why the bigotry and hatred?
A mentally challenged individual is not prevented from marrying. People don’t insist on their right to deny such a person housing, employment and other protections.
Why the double standard? Why the obsession with us by the likes of Marty?
Now if science will ever come to a consensus that homosexuality is a mental disorder (which ofcourse it doesn’t), then that will further expose the bible as being a book of hate condeming challenged people instead of actual sinners. Imagine the bible condeming those speaking with a speech impediment, telling them that if they try to talk they will go to hell. Ridiculous.
Dan
Of course Marty is a troll, but that does not mean he doesn’t represent a core of people out there who, failing to prove the “choice” theory of homosexuality, go with the “you’re a freak of nature” theory – which still puts those of us who are gay into a category of people who must be “fixed.”
But let’s take the evolutionary argument, instead of the religious. Clearly, species must reproduce, so they are generally designed to do so. But we know of several species (ants and bees for instance) in which reproduction of every single individual is not required for the species to continue. This is clearly an evolutionary advantage, or the species would have have survived so long, so evolution, even when it selects for male/female pairing, does not require every single male and female to end up in a pairing that reproduces.
So assuming that every male or every female must, because we have certain genetalia, be attracted to the opposite sex implies a dramatic misunderstanding of evolution.
It is certainly true that non-reproductive characteristics are rare in animal species. So evolutionary theory holds that those that do evolve must help the overall species in some way (e.g., in ants and birds, the non-reproductive members do all the work and protect the one reproducing member of the colony). Therefore, because homosexuality and bisexuality have evolved in a large number of animal species, and is very prevalent in birds (which have some of the oldest DNA on the planet), having a small number of gay and/or bisexual members of a species must, by definition, be an evolutionary advantage.
Troll, that’s very clever. No, i am a seeker of truth, and am not afraid of difficult questions or painful debate. If you sleep better at night by calling that hateful and ignoring questions that step on your toes, go right ahead.
Why do i care so much? Because i could have been gay once, almost became gay once, and had i grown up in todays environment, i would have been encouraged to go ahead and just be gay. No one who knew me back them would have been the least bit suprised. Looking back, i see just what a travesty that would have been, even though i would have — like you — believed in my soul that i had been “born that way”.
Marty has not engaged in no difficult questions or painful debates. His involvement here has been using one liners supporting anything anti-gay.
The first time I saw a comment by Marty he was writing praises of Fred Phelps.
The guy is so obesessed with homosexuality, he has a web site practically dedicated to anything anti-gay.
It seems that most of those that oppose Same-Sex Marriage really don’t have much of a problem with what we do in the privacy of our own homes. Not Marty! He wishes sodomy laws were enforced with vigor!
I often feel annoyed when gays suggest that a person opposing us are actually closeted gay people. Marty by his own admission is classic example of that.
Dan
I was gonna pipe down, but Dan – show me one time, one place where i have praised Fred Phelps. Or take it back. I have nothing but contempt for that man and his brand of religion. How dare you paint me with the same brush!
Well?
Oh please Marty, the only reason you have any contempt for Fred Phelps is because he doesn’t put a wink and a smile on the same message you’re putting out there.
Face it, you are absolutely obsessed with any form of gay sex.
I am not sure what kind of issues you have going on in your melon but its fairly unhealty for a straight person like yourself to be so worried about with other people do.
Your snide comments on here are Un-Christian (at best) and your twisting of facts and selective usage of the news on your website pretty much prove that you have some axe to grind.
Unless you can provide some rational justification for your strange fixation on gays and lesbians I’m going to have to brand you a troll and a crackpot.
Dan,
“A mentally challenged individual is not prevented from marrying.”
Such a person is unlikely to be trying to redefine marriage itself. That would seem to be the issue.
“Imagine the bible condeming those speaking with a speech impediment, telling them that if they try to talk they will go to hell. Ridiculous.”
That’s rather a specious analogy. You’re basically saying that having sex with others is on the same level of human interaction as speaking, which is something that almost HAS to be done while growing up to avoid serious issues later in life. This is quite different from adult sexual congress. Last I heard, humans were capable of something called self-control. That’s why we don’t follow our instincts all the time.
Unfortunately I see no way of pulling old threads on this site so I could expose Marty for who he is. He doesn’t even put a smile on his messages and was quite clear of his affinity to Fred Phelps.
Dan
trevize,
My friend, can you please tell me how marriage is defined? I’m not asking how your particular church defines marriage or how you yourself define marriage, rather what is the definition of marriage?
It is the hypocritical religious right that want to redefine marriage and limit it to one man one woman.
Religious law does not define it as such. A billion moslems don’t see that way and neither does my Mormom co-worker.
Civil law does not define it as one man one woman either. If it were so there would have been no legal question here.
Nathan, not having sex can also lead to serious issues later in life. See your local Catholic Parish for more information. Self-control is a wondeful thing if it protects a person from harming self or others. Give me one good reason why my partner and I should stop expressing our love the way we do.
Dan
Having been in the “ex-gay” Christian ministry environment for several years, and being labeled as having a “borderline personality disorder” by the psychologist that “treated and treats” men with thoughts and behaviors in relation to homosexuality, it is really obvious that the label of the mental disorder is what keeps these guys in business. That and hiding behind the truth and not really being honest with who they are.
I am glad to be out and who I really am, there are no longer “peronality disorder” behaviors or tendancies in my life since I am free now. Those lables are thrown in there because of fear and lack of understanding!
And, BTW, I relate to both male and females in relationships. That does not mean it has to be sexual either way.
Dan,
“My friend, can you please tell me how marriage is defined? I’m not asking how your particular church defines marriage or how you yourself define marriage, rather what is the definition of marriage?”
I guess I was referring to the cultural “standard”. That is, in Western and European cultures (at least for the last 1500 or so years), marriage has been *implicitly* defined as male and female. I say implicitly because, up until recently, few if any would have dreamed of seriously undermining this understanding. So I don’t believe it had to be written down in a legal document as “marriage is between a man and a woman” for there to be an understanding of that definition. It was presumed.
“Self-control is a wondeful thing if it protects a person from harming self or others. Give me one good reason why my partner and I should stop expressing our love the way we do.”
In my last reply to Jason (3rd-last post in the Stephen Bennett thread) I expand a bit on my understanding of gender. It has a basis in my faith, as well as some other thoughts.
Maybe “personality disorder” is too strong, I don’t know … that’s a level 2 axiom, personality disorders? Right. I think it ranks up their with depression and sexual fetishism … but I’m not quite sure I’d equate it with things like anti-social people or borderlines…but I’m not a psychologist.
trevize,
I think that most people in this country accept the existence of God. It is just that they do not always believe in the exact same things. The bible is a loose collection of poetry, song, ancient history, and accent laws edited and written over thousands of years. It is quite full of contradictions. The bible opens up with two creation stories not one. There are three slightly different versions of the Ten Commandments and two different versions of the way they were handed down. In the New Testament the four gospels disagree greatly about the location of Christ’s birth and the events that happened after the resurrection. Some of the greatest insights I have gotten come from exploring the contradictions in the stories and the realities assumed in the stories. The differences in religion in this country boil down to: What do you believe. What things do you put emphasis on and what practices do you believe are appropriate ways to worship God.
Marriage like any institution that has survived for millennia changes. Bring an extra wife home 2000 years ago and your wife might like the extra labor of the additional wife and if she didn’t well she couldn’t divorce anyway. Bring a concubine home and your wife after having 12 children might have felt more relieved than betrayed and anyway the concubine and her children probably wouldn’t be entitled to much if any of the husband’s wealth. Bring an extra wife or a concubine home today and your wife will divorce you (even if the bible doesn’t allow her to divorce her husband).
One of the reasons why marriage was defined like that was because of the problem of both what to do with the children and what to do with women (who at this time do not perform equally paying work). Today those things are not quite the problems they once were due to things like woman able to earn enough to support themselves without marriage and birth control and much greater enforcement of child support. Yes being a single parent is far from ideal, but it is a lot less hopeless. For better or for worse marriage has gone from Boy+Girl= babies (and what to do about it) to Boy+Girl=love (and how to deal with that fickle emotion). If love is all that is needed for marriage today there is no reason that love can only be found in an opposite sex partner. Sexual attraction maybe, capacity to reproduce maybe, but compatible personalities no. Those changes are also why traditional marriage is in such bad shape. Both parties are able to contemplate and divorce one and have much less economic need of marriage and only have something as unpredictable as love to bind them.
Similarly few would have dreamed of creating an eight-hour work day 1500 years ago. It would not have made sense because without good indoor lighting and without the change from agriculture (with plants that grow only in season) to industry (with machines able to run 24-7). Society changes constantly and religion if it hope to survive if it hopes to be relevant also changes. Exorcisms for instance were quite common until the advent of psychiatric drugs now they are rare. I don’t think that religion should change on the latest fad, but frankly for the last 30 years homosexuality has not been labeled a metal disorder and the current view in the medical community is it may just be a normal variation of being human and frankly even before that there was always debate as to wither or not it was a mental disorder (Freud didn’t think so). I think 30 years is long enough for at least some reconsideration.
Hey Jason,
“It is quite full of contradictions. The bible opens up with two creation stories not one.”
I’m not someone who harps on about creation, but I don’t see the second one as a “creation story” really. It has a different intent, and even taken totally literally, it could at best be seen as a “zoom-in” on the latter part of the first creation story.
“In the New Testament the four gospels disagree greatly about the location of Christ’s birth and the events that happened after the resurrection.”
I think a lot of these apparent “disagreements” can be put down to a lack of all information, or the inclusion/non-inclusion of details that may not have been considered important. I see few if any parts that can’t be harmonised. Remember these guys weren’t typing up these gospels on limitless hard disks.
“If love is all that is needed for marriage today there is no reason that love can only be found in an opposite sex partner.”
Yes, which is kind of what I was arguing. Marriage is being redefined.
“something as unpredictable as love”
In my opinion, the kind of “love” we should have in our lives is not just the romantic, roses-and-chocolates, “no, you hang up first” kind of love that is promoted so much, love that is based on what I feel at the time. Obviously that’s a value judgement on my part, but I believe it comes from God. If that is what we’re basing “marriage” on, maybe we should just stop using the word and call it “partnership for an as-yet indefinite period”.
Seriously though, I’m not opposed to the government letting anyone get “married” to whoever or whatever they like, so they can get all the tax benefits and other advantages. (The exception to that is that I am concerned for the upbringing of children.) Who am I to tell people what to do? (unless they’re Christians, in which case I believe it’s my responsibility to advise and warn)
“Society changes constantly and religion if it hope to survive if it hopes to be relevant also changes.”
Society may change, but from what I’ve seen, humans don’t. The Ancient world had the same problems with greed, corruption, intrigue, hate, etc. I also think that, sexually, we’re still the same. The physical and emotional needs haven’t changed. The importance of role models for children haven’t changed either.
I don’t really care whether “religion” survives, but I hope that the truth does.
“for the last 30 years homosexuality has not been labeled a metal disorder”
Yes, I wouldn’t call it a mental disorder. The term is such a subjective one anyway.
“the current view in the medical community is it may just be a normal variation of being human”
That’s so vague that it’s impossible to fault. We know humans are capable of anything, so how can there be anything other than a “normal variation”. There’s no objective value position to weigh it on, and that’s what is really the issue of our times. When Jean Paul Satre made a statement against the International trials of Nazi war criminals, he was being consistent with the view that no one has the right to call anyone wrong.
However, what I see happening is the censure, ridiculing and even silencing of people with views like my own, unpopular though they may be. Have I not the right, along with others who have an issue with certain same-sex relationships, to compete in the marketplace of ideas?
When I was still taking the pro-gay side of this issue, I remember having an incredible fear for arguments that disagreed with me. I believe it’s because I had placed my identity in being “gay”. So anyone attacking certain behaviours and actions, I took as attacking ME, my person, my identity.
Marty at May 13, 2004 09:16 AM
>I did not bring religion into this discussion, so your attacks are somewhat revealing. I could just as easily have said “created for” or “evolved to” to make my point.
I suppose you might have said “evolved to” instead of “created for,” but the fact is that you didn’t. And the fact that you didn’t is quite revealing.
BTW, you might not have expressly brought religion into the discussion. But the fact is that “created for” language is that used among those who are infected with religion. While I was born at night, I was not born last night, so don’t try to suggest that you were not evoking creationist rhetoric.
CPT_Doom at May 13, 2004 01:22 PM
>Therefore, because homosexuality and bisexuality have evolved in a large number of animal species, and is very prevalent in birds (which have some of the oldest DNA on the planet), having a small number of gay and/or bisexual members of a species must, by definition, be an evolutionary advantage.
Or at least not be an evolutionary disadvantage.
One of the things that rhetoricians like Marty like to do is engage in rhetoric. Of course, the universe isn’t interested in their bloviating. Scientists describe what is. Bloviators like Marty bloviate about what they would like to be (or not to be). Oftentimes, there is a wide chasm between what is, and what they would like to be.
Raj,
Actually you bring up an interesting point there. Many people who don’t claim to be Theists now use words like “designed” and “machine” when talking about nature. Also prevalent is the capitalisation of the word nature – Nature, as though bestowing some divine Person to Her.
“Therefore, because homosexuality and bisexuality have evolved in a large number of animal species, and is very prevalent in birds”
I still have trouble believing that the unusual behaviours we sometimes see in other animals are the same as human homosexuality. There are too many other explanations (boredom, confusion of instinct impulses, borrowing of a behaviour to demonstrate dominance, etc.). Infanticide very rarely happens in hippo herds when a new youngster is introduced to the larger herd. From what I’ve heard, it’s not because the dominant males see something weak in the new entrant, but because a powerful instinct of violence overpowers them sometimes.
I honestly try to avoid the religious angle on this issue – for me it’s open and shut, biblically.
But the scientific community has confirmed the biological basis of homosexuality with a resounding “Maybe…” That’s not enough for me, having seen much that leads me to believe it is something else entirely. The evidence for both sides is politically poisoned.
All i want is proof. Where is the test?
“I honestly try to avoid the religious angle on this issue – for me it’s open and shut, biblically.
But the scientific community has confirmed the biological basis of homosexuality with a resounding “Maybe…” That’s not enough for me, having seen much that leads me to believe it is something else entirely. The evidence for both sides is politically poisoned.
All i want is proof. Where is the test?”
Fine, Marty – but what do you consider proof? There is more evidence of a genetic basis for homosexuality than there is for left-handedness, but no one currently really believes that left-handedness isn’t biological (if one identical twin is gay, the other is gay anywhere from 30 – 50% of the time, depending on the data you examine; if one identical twin is left-handed, only 12% of the time is the other twin also a southpaw).
Of course scientists say only “maybe” when asked if homosexuality is biological – that is because all science is inherently cautious. Too many “clear” theories have been proven completely wrong in the past, which has caused science to take an extremely slow path to being “certain” of the processes behind any phenomenon.
But my own review of the available science demonstrates that the idea of homosexuality being anything OTHER than biological to be inherently flawed – a biological answer is the only one that makes sense.
Not only do you have clear evidence of homosexuality and bisexuality in other animals (and yes, trevise, it is real homosexuality and bisexuality, not just “dominance games” or some other explanation – I’m talking about two same-gender birds forming life-long partnerships as mates and raising orphan young; I’m talking about simian populations where females who are bisexual are favored by males over those who are only heterosexual, because the bisexual females work to keep the young of their female sex partners alive during famines, so they are more attractive as partners), you have the evidence that almost everything has a genetic basis to it.
Look up the Minnesota Twin study – which is the largest survey of identical and fraternal twins reared separately and together. Don’t look at data just on homosexuality (my guess is even this sample is too small to have that many gay people in it), but look at the data on things like occupational choices, favorite colors, hobbys, interests – all of them, to one degree or another, has a genetic basis. We are more than the random collection of our genes, but they are our foundation.
But let’s also look at this from a psychological/human development viewpoint. How would homosexuality occur, other than by natural forces? Parents have very little effect on their children’s personalities – sure bad parenting can screw a child up, but it will not change the basic nature of the child. Even severe and horrible child abuse (we’re talking the kids chained to beds and radiators, neglected for years) does not have the laser-like effect that would be required to change sexuality, and only sexuality, in a child. When exposed to this level of trauma, nearly every aspect of the child’s life is screwed up, not just one aspect of their personality.
Homosexuality knows no ethnic/racial borders, it occurs in all cultures, in all types of people. There is no one family structure that produces gay people.
CPT_Doom,
“I’m talking about two same-gender birds forming life-long partnerships as mates and raising orphan young”
Yes, clearly this is not a dominance game, but I still don’t see how this couldn’t be an adaptation of the individual bird to a favourable situation. The bird doesn’t really “know” or “care” what gender it’s having sex with. It’s instincts say, “the sex is pleasurable, and there’s something right about how I’m taking care of little birds running around”.
“I’m talking about simian populations where females who are bisexual are favored by males over those who are only heterosexual, because the bisexual females work to keep the young of their female sex partners alive during famines, so they are more attractive as partners”
Hang on, this statement assumes what you’re trying to show – whether or not these females actually ARE “bisexual” in the way humans understand it. Couldn’t it just be the case that some of the female simians have decided to do what they please, and it happens to be advantageous and accepted in their community? (The males might be less likely to get away with it, although I’m sure there’s simian communities where this is allowed too.) If the erotic behaviour is pleasurable, why shouldn’t they do it? That they then take care of the young of their same-sex partners suggests perhaps that the sexual relationship fuels a protective relationship. This still doesn’t seem like “orientation” to me.
“if one identical twin is gay, the other is gay anywhere from 30 – 50% of the time.”
“but look at the data on things like occupational choices, favorite colors, hobbys, interests – all of them, to one degree or another, has a genetic basis.”
Yes, that’s what makes this interesting for me. If the “gay” thing is purely genetic, why on earth isn’t it more like 100%? I mean, we are talking about identical twins right? Let’s say the genetic influence goes as far as the personality, physical traits, and the things you mention above. Couldn’t we then say that the person’s attractions develop during infancy, childhood and adolescence because of the interaction of these factors with their social environment?
“Parents have very little effect on their children’s personalities – sure bad parenting can screw a child up, but it will not change the basic nature of the child.”
Here you’re assuming that the direction of someone’s attractions is part of their “basic nature”. I disagree. We may have an instinctive pull towards sexual expression and intimacy, but this is crowded around by hundreds of human expectations, understandings and assumptions, all of which are influenced as we are growing up. Adults can become aroused by the most unusual things – often because there’s an association. Hence some men are aroused by authority and police uniforms, because of the associations.
I’ve read that we’re the only land animal which floats but can drown if thrown into a lake. Obviously an elephant would drown because it’s not physically capable of swimming, but almost all animals other than us can immediately react to instinct and start paddling. Even babies do this. But what does your average human do? He/she panics! “I’m going to die! My life is flashing before my eyes! What are people going to think!? What happens when I die!? Did someone teach me how to swim once!?”
My point is to show that we’re more than just instincts and some internal toggle switch: “samesex > othersex”. Rather, I think our attractions (whether to the same or the other sex) have a lot to do with how we view gender, so they’re more social and psychological.
“Homosexuality knows no ethnic/racial borders, it occurs in all cultures, in all types of people. There is no one family structure that produces gay people.”
Quite right, we’re complex creatures. Of course there won’t be one family structure that is associated with same-sex attractions. I’d say it has a lot more to do with what’s going on in the individual’s mind and heart, as influenced by parents (same sex as well as other sex parent), siblings, peers, adult father-mother-figures, the mass media. This is why personality and temperament (which are probably heavily influenced by genetics) make such an impact.
One reason why it would not be 100% would be if the mother’s hormones caused it. Before birth each fetus receives a slightly different amounts of prenatal hormones.
Giving high does of female sex hormones to pregnant female mammals (including monkeys) produces female behavior in male offspring and giving male hormones produces male behavior in female offspring. Right now it is strongly suspected that the hormone environment in the womb plays a part. It isn’t the suspected cause but it is involved somehow (I,e, perhaps the ” gay” gene increases sensitivity to one hormone or the other).
Another reason could do with the way the genes themselves work such as the random shutting off of one of the X-chromosomes in woman. Shutting off the extra chromosome prevents them from having a double dose of the products produced by the genes found on the X chromosome. However the shutting off occurs at the blastula stage of development and randomly in each cell. Once shut off the same X chromosome will remain shut off in all descendant cells. This is the reason why females sometimes have eyes of two different colors and why calico cats are usually female.
Also genes are not static but react to the environment (and I don’t mean the social one). An example would be woman menstruation. The old wives tell of woman living together menstruating together is true. Through pheromones woman who spent great amounts of time together are able to synchronize their cycles in such a way that they menstruate at about the same time every month. There is a biological basis for at least part if not all of the biblical story of Abraham, Sarah, and Abimelech king of Gerar I,e, the king might have been away at the same time every month in a regularly scheduled meeting missing any chance to procreate with his women .
Honestly I am surprised that humans are not more bisexual than we are given the way development works. The default gender for humans is female. The Y chromosome (if it is working) simply throws the switch by controlling genes present on other chromosomes. It basically overrules and overrides default setting. It does so in both a complex and indirect way and like any process it is subject to error. Also both the brain and the body are sexed in this process leaving open the possibility that the two might not agree.
“Yes, clearly this is not a dominance game, but I still don’t see how this couldn’t be an adaptation of the individual bird to a favourable situation. The bird doesn’t really “know” or “care” what gender it’s having sex with. It’s instincts say, “the sex is pleasurable, and there’s something right about how I’m taking care of little birds running around”.
As for knowing what gender it is having sex with. While birds lack intelligence they do have various ways of determining what gender its mate is otherwise when procreating it would often be wasting time/rescues. I,e, it would choose the wrong mate 50% of the time!
Perhaps both birds are attracted to male colors or male pheromones, or male bird songs in the way that I am attracted to deep voices, broad shoulders, and masculine build. Perhaps it is an adaptation that is good for the species and not the individual such as sickle cell anemia. Having one sickle cell gene helps fight malaria. Having two causes the diseases. Perhaps it is a sort of built in population control where you gain the some of the advantages of numbers without all of the disadvantages of a rapidly growing population.
You are right it is human intelligence that creates the “Oh my god I might be gay” part but I suspect that whatever fundamental attractions a person has lurk well bellow any level of human thought. It is just human thought and self control that keeps us from acting on all our attractions.
Jason,
Not having a bachelor in Biology, I can’t really confirm or deny most of the things you mention there. I do agree about the synchronised menstruation thing, though I don’t think that’s genes reacting to anything, but the woman’s body reacting. The genes have already determined her physical makeup by that point.
“Giving high does of female sex hormones to pregnant female mammals (including monkeys) produces female behavior in male offspring and giving male hormones produces male behavior in female offspring.”
Did we really need research to show that? Of course giving people sex-associated hormones will have those effects. Why else would they prescribe hormones to people who want to have a sex change? But again, I think exhibiting “female behaviour” or “male behaviour” is too vague to conclude that we’re talking about changing the directions of our attractions. As an aside, I often hear the claim that we shouldn’t stereotype “gay” men as always being effeminate (or “lesbians” as being “butch”), whereas your argument here would make this a logical and likely association.
“The Y chromosome (if it is working) simply throws the switch by controlling genes present on other chromosomes. It basically overrules and overrides default setting. It does so in both a complex and indirect way and like any process it is subject to error. Also both the brain and the body are sexed in this process leaving open the possibility that the two might not agree.”
Yes, I agree with all this. I’ve heard it described that the Y-chromosome starts a process which “messes up” the brain in a lot of ways, producing a lot of the differences we associate with “gender”. I agree that for some men this process happens a great deal, with others less. But in what ways? There are many men who might be considered “effeminate” who have little or no same-sex attractions as adults.
“While birds lack intelligence they do have various ways of determining what gender its mate is otherwise when procreating it would often be wasting time/rescues. I,e, it would choose the wrong mate 50% of the time!”
Yes, although I don’t think the bird would think, “Now hang on, this isn’t gonna result in little birds!”. I’m talking about a minority of birds that get their instincts confused sometimes, enjoy the experience of having sex with another bird of the same sex, and so repeat it.
“Perhaps both birds are attracted to male colors or male pheromones, or male bird songs in the way that I am attracted to deep voices, broad shoulders, and masculine build.”
Quite possible, but I want to challenge you here. I too am attracted to the things you mention, but I consider it quite likely that my attractions to these things are not some in-built biological trigger, at least not mostly. Rather, I associate deep voices, broad shoulders and masculine build with manliness. If I’d grown up in a different society where men were “expected” to have narrow shoulders, and this was emphasised, I think I would have grown up finding that attractive. I’m just saying, be careful of too hastily applying the behaviours of animals to humans.
Why are almost all “straight” men excited by a woman’s breasts? They serve no direct sexual function for the man himself. Isn’t it because he associates breasts with femininity, because they’re DIFFERENT from him, and because society reinforces that? He’s gone through years of oogling over pictures and reinforcing what he’s seeing with sexual gratification. Do you really think that hasn’t had any effect on his “orientation”?
“I suspect that whatever fundamental attractions a person has lurk well bellow any level of human thought”
Obviously I disagree.
“It is just human thought and self control that keeps us from acting on all our attractions.”
What happens with Bonobos (who seem to have erotic interactions after they do everything) would suggest that you might be onto something there. I’m inclined to see it like this: we emerge from the womb with a certain potential for attractions in both directions. Each of us has both, though I may allow that some perhaps have a minor propensity one way or the other. Unlike Bonobos, we grow up in a complex, gender-cultured society which expects and emphasises certain behaviours and traits. We are less in-tune with our core instincts (and this goes for many other things like our sense of smell, etc.) because we’re humans. We rely instead on the society around us, to teach us and nurture us. But that society often stuffs us around, expects the wrong things of us, doesn’t value diversity.
Trevize:
“Yes, that’s what makes this interesting for me. If the “gay” thing is purely genetic, why on earth isn’t it more like 100%? I mean, we are talking about identical twins right?”
Not exactly, monozygotic twins aren’t identical. They have different phenotypes like finger prints.
DNA isn’t only type of heritable coding in human beings. There is a new emerging field called epigenetics and it will likely explain why some monozygotic twins have different, but proven to be inheritable, phenotypes, things that scientists thought were purely a result of environmental influences.
So even if the concordance rate in monozygotic twins isn’t 100%, it doesn’t mean sexual orientation is mostly biological nor does it even mean it isn’t inheritable! Also, you still have to consider the significant statistical difference of concordance rates between monozygotic and dizygotic (non-“identical”) twins.
” Let’s say the genetic influence goes as far as the personality, physical traits, and the things you mention above. Couldn’t we then say that the person’s attractions develop during infancy, childhood and adolescence because of the interaction of these factors with their social environment?”
To a certain degree yes, however I think most people overestimate those influences and also don’t understand how they influence the sexual development of human being. You have to realize that from the day we are born, we are automatically sexual beings. There is always a biological foundation in everyone’s sexual orientation and there is always a psychological level to develop it. For instance a brain can be biologically formed to find sexual stimulus in humiliation, and later on psychologically develops a leather fetish associated with that foundation.
Trevise, (and thanks Xeno for the support), you said
“Yes, that’s what makes this interesting for me. If the “gay” thing is purely genetic, why on earth isn’t it more like 100%? I mean, we are talking about identical twins right? Let’s say the genetic influence goes as far as the personality, physical traits, and the things you mention above. Couldn’t we then say that the person’s attractions develop during infancy, childhood and adolescence because of the interaction of these factors with their social environment?”
Xeno is right – identical twins are not the same person X2, they are clones, and as we know from the whole “let’s clone Ted Williams” fiasco, clones are not destined to mature to the same person. Both genes and the environment (and I mean the physical environment) affect development. And identical twins, from the moment the egg splits, are exposed to slightly different environments.
Did you know that if one identical twin is left-handed, the other identical twin is also a leftie only 12% of the time? Which means the environment must account for a LOT more of the development of left-handedness than genes, yet no one doubts that left-handedness is a biological phenomenon. Despite many attempts, no parent has ever changed the handed-ness of their child (yes, you can force them to do specific tasks, like writing, with one hand or the other, but throw a ball at their head, and their naturally dominant hand will always react first).
Certainly the environment after birth affects the child as well, but there are physical differences between straight and gay people that imply sexuality must at least begin developing in utero. For instance, gay men have more feminine hands, lesbians have more masculine ear structures, gay people are 3X more likely to be left-handed, first-born daughters and later-born sons are more likely to be gay (no matter what their family environment is like), men whose mothers have a lot of gay male relatives are more likely to be gay. All of these point to a biological process forming sexuality.
And sexuality, biologically, is controlled by our autonomic nervous system – the one that handles breathing and heartrate. Our attractions are beyond our conscience control. Can anyone ever really say why they are attracted to one person and not another? To change sexual orientation would require a re-wiring of that central nervous system, and parenting cannot do that – it has to happen in utero.
As for the animal models, check out the book “Biological Exuberance,” which I hear is great (have not read it). It is the account of homosexuality and bisexuality in the animal world, and it is about WAY more than mere pleasure. There are many examples of same-sex bird pairs not just mating, but mating exclusively for life. The same thing happens in many other animal species, and some species, like the bonobo, are just sex animals (although they have sex for like, 8 seconds, so I’d rather be human). The point is that each species has developed its own form of reproduction, and the form certainly does not require exclusive and complete heterosexuality for all species members.
As Xeno also noted, we all start female, and males change from there. You may have heard of human hermaphodites, who are somewhere in between the two biological sexes (but interstingly they are not androgynous in gender, they almost always lean male or female). If it is possible for people to be physically between the two genders, why is it so hard to believe that people can be psychologically between the two genders?
I can’t believe it, I just wrote out this enormous post and it got lost! That’s what you get for posting on a blog comments section instead of a proper discussion board.
I’ll try and summarise.
1) Xeno and CPT_Doom, many of the things you mentioned here were touched on by Jason in his last post, and my reply.
2) Xeno said “There is always a biological foundation in everyone’s sexual orientation and there is always a psychological level to develop it.”
This is kind of the nub of the matter for me. You say that this biological foundation extends to orientation, which I presume means which sex someone is attracted to. What I want to know is how on earth does this work? How specific is this foundation? Is a “gay” man born with some image of a V-shaped male body or a penis embedded into his mind somewhere, so that he knows what he should be attracted to? Do “straight” women have this too? I’m more inclined to think that these overt physical responses have been influenced, built and reinforced by experience.
3) CPT_Doom wrote: “Our attractions are beyond our conscience control.”
Once established they are, yes.
“Can anyone ever really say why they are attracted to one person and not another?”
There’s a lot of ideas; men being attracted to women who are like their mother, women being attracted to “dangerous” men because they were too sheltered, or not sheltered enough.
My overt physical attractions seem to be towards men who possess those traits that I feel are lacking in myself – physical size and strength, gentle features, a square jaw, etc.
I’d be interested in research about, for example, caucasian babies raised in wholly black communities. Would a white female raised in such an environment find herself attracted mostly to black men, or would some inbuilt programming continue to draw her to white men, though she hasn’t met any yet? Would the results be different if she wore special glasses all her life which prevented her from noticing the colour of her own skin?
4) “The point is that each species has developed its own form of reproduction, and the form certainly does not require exclusive and complete heterosexuality for all species members.”
Absolutely – we know that most of the ants in a colony (the workers) are not built for sex at all.
But that’s a far cry from what you’re proposing, which is that some mammalian and avian species have evolved in such a way that a certain percentage of individuals born with all the right gear for other-sex relations will inevitably turn out to be attracted mostly to the same-sex. Despite the fact that these particular animals never pass down their own genes, somehow this has happened. I’m yet to be convinced that this isn’t just some animals taking advantage of sexual freedom, and that the combination of pleasurable experiences and conflicting instincts results in these unusual matches.
“If it is possible for people to be physically between the two genders, why is it so hard to believe that people can be psychologically between the two genders?”
This is indeed possible, but hermaphroditism is extremely rare.
Honestly they do know everything there is to know about attraction. If they did they would have not only found the gay gene but the secret to being the sexiest person on earth as well. Here are some interesting bits about attraction and biology.
They don’t know that you are born with some image of what is attractive but there is lots of evidence to suggest that attraction is defiantly has some biological basis. In some animals (like cats in heat) females release pheromones that attract males from a distance. In others like peakcock the size of the males plumage is what attracts mates.
Unfortunately for humans (and higher mammals) the effects of human pheromones are probably much subtler as we have develops ways of communicating besides just pheromones. There is evidence to suggest that human females (like mice) prefer the smell of men (or at least their T-shirts) whose immune systems genes are most different. There is also evidence to suggest that men prefer the smell of woman (or at least their T-shirts) when they are most fertile over the smell of woman who are not. There is also evidence to suggest that the smell of men (or again at least their sweat) seems to affect hormone level in woman and may effect mood (to a very small degree it lowers tension in woman). So although not 100% sure and often very week ones at that those three hit at some biological causes of attraction.
Another interesting item is when asked to rank the attractiveness of the pictures of a group of men. Gay men and straight woman ranked the pictures in a similar manner suggesting that they both are looking for the same characteristics.
In terms of visual clues, large breasts for instance seem to be a universally attractive feature in woman to straight men no matter what culture. Enlarged breasts in mammals indicate that the female is in heat. There is a theory that suggests that woman may have evolved breasts that remain large when not fertile as a way of getting more attention (i.e. more food, protection ect.) from men. I.e. the woman fooling the men into thinking that they are fertile. Wide hips in woman is likewise a universal attractant to straight men.
Finally there appears to be some sort of mechanism for reducing incest in humans (and in other animals). Given a choice most animals prefer to mate with animals that are not closely related. In humans it seems that people who are reared together in childhood for the about the first 30 months do not find each other attractive even if they are unrelated. In Israel there are Kibbutzim where children who are unrelated live together like siblings from infancy in large groups. For some odd reason children who are raised together in the Kibbutzim do not marry despite the fact that there is no taboo against it. In like over 2,000 some odd marriages not one was within the peer group. The only marrige found in the cenus data was from a boy who moved in at age 10!
Another case involved sim-pum marriages in china in the 1940ies. They were arranged marriages where the wife grew up with the husband in his household. The children were very reluctant to consummating the marriage despite the social pressure to do so. Those marriages were more than twice as likely to divorce as other arranged marriages and even more likely to end in divorce as marriages of chioce.
Sim-pum marriages had abnormally low fertility rates(like 25% less than arranged marriages) and extremely high adultery rates(like three times more than arranged marriages. However if the children moved in after the age of three then the statics on those marriages start to look like any other arranged marriage. So living together with someone as a young child tends to reduce attractiveness.
Hey Jason,
I found those things interesting. I hope you were kidding about the “gay gene” though. Even if it WAS wholly biological, I think it’d be many orders of magnitude more complicated than a single gene.
“Another interesting item is when asked to rank the attractiveness of the pictures of a group of men. Gay men and straight woman ranked the pictures in a similar manner suggesting that they both are looking for the same characteristics. ”
This one I’m not sure if you could draw a direct line to biology easily. Remember we’re talking about adults who have lived in society. They know what’s attractive and what’s not, because it’s been on every underwear poster and shaving gel commercial since they were kids. Also they were asked to rank, as in, use their intellects. Certainly society may have cultivated its vision of the “ideal” male form from a collective biological intuition over time, but I think we shouldn’t underestimate how indoctrinated we become, both consciously and subconsciously.
I remember looking at one of my sister’s teen magazines when I was younger and thinking the male models had ghastly bones like a ribcage protruding from inside their lower torsos. These turned out to be abdominal muscles, and it was a while later that I came to consider them attractive – I think because I associated them with masculine vigor and power. They’re visible on every bloke that is celebrated as attractive, and they’re only invisible on famous men who are considered unattractive (and those guys are usually wearing a shirt anyway).
“In humans it seems that people who are reared together in childhood for the about the first 30 months do not find each other attractive even if they are unrelated.”
This sounds like the result of experience to me, not biology. It may indeed be a useful mechanism for reducing incest, but you’re saying that these people were unrelated, ie. different body types, smells, other characteristics. They didn’t share a womb together, but their early childhoods. The implications of this could be quite extraordinary. How specific would the unattractiveness be? eg. If a guy with red hair grew up with a girl as her sibling, would she be more likely to be turned off by all red-haired men than a girl who wasn’t? Or is there some barely-detectable smell that she would associate only with him?
Given the evolutionary scenario, I think a lot of these interesting things could be considered part of our inheritance. It’s like how we get goosebumps when scared – because for other animals this would cause their fur to stand up and make them appear larger to predators.
The question, I guess, is how much does this meet up with our humanity, with our learned experience and psychology? Which has the predominant influence on our behaviours and responses? Is it reasonable to suppose that the things which turn us on are all pre-determined biologically, or do psychology and experience play an equally determining role in the way things turn out?
As you point out, our choice of mates are probably not influenced a great deal by pheromones anymore.
But that’s a far cry from what you’re proposing, which is that some mammalian and avian species have evolved in such a way that a certain percentage of individuals born with all the right gear for other-sex relations will inevitably turn out to be attracted mostly to the same-sex. Despite the fact that these particular animals never pass down their own genes, somehow this has happened. I’m yet to be convinced that this isn’t just some animals taking advantage of sexual freedom, and that the combination of pleasurable experiences and conflicting instincts results in these unusual matches.
================================================
Actually there are a couple of very good reasons why homosexuality would have evolved and been passed on, not directly by gay people, but by our siblings, nieces and nephews.
There are many genes, sickle cell and Tay-Sachs being to great examples, in which people with the most number of the genes are sickly and unlikely to reproduce. But their siblings with only one copy of the gene are actually healthier (able to resist specific diseases endemic to their part of the world), so the gene was passed on.
It is possible gay people are simply the bi-product of female bisexuality (certainly male homosexuality is much more likely to come through the female side of the family), which as I noted is an evolutionary advantage in other simian species.
But there are even better reasons for early human tribes to have gay members – the need for adults not bogged down with child-rearing. It takes enormous energy to raise a human child, so parents are very involved in that activity. Having a few spare adults around to gather food, etc. helps the whole tribe and therefore the gay person’s family – as tribes are normally inter-related, those with gay members are more likely to thrive.
Or we may be built-in adoptive parents. Families with gay members would be more likely to have spare adults to adopt orphaned grandchildren, so they would have a higher likelihood of living (given early human conditions, orphans must have been much more common than now).
Trevize:
“This is kind of the nub of the matter for me. You say that this biological foundation extends to orientation, which I presume means which sex someone is attracted to. What I want to know is how on earth does this work?”
We don’t know yet, but we will in the nearby future.
“How specific is this foundation? Is a “gay” man born with some image of a V-shaped male body or a penis embedded into his mind somewhere, so that he knows what he should be attracted to? Do “straight” women have this too? I’m more inclined to think that these overt physical responses have been influenced, built and reinforced by experience.”
I don’t think so. I’m more inclined in believing that the biological foundation of sexual orientation has more to do with the ‘sex atypical’ development of the brain during pre-natal stages by hormonal means. A more defined orientation to blondes or brunettes or bizarre fetishes is more likely to be psychological, but an orientation to something as fundamental as gender may be otherwise in the majority of circumstances. There’s just too much evidence that indicates it as such. The studies on biometrics such as finger lengths, pre pulse inhibitions, facial structure; the genetic studies on animals; the failures of “conversion therapy”, all indicate that a sexual orientation to a gender has a innate and biological foundation, regardless if it’s genetic or not.
Also, I think there’s a difference between homophile fetishism and a homosexual orientation, but I won’t get into that at the moment.
P.S: I never write my posts in the textarea boxes of websites. I always redact it in Word.
Trevize:
“This is kind of the nub of the matter for me. You say that this biological foundation extends to orientation, which I presume means which sex someone is attracted to. What I want to know is how on earth does this work?”
We don’t know yet, but we will in the nearby future.
“How specific is this foundation? Is a “gay” man born with some image of a V-shaped male body or a penis embedded into his mind somewhere, so that he knows what he should be attracted to? Do “straight” women have this too? I’m more inclined to think that these overt physical responses have been influenced, built and reinforced by experience.”
I don’t think so. I’m more inclined in believing that the biological foundation of sexual orientation has more to do with the ‘sex atypical’ development of the brain during pre-natal stages by hormonal means. A more defined orientation to blondes or brunettes or bizarre fetishes is more likely to be psychological, but an orientation to something as fundamental as gender may be otherwise in the majority of circumstances. There’s just too much evidence that indicates it as such. The studies on biometrics such as finger lengths, pre pulse inhibitions, facial structure; the genetic studies on animals; the failures of “conversion therapy”, all indicate that a sexual orientation to a gender has a innate and biological foundation, regardless if it’s genetic or not.
Also, I think there’s a difference between homophile fetishism and a homosexual orientation, but I won’t get into that at the moment.
P.S: I never write my posts in the textarea boxes of websites. I always redact it in Word.
CPT_Doom:
“Or we may be built-in adoptive parents.”
I think this concept has merit. Here’s an interesting question. Someone proposed earlier that it was significant that birds have very old genes and exhibit same-sex pairing behaviours. What I would like to know is, if this is an evolutionary adaptation, and is really that old, and our purpose is not to raise our own children, why are “gay” individuals still born with all they physically need to make children? Over these millions of years, wouldn’t the genes associated with our state have been coupled with the ones associated with having no ovaries, for example, given that they have no further evolutionary purpose? Wouldn’t something have at least shrunk? What you’re proposing really makes us a “third gender”.
Xeno:
“A more defined orientation to blondes or brunettes or bizarre fetishes is more likely to be psychological, but an orientation to something as fundamental as gender may be otherwise in the majority of circumstances.”
Well that was really my question. How exactly does that work? And how would an adult know whether or not there’s really some deep fundamental attractions to the same sex? I guess we still have a lot of unanswered questions. Thanks for the discussion anyway guys.
“What I would like to know is, if this is an evolutionary adaptation, and is really that old, and our purpose is not to raise our own children, why are “gay” individuals still born with all they physically need to make children? Over these millions of years, wouldn’t the genes associated with our state have been coupled with the ones associated with having no ovaries, for example, given that they have no further evolutionary purpose? Wouldn’t something have at least shrunk? What you’re proposing really makes us a “third gender”.”
It would depend on how the biological basis works. Ovaries release hormones that have more uses than just reproduction and primates seem to use sex for more than just reproduction. There might not have been much pressure to get rid of the features esp as the people who are affected by the condition would not have been the ones reproducing.
“Well that was really my question. How exactly does that work?”
As I stated no one really knows how attraction works. It appears to have some biological causes and it appears to have some psychological ones as well. Biology, psychology, and learning experience probably play different roles in determining the outcome.
I think a good example would be my dislike of coffee.
Despite having a culture that pushes the stuff (coffee ads, Starbucks on every block). Despite having parents that love the stuff and drink it every morning. I hate it. It is bitter. In all my years the most I have learned to do is tolerate a cup of coffee esp. if it is heavily mixed with milk. I can’t think of any purely psychological reason for disliking the stuff (i.e. flat soda and hot chocolate look similar why don’t I think they are bitter?)
Learned experiences don’t seem to make sense either with my dislike of coffee. My parents drank it every morning, people brew the stuff all the time and I have yet to find the either the taste or odor appealing. There probably is some biological reason for my dislike of the stuff.
I think that perhaps we born with a certain range of traits that we find attractive/unattractive. Some masculine, some feminine and those types of traits are not equally present in that range in every individual. I think psychology and learned experience probably play a role in refining our choices but I don’t think you can easily learn to be attracted to something you are not attracted to and more importantly unlearn to be attracted to something you already are.
For instance why do you like guys with abs but not woman with abs? Probably because there are more masculine features than abs that you find attractive. Also if you had associated abs with masculine power why not just work out and get a set of your own. If you wanted masculine power, why not join the military or do some other manly type work. Why would you need another guy to provide you with it? One of the things I hated about psychoanalytical theories is the extreme emphasis on the sex drive as if it were the only motivation in humans and through which all desires could be fufilled.
“And how would an adult know whether or not there’s really some deep fundamental attractions to the same sex?”
I think that comes from experience from exploring who you are. My own experience has been that I tend to find guys much more attractive than woman. My finding a woman attractive seems to be more the exception than the rule and I have yet to find a woman that turned me on anywhere near as much as a guy. I tend to find the female form slightly repulsive and I don’t ever remember ever having any erotic thoughts or dreams with a woman. Over time I found out what traits in guys I tend to find attractive and oddly enough sometimes I find some of thoose traits in a girl that I find slightly attractive but like anything it isn’t 100%. I once had the joy of meeting someone who had most of the triats I find hot but I was not attracted to him. So who knows.
If you ever get the chance you should check out an really old documentary called “What sex am I”. It opens in a strip bar with this attractive woman doing a poll dance and all the guys obhing, awing and stuffing money in her skimpy swim suit then the narrator informs you that the woman on the poll is really a man and the men in the audience don’t know. The film isn’t about homosexuality. It is about transsexuals but that first scene is an interesting insight into attraction.
Hey Jason,
“There might not have been much pressure to get rid of the features esp as the people who are affected by the condition would not have been the ones reproducing.”
But we’re talking about evolution here, right? You would know that the Darwinian process tends to eliminate “baggage”, which is the main reason why features no longer in use tend to disappear. So there IS a definite pressure to eliminate unused features. Under the Darwinian scenario, our “tail”, no longer having a use for clinging to trees or balancing the body, has been reduced to a small bone that doesn’t protrude at all from our form. We would need to eat more food if it was still there.
If the ovaries were changing their use to mere hormone release, this would result in a drastic change in their anatomy. Think about the overhead in energy consumed by the female body just for sustaining the organs responsible for internal fertilisation and growth of offspring.
“It appears to have some biological causes and it appears to have some psychological ones as well. Biology, psychology, and learning experience probably play different roles in determining the outcome.”
Yes, that’s something I can heartily agree with.
“I think a good example would be my dislike of coffee.”
Yeah, I think my dislike for coffee started with the unpleasant smell when my parents had it every morning. I guess there are some things that we just like or dislike. This may be similar to the way some men like women with an alto voice range and others like women with a soprano voice range.
Can I ask you a question? I’ve usually heard people say that homosexuality is not just about our physical likes and dislikes. It is said the difference is also in who we “fall in love with”. Do you agree with this? The stuff you’ve argued here is all on a physical level, not an emotional one, but I think the two influence eachother greatly.
“Also if you had associated abs with masculine power why not just work out and get a set of your own. If you wanted masculine power, why not join the military or do some other manly type work. Why would you need another guy to provide you with it?”
Those are excellent questions! You actually see a lot of these things happening in much of the gay sexualised “subculture” from the 60s up to now: Emphasis on Navy themes, body hair and moustaches, macho father figures and effeminate boy images. These may be merely a result of homophile fetishes (xeno’s terms), but I think they may have a deeper source. For some reason these themes have become strongly eroticised.
I guess the theories would say that people, especially children, approach their issues in different ways. Some boys may indeed have taken the course of action you suggest (though the feasibility would depend on the body type of the boy!). Another boy may try to live through someone else, and develop an admiration and desire for others who have what he values.
This may not INITIALLY be overtly sexual or eroticised, and this is where I think you misunderstood some of the psychological theories. Up until puberty, the feelings may seem quite innocent and void of erotic intent. The point is that during puberty, there are great upheavals and paths marked both in body and mind. Some of these are almost certainly biologically pre-programmed, such as the growth of pubic hair. The theory is that other changes, like the fixing of the things that turn us on, will be greatly influenced by the psychological state of the person at the time.
In other words, the emotional attractions and needs may already be there (many “gay” men say that they did feel some attraction to men before puberty), but the physical attractions come at this time.
Thus, the reason there is an emphasis on the sexual drive is because puberty is theorised as the time when the emotional/personal desires become physical desires. It is no wonder, then, that the PHYSICAL attractions are very resistant to change from then on. Nobody really goes through puberty twice. As for the EMOTIONAL attractions, that may be a different thing.
“But we’re talking about evolution here, right? You would know that the Darwinian process tends to eliminate “baggage”, which is the main reason why features no longer in use tend to disappear.”
In order to get rid of the baggage the gay people themselves would have had to be the ones begetting children which is not likely to happen and it also depends on how precisely does the mechanism work. Some changes are easier to evolve inout than others.
“Can I ask you a question? I’ve usually heard people say that homosexuality is not just about our physical likes and dislikes. It is said the difference is also in who we “fall in love with”. Do you agree with this? The stuff you’ve argued here is all on a physical level, not an emotional one, but I think the two influence each other greatly.”
Honestly I think it is mostly the physical level. I have been in love with someone I was not attracted to and trust me that is an interesting experience. You like being with the person, think they are great but frankly you can’t bring yourself around to do more than hold hands. I was probably the most hands off boyfriend she ever had. With guys I have to try to keep my hands off so that the emotional side has a chance to develop. I think the physical attraction simply motivates you to form emotional ones that are hopefully deeper than the physical ones. In my view the physical desire simply sets the stage.
Sex for instance is great at maintaining the bonds between people and without physical attraction there could be a problem in this department and without a certain amount of desire you would never ask someone out on a date.
I also can see how physical attraction can motivate you to form attachments that are not well thought out. He might be sexy but just cause he is good looking doesn’t mean that the relationship is a good idea.
I will admit that there are certain masculine personality traits that guys have that I find appealing. However you can find gender atypical personality traits anywhere (i.e. straight woman who have short hair, drink bear, like working on cars and sports.) and there are other masculine personality traits I do not find appealing.
“This may not INITIALLY be overtly sexual or eroticised, and this is where I think you misunderstood some of the psychological theories. Up until puberty, the feelings may seem quite innocent and void of erotic intent. The point is that during puberty, there are great upheavals and paths marked both in body and mind. Some of these are almost certainly biologically pre-programmed, such as the growth of pubic hair. The theory is that other changes, like the fixing of the things that turn us on, will be greatly influenced by the psychological state of the person at the time.”
I understand the theory but frankly there are a lot of holes in it. Why for instance did I form an attraction to one thing and not another? Why not form an attraction to say the cologne and not the person wearing it? What about the person, who does the effeminate boy thing one month, grows a mustache the next and wears navy uniforms in the summer? We are all exposed to lots of different stimulus as children. Why is homosexuality to gain masculinity(or something you associate with it) any more likely to happen than say bomping every girl in town to find/prove masculinity? And if the latter course is more likely how do you prove the former happens?
How would you explain male heterosexuality? A fixation upon the feminine in an attempt to meet emotional/personal desire? In which case what would be the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality besides the gender of the person you think would fulfill those emotional needs? I.e. Are heterosexual men fixated upon feminine features in an attempt to gain something the associate with the women?
I think that whatever attractions we have are simply turned on or turned way up at puberty. That theory makes more sense than the non-erotic getting eroticzed. It also better explains things like bisexuality and transexuals that desire relationships with one gender or the other. It also makes a bit more sense when you read about cases like john/joan and the pusedo hermaphrodite children in the Dominican Republic. All cases where the children were raised as girls. Encouraged to do girl things and when they turned into boys they had a heterosexual orientation.
Sex is like water. We all need it, and will drink it clean, dirty, and all shades in between if we’re thirsty enough.
Coffee is just dirty water, but like certain forms of sex, it is an acquired taste. I don’t think anyone is born with a taste for coffee, but once we’re hooked, few of us think we can live without it.
No, I’ve pretty much always liked coffee. I take it black, just like my men.
Jason,
You have a lot of good questions about he psychological theories. I’m not an expert, but I’ll try and answer them one-by-one.
“Why for instance did I form an attraction to one thing and not another? Why not form an attraction to say the cologne and not the person wearing it?”
Not sure what you mean by cologne… I was talking about the traits in other boys/men which are admired and the child is attracted to. We may form an attraction to one thing more than another because that’s what we’re more focussed on.
“What about the person, who does the effeminate boy thing one month, grows a mustache the next and wears navy uniforms in the summer?”
I would say that they’re trying out different roles. There’s a thing called “transference”, where the person projects their needs onto someone else. eg. some men may find themselves with attractions to the more effeminate boy-figure because they relate to him (they may have felt that way themselves at one point).
“We are all exposed to lots of different stimulus as children. Why is homosexuality to gain masculinity(or something you associate with it) any more likely to happen than say bomping every girl in town to find/prove masculinity?”
Maybe it’s not. There are certainly a lot of men who have taken the latter course. It would all depend on the personality of the boy, some in-born characteristics affecting sensitivity (for example), and the experiences up to that point.
“And if the latter course is more likely how do you prove the former happens?”
How do you prove anything? It’s very difficult. Admittedly the biological thing offers more apparent hope for results because the mind is such a complex and unpredictable thing, whereas with biology we can point to little slightly-related aspects of behaviour and draw sweeping conclusions that go way beyond the evidence. I guess the psycological theories must rely more on qualitative than quantitative evidence.
“How would you explain male heterosexuality? A fixation upon the feminine in an attempt to meet emotional/personal desire?”
I think the theories would say this is less necessary, because with homosexuality the psychological state of need and desire must be so powerful that it overrides the “normal” bodily influences and background instinctual direction, as well as pushes against the expectations of society.
But we do notice that the female sex is often deliberately made mysterious in our culture. Boys tend to gather mostly around themselves (girls germs, etc.) until just before puberty, when they “discover” the exotic, mysterious feminine. Other cultures in the world have elaborate structures and “rites of passage” to emphasise these gender differences. One theory would say that for some boys who develop same-sex attractions, it is the male that is exotic, mysterious and unapproachable. He doesn’t feel part of that group. This takes PRIORITY over any feelings of mystery and exoticness about females.
“Are heterosexual men fixated upon feminine features in an attempt to gain something the associate with the women?”
Actually that’s a very interesting question. A major theme of the Genesis 2 story is that Eve was made from Adam’s rib, so when they came back together, they became one flesh. Christ talks about this too. In other words, men and women are looking for something to complete themselves in a sense.
So maybe the answer to your question is Yes! It may be that once he has “properly” established his own gender identity, the man realises that something is missing. He is only one “side”, or one “half” of the total image of God. Female is the completion of this, and their reunion is celebrated in the extreme joy of sex and the miracle of children.
“I think that whatever attractions we have are simply turned on or turned way up at puberty. That theory makes more sense than the non-erotic getting eroticzed.”
You say it makes more sense without a whisper of a justification. I think there may be a part of this, but only a part.
“It also better explains things like bisexuality and transexuals that desire relationships with one gender or the other.”
Transsexuality is another complex issue, which I don’t know much about. As for bisexuality, we need to remember that these psychological theories will not give us simple answers. Unlike biology, we can’t just turn the handle and expect the same result in all cases. Different individuals have different personalities, characteristics, ways of approaching their needs and desires. I think this is actually a good explanation for why we end up with a spectrum of different “orientations”.
“All cases where the children were raised as girls. Encouraged to do girl things and when they turned into boys they had a heterosexual orientation.”
Yes, these are specific cases. I firmly believe that for many boys, all the experiences above (feelings of estrangement from their masculinity, etc.) will do very little to change the way they turn out. BUT for other boys, who may (for example) have a more sensitive temperament (an inborn trait perhaps), the experiences will have a deep effect.
Hey marty you might find this article interesting.
http://www.uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=2229
In other words the people who are sensitive to the bitter taste didn’t like the caffinated solutions until they added more sweetener.
” Sex is like water. We all need it, and will drink it clean, dirty, and all shades in between if we’re thirsty enough.”
Yeah and that is what tends to happen in prisons or when one gender is unavailable. In the real world both genders are available.
i am gay.
i also have a son that i concocted with a female friend of mine. i stumbled accross this site and laughed quite a bit, at some of the ideas presented here. GAY people, male AND female, tend to identify themselves as gay because that is all we are allowed to do, many start off hateing this term, but it is the only way that we can communicate these very specific ideas about ourselves to laymen(or peeps that have never considered the psyche in all of its complexity).
To justify one sided veiws, often it is neccessary to go to an extreme point of veiw, and once at that extreme it takes alot of nrg to stay there.
“GAY” people dont exist, the word does and it is merely the group term for a type of behavior.
‘i am gay.’ … ‘”GAY” people dont exist’
Yeah, sorry, I ain’t buying it.
Uh, yeah… “gay” is an activity. Sure.