Kalhoun: Of course; that happens all the time, though probably less often than it used to. Speaking of not having references, the recent movie Far from Heaven (2002; http://www.imdb.com/Title?0297884), while fiction and not based on a book, portrays, sometimes quite poignantly, one possible outcome of such a relationship.
Without saying more than you could read on IMDB about the plot, it’s about a gay man in Connecticut in the 1950s who leaves his wife (who has something of an affair of his own) for a man – he even goes to “someone with experience in dealing with this kind of thing” for treatment.
I don’t think that kind of thing is morally right – the likelihood of such a relationship being successful in the long term is probably quite small. It’s not that many heterosexuals don’t leave marriages for another partner of the opposite sex – I just think it’s wrong for a person to commit themselves to an individual to which they are not altogether attracted, since it is not likely they will be able to remain that person’s exclusive and permanent partner.
What does this have to do with what I actually wrote? I never said that tolerance wasn’t a good thing. What I said was that you were cloaking your intolerant dogmatism in a supposed “tolerance” which was really no such thing.
The fact of the matter is that you’ve presented a party line, and declared that acceptance of the party line is the bare minimum for someone to be considered “tolerant.” It seems to me that the bare minimum for tolerance is to believe that it doesn’t really matter what gender(s) someone is attracted to, but I guess one’s opinions on the etiology of sexual desire are far more important than one’s treatment of one’s fellow human beings.
**
And once again, you still haven’t addressed what I actually said. I was talking about orientation, not actions. Someone can be heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual even if they’re a virgin.
**
I’m well aware of that, but it has nothing to do with what I actually said.
**
And you still haven’t. So why are you addressing your comments to me, if you aren’t interesting in addressing what I said? Was I simply unfortunate enough to be within range when the spirit moved you?
**
Quite true. The vast majority of people of all sexual orientations are straight and probably don’t think twice about it.
**
I never said it was. Don’t put words in people’s mouths, or one day someone will bite your fingers.
**
Wow- I’ve read a mere book, but you’ve read actual websites? I guess you must know your stuff.
**
In other words, you dismiss my cite, without even knowing anything about it, just because it happens to have more than a hundred pages and be published with a hard cover.
Why should I bother to meet your standards of proof when you can’t even be bothered to figure out what my claim is? For that matter, why do I have to refer to the scientific literature when you can just use websites?
If you’re not going to read my posts, I see little reason to keep writing them.
Yours seems to be a better definition of tolerance than the one I proposed. I based mine on two of the common beliefs of people who that think that one’s sexual orientation does matter, though (and it better be the one they think God wants you to have). Many people who are intolerant of non-heterosexuals believe that sexual orientation is chosen and changeable; I believe that is not. You are right, though, that tolerance does not require the belief that sexual orientation is not chosen and not changeable; tolerance, in this case, is essentially believing that a person’s worth does not depend on their sexual orientation.
Admittedly, I wasn’t entirely sure what you mean by ‘cultivating’ bisexuality; I found a description of the book you’re talking about, though, and I think I have a better idea now. Really, I don’t disagree with you; I added my initial reply to you to my first post after reading it quickly.
It seems to me from your first post (about Vice Versa) that you’re saying that in some cases sexual orientation may be changed (e.g. by bisexuals who choose to cultivate bisexuality), but that not everyone has the ability to the change their orientation. I agree with this.
This is the sentence that made me reply to you; I’m not sure what you mean by it. Do you mean that gay people represent themselves as being non-changeable to dissuade religious conservatives from trying to change them? To prove their (gay activists’) point that they are non-changeable, even if they feel they might be?
The choice/changeability issue is a problem for me, because I believe that even if an individual had the ability to change, they should not do so because a religious group says they should – personal willingness to change, of course, is fine. You are very right that fundie nitwits (good term…) will use anyone’s claim that they chose and/or changed their sexual orientation to mean that all non-heterosexuals have chosen to be ‘that way’, and that they can and should change. But you seem to agree with me that that is wrong.
Heh, that’s not it …
It was the sentence above that motivated me, and the thing about gay activists arguing that it’s not a choice. I think it’s important to establish that it is generally not a choice (though I agree that it sometimes might be a choice, as I’ve said). For activists to establish that sexual orientation doesn’t matter in the face of evangelical Christians is simply not possible at this time.
I’m not sure what you mean here. If you mean that the vast majority of all people are straight and haven’t given it a second thought (which is what you seem to mean), then fine. But if you mean that, for example, more than half of all lesbians are really heterosexual women who haven’t considered whether or not they’re really lesbians, then I’d disagree.
I know; that post included some opinions that weren’t in any way a reply to you.
I’ve read some books, but I guess most of what I’ve read is from websites. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong whatsoever with citing a book; but I haven’t read the book, so I can’t respond to its contents. I do have a slightly better idea now on what the book is actually about; I apologize for assuming that it has an anti-bisexual bias, as I initially perceived it did.
I maintain that books (and websites, and even journal articles) about sexual orientation have some bias, and thus they can’t be cited as objective evidence but only as support for one’s opinion. (I’m used to citing references as objective evidence, as in science; so I’m less inclined to cite something I know is opinion.)
I’m trying to figure out what your claim is from your first post (and from reviews of the book). I probably don’t disagree with it as much as you might think.
I’m not asking you to cite scientific literature; I’m just asking if you know of any objective articles on the subject (e.g. a study into how many gay men had ‘distant fathers’ or didn’t play sports growing up, which is a common ‘cause’ among conservatives). You’re free to use any reference you want; I wish I had more to cite at hand. But scientific literature is easily available to me electronically, while buying/borrowing a book would take some time.
If you’re not going to read my posts, I see little reason to keep writing them. **
[/QUOTE]
I heard this same quote once attributed to Woody Allen.
Regarding the topic:
In James Michener’s autobiography he tells of an assignment he was sent on to find out “what went wrong” with this platoon that was isolated on some South Pacifiic island for a while. Apparently the whole platoon “went gay.” Like others have said: where it’s accepted you’ll see more of it and orientation and behavior are two different things.
First, the idea that one is born gay is a political attempt to map gay rightts onto civil rights. This is a political idea, not an idea originating from biology departments. So I think this is easy to disregard.
I think if you were born a caveman (caveperson?), and were not taught right from wrong with no civilization, then your sexuality would be like a dog, who rubs his dick on everything that makes it feel good, including your leg, which is bestiality for the dog!
Your so called “sexuality” is therefore the inverse of your repression. If a guy represses everything except fucking women, he is “straight.” If he repressed everything except fucking guys, he is “gay.” If nothing gets repressed, he is very strange.
As a reminder of how effective your repression is, consider your potty training. You were not born potty trained, nor did you choose it. And it cannot be undone either!
So around age 2-4, before we have any memory of it, some sort of sexual repression happens to us that makes us who we are.
Your own series of assertions are entirely unsupported by evidence, which somewhat undermines your claim that you’re doing science, where everyone else just has a political agenda.
What is widely scientifically accepted is that sexual orientation is not a choice, not necessarily that it is entirely inborn (genetic) - in fact that would be highly implausible. Virtually everything is a combination of both genetic and environmental factors. Since we know that sexual orientation for most people is settled early in life, early social and non-social environmental factors probably contribute, although not necessarily following the repression model that you just invented from whole cloth based on your speculations about life as a caveman and your profound observations of dogs humping legs (with a sprinkling of Freud).
As for this assertion that there’s a civil rights agenda… well, we generally describe something as prejudice or bigotry when it’s directed toward a trait that is not a choice. It doesn’t matter whether environmental factors contribute, even under your own model orientation is settled early in life and not a choice. No civil rights agenda rests on sexual orientation being entirely genetic.
Bisexual as far back as I can remember, and I grew up in a very right-wing part of Northern Idaho. Where did the so-called “political idea” come from that supposedly influenced me?
I believe someone can become conditioned to sexually enjoy something that they didn’t start out finding stimulating. I’m positive their have been men in prison for years who came to enjoy or embrace homosexual acts even if they didn’t at first, or possibly even if it was against their will initially.
I think some sexual fetishes could be similar in some ways where things that don’t sexually arouse a person, they may have an experience that later makes a previously nonsexual object or experience a very stimulating fetish.
In my case, I grew up liking the opposite sex when I was a kid. I didn’t feel the way about boys that I felt about girls (in retrospect, I think I just liked that they were pretty and wanted to emulate them). But when I hit puberty and all those hormones started flushing my system, I noticed I wasn’t looking at the girls any more, I was looking at the boys.
Now that sexual attraction was part of the equation, I wasn’t nearly as attracted to girls as I was boys. And I fought it, not out of shame, but I knew it would lead to a much harder life for me. But I could only deny it for so long and came out when I was 15. I know for certain it’s not a choice, since it’s not a choice I would make for myself if I could.
We know that, all pressure applied to be straight, about 5% of people still turn out to be gay.
That could mean - as most assume - that 5% of people are just “gay”. They’re born that way and can’t change. But for the other 95%, saying that they’re “straight” based on that data doesn’t really make sense. If only 5% are gay, under full pressure to be gay, it’s just as reasonable to assume that only 5% would be straight under full pressure to be gay. Whether that’s true or not, who knows, but it’s just as reasonable an inference and would say that 90% of everyone is naturally bisexual and will just screw anything you put in front of them if society allows. And, realistically, it’s hard to see the downside to that from an evolutionary standpoint and seems to match up with Bonobos fairly well.
That said, I think the most likely answer is that we imprint at some developmental age. It’s a similar process to ducks imprinting on their mom.
You need to form a mental image of a thing in your mind, and then your sex system needs to connect to that mental image.
The brain’s neural network has some structure that allows it to learn in a way that can interact with the rest of the body according to our evolutionary needs but it probably doesn’t come pre-built with memories like “what a woman/man looks like”. The host needs to populate the “sexy” part of the brain with that image, first. That relies on the adolescent having correctly identified the correct object, while still learning to understand the world.
Better than the bisexual argument - which doesn’t explain how straight nor gay exist, and doesn’t explain how the body even identifies another gender - this explanation also gives us a reason for people having fetishes. Some people are sexually attracted to the feeling of wool, to pain, to animals, etc. Male and female aren’t the only things that get some people’s motors humming.
The bisexual argument can explain the Ancient Greeks, but it doesn’t explain fetishes. Imprinting does. Sometimes, people misidentify their sexual target while they are still developing. Once the imprinting locks in, that’s all there is to it.
Do you mean 5% openly gay or 5% gay, whether closeted or not? I can’t imagine the value is any different now than in the '50s, but then there would a lot fewer who are open. I doubt that a gay culture (like in the Charles Beaumont story) would change the underlying percentages, just the expression of them.
Which is probably what happened in Greece as mentioned 17 years ago. Read Aristotle for what was expected of men not in a warrior culture.
I for one am wary about leaning too hard on “born this way and can’t change.” People’s sexuality should be respected regardless of the ultimate origin of that sexuality. We really don’t know enough about the connection s between biology and behavior in general to be overconfident. Grounding it in a nature versus nurture argument opens it up for monkey business by people who try to twist “evidence” to serve as justification for discrimination and bigotry.
On the other hand, I understand why that argument became necessary. It’s a pickle.
Let’s say that I have a bunch of balls of different sizes. I try putting them through a round hole in the wall and 5% won’t go through because they’re too big.
From that information, what can I really say about the balls? Can I say that there are exactly two sizes of ball, a large size and a smaller, but within those two groups all of the balls are exactly the same diameter? Well no, maybe a large ball won’t go through the hole but a medium ball, a small ball, a microscopic ball, etc. all would. And just as much as a large ball won’t go through the hole, neither will a giant ball, nor a gargantuan. Inferring that, because I got a boolean result out of a particular test that my input only had two states is flawed thinking. Maybe, through other tests or through a better understanding of the matter, I might know that a binary answer is correct but that’s not the best beginning assumption, and particularly not for something biological.
A generally safer assumption for a biological process would be that we’d have a bell curve. If that’s true, then if 5% of people are gay then 5% are straight.
What the real number is - how many people are actually straight - is hard to determine since we could have a whole bunch of bisexual people who have responded to cultural conditioning and appear for all intents and purposes as straight. In our current social setup, where we try to push people to be straight, it really only allows us to tell who is gay. It doesn’t let us get any other numbers, so long as the filter allows other options to hide.