A professor of mine was telling a bunch of us students today about a theory by a fellow named Bem (you might know his wife from the Bem Gender-Role Questionnaire). Bem states that homosexuality develops thusly (I will use male pronouns for ease, but the situation could be reversed for humans):
1.) A fellow is born, not with genes for homosexuality, but with a certain temperament that makes him more feminine. Because of this temperament type he favors interacting with females, and is generally tormented by males, thus he assoiciates himself with more “feminine” attitudes, beliefs, etc.
2.) When puberty kicks in we tend to become attracted to things that are exotic to us (this part I definately disagree with as there is a large body of research to suggest we become attracted to that which is similar). For these boys, as they have adopted female values, men are exotic to them, so they become attracted to men.
3.) After this progresses, gay men may adopt more masculine behaviors in an attempt to attract other men…this would explain why not all gay men are feminine.
anyway, that is the $.50 version. I would be curious to see what each of your reactions are to it. Feel free to jump in with any alternate causal explanations of homosexuality (or heterosexuality for that matter.)
I think it’s bunk. I know several homosexuals who were not in the least feminine in their youth. As someone who is bisexual, I can assure you that I was not tormented by males either. I spent very little time with females as a child.
<Keep in mind I am playing Devil’s Advocate here, not necessarily speaking from my own belief system>
There is a wide body of research in social psychology which suggests that we are actually very poor about remembering our own behavior, and tend to come up with “self-serving” biases. Thus it could be argued that if you are an adult male homosexual, and wish to believe yourself “masculine” you might attribute masculine qualities to your behavior in youth.
Ok, enough psychobabble…actually I tend to agree with you, though not being gay myself, I have no personal experience.
So what do you (everyone that is) believe homosexuality to originate from? Genes? Exposure to androgens in utero? Learned behavior? Personality temperament? Personal choice? Psychosexual conflict? (have I forgotten any?)
I’m gonna have to go with hormones in utero, don’t know if androgens specifically are to blame (so to speak). I suppose there could also be a genetic predisposition for such hormonal anomalies but that would have to play only a minor role or those genes would have been weeded out.
I seem to recall a study that showed that lab mice subjected to high levels of stress during gestation were more likely to have offspring with homosexual tendencies. And yes, it was just a blurb I saw somewhere. And no, I don’t have a cite. It didn’t seem too implausible to me though.
The Personal Choice (PC, how ironic. :D) angle seems absolutely rediculous to me. I mean who would choose to be attracted to men? Eech!
I agree with Eggs à la Ted. When we studied populations in biology, we read (among other things) how, when animals are overcrowded, they develop certain behaviors that serve to limit the growth of that species. Among these were decreased sexuality, less chance of sex resulting in offspring, and tendencies to eat their offspring. Homosexuality could be a more benevolent version of these.
I don’t know, it doesn’t really jibe with my experience. I was something of a tomboy as a child, but not nearly to the degree that my sister was, and my sister is straight. I developed a crush on my best friend, with whom I was very familiar, and who didn’t seem exotic to me. And besides, the theory seems overly dependent on stereotypes, that whole “either you’re feminine or you’re not” thing. There is a whole spectrum of gender-role variation that the hypothesis does not account for. If I was to favor any theory right now, it would be the hormone in-utero one.
Yes the theory is dependent upon stereotypes. I expect that these theories reflect some of the Bems personal experiences rather than any sophisicated attempt to understand people in general.
Incidently, the questionnaire I was referring to in the OP is the “Bem sex-role inventory” not “gender-role”. If anyone cares.
It is fairly clear, but still broad enough to incorporate into other theories.
My theory has always been (stated simply): the forces that create homosexuality are the same as the ones that create heterosexuality, only applied to the other gender. In other words, we all fit somewhere on the axis between “very attracted to curvy female hips” and “never even notices curvy female hips”. Despite what the “homosexuality is unnatural” school might say, I see no reason why the brain structures, habits, neurotransmitters, cultural effect, whatever, that make us attracted to curvy female hips couldn’t just occur by chance in a female.
This makes the question very different from, “Why is there homosexuality?” Instead, the question is, “Why do the attracted to curvy hips forces occur more commonly in men than in women.” The answer to this, from an evolutionary standpoint, is fairly simple. The guys who spent a lot of time wanting to get cozy with curvy females reproduced more; the girls who spent a lot of time doing the same thing didn’t reproduce so much. If the Abrahamic religions hadn’t placed so heavy an emphasis on man-woman marriages, I think homosexuality might be less common.
Now, I don’t think sexuality is entirely genetically determined. I don’t know nearly enough to say that, or the opposite. But I’m willing to bet that genetics influence sexuality significantly, and in that case, homosexuality is at a disadvantage without social/technological factors to give it a boost (e.g. lesbians borrowing a turkey baster from their gay male friend).
To sum up, sexuality lands in both forms on both genders. Reproduction has favored those genes which encourage heterosexual behaviour. Just MHO
I havn’t really studied the studies on what causes homosexuality (or for that matter other various types of sexuality) except periphially I can’t agree with Boris B when he says
[q]If the Abrahamic religions hadn’t placed so heavy an emphasis on man-woman marriages, I think homosexuality might be less common.[/q]
Homosexuality was fairly accepted and seems fairly prevailant in ancient civilizations such as Greece, with examples of Sparta and Athen’s Sacred 300, and Rome which were before the above mentioned Abrahamic Religions came about.
I have no trouble believing that gay males display more feminine characteristics than straight guys. Ditto for gay women and straight chics. For one thing, it conforms pretty well to my limited experience. Not a great reason, but there has been some other anecdotal evidence on this thread so I guess I’ll throw in mine.
My bigger reason is, Why shouldn’t lesbians be more masculine? Assuming man-attraction forces (glands, hormones, whatever) are at all generalized in their effects, this is exactly what you’d expect (ditto for woman-lovin genes).
Let’s take hypothetical hormone WL. It is present more commonly in men. It has three affects that have helped determine why men are the way they are:
(1) It causes you to spend 30% more time looking at Round and Track
(2) It causes you to think round woman-butts are better-looking than square man-butts
(3) It causes you eat 25% less chocolate
Coincidence? Maybe, but who cares. We consider these three things to be “masculine” because they occur more often in males. They occur more often in males because testes produce more of hormone WL. Sure, some girl gland produces WL too, but that same gland usually produces more of ML, which tends to reverse it. The girls with different glands will produce more ML, and thus be more likely to be
(1) Gas station attendants or mechanical engineers
(2) Lesbians
(3) Folks who turn down bon-bons after dinner, in favor of a whisky and a cigar
A simplistic example, but I’m actually serious about it. As long as we assume that a given biological thing will have both sexual effects and other effects, it simply stands to reason that people with a sex-preference associated more commonly with the other gender will have other characteristics to go along with. (Remember, sex-preference is not, in my thesis, homo- versus hetero-, it’s man-attraction versus woman-attraction.)
This is why I like avalongod’s OP. I think it fits in. A little bit of extra WL will make Lucinda want to play with boys more as she’s growing up. Boys become her pals; she likes to roughhouse with them and trade Matchbox cars. Girls, at an early age, are boring. Her pre-adolescent lack of interest in girls becomes a commensurate interest in them later on. Not too different a phenomenon that goes on with alcohol - do 10-year-olds get all excited when you off them a brandy? How about 18-year-olds?
But I’m only entertaining this theory, not accepting it, yet.
I remember reading(wish I could remember where, sorry no cite) that if it weren’t for cultural/social pressures that like 75 percent of the population would be bi-sexual, with even parts of the other 25% being pure homosexual and pure heterosexual. Further, that the 75% would be of varying degrees of bisexuality(ie man loves woman, occasional fling with other guy, man loves man, occasional flind with woman, etc).
I have a sorta related question. Is it just me or is bisexuality in women becoming more and more prevalent, especially in younger women? I bring this up cuz my sister is 19 and she’s bi-sexual, and from what she tells me like 90% of her high school was as well.
That’s a good point. I just kind of threw that one in off the cuff, and I have no idea if the latter religions have been around long enough to actually influence the gene pool. In any case, if I am not mistaken it was common practice in Classical gay-friendly cultures for people to be married to the opposite sex, attraction or no. I seem to remember (ooh, fuzzzzy memory, how trying!) a Greek city-state in which the practice was for a man to have a wife, with whom he would have sex for the practice of producing heirs, and a male protege, with whom he would have sex for the other reasons (not just pleasure but also to round out the relationship?) So gay-friendly cultures share an emphasis on man-woman marriage, I suppose.
I just wonder, if homosexuality were accepted or encouraged as in ancient Sparta or Lesbos or wherever, and you forgot about all that “producing an heir” stuff (not an easy thing to forget, but it’s my thought experiment!), if genetic bases for homosexuality wouldn’t just kind of shrink away. Just a thought.
Well, speaking out of my own experience as a gay man, I have never in my life been the slightest bit feminine. I played soccer and football in school, I still watch and play sports, and I am the last guy you would suspect to be gay if you met me. Ok, I do like show tunes.
Although my gut reaction is to proclaim it all poppycock and chalk it up to the outdated 50’s “dominant mother/passive father” nonsense, I can’t dismiss it 100% out of hand. Why? Because I agree with the “cause” of all sexual orientation that the American Psychological Association (www.apa.org) goes with, which is:
(Bolding mine)
Obviously this is a nutshell summary in their FAQ, but it’s based on over 35 years of research, and they’re certainly more knowledgable than I (as I think most folks could agree).
So although personally I might feel the hypothesis you state is bull (particularly from my own life experience), who knows? Maybe for some people this had some influence on shaping their sexual orientation. Saying it goes for all gay men and lesbians, however, would be grossly inaccurate and, IMHO, a dangerous generalization.
The bottom line is - who cares? Why does it matter? If it’s a choice or not, if it’s genetic or environment, everyone should be treated equally and their life decisions respected.
(The one glaring error I see is, why would a gay man adopt masculine traits to attract other men? If the majority of other men are straight, being masculine isn’t going to attract them. Unless they mean to say attract other gay men, in which case it still doesn’t go, because not all gay men are attracted to masculine men.)
And Boris B wrote:
Hardly - if that were the case, homosexuality should have been “bred out” by now, yet there is evidence of a consistent minority of homosexuality for the duration of the existence of man.
Now why didn’t you post this in the Gay Guy thread?
I also believe that your femininity has little to do with whether you’re gay or not. I have 2 friends who are fairly effeminate. One is gay, and the other is straight. The straight guy is probably the most stereotypical “gay guy” you’d meet…except he doesn’t have a feminine voice. His gestures are very feminine, he is EXTREMELY meticulous about his appearance. (he irons his UNDERSHIRTS), he loves to go clothes shopping and show tunes…and he’s very, very straight. Half the people who knew him in college pegged him as gay, but he’s not. I also have another friend who is very similar, who’s very open about his homosexuality. Unfortunately, he’s sometimes a little too open about it. (He has naked men posters on his walls, makes comments all the time…stuff that’s uncomfortable for people whether it’s coming from a straight person or a gay person).
Although I am sure situations like the one presented in the OP have an effect on a person, I don’t buy the idea that it could be the cause of a person turning out to be homosexual. There seems to be evidence supporting genetics, environment, and prenatal hormones. There also seems to be evidence casting doubt on all these things.
Those that put forth a strictly socialization viewpoint make me uncomfortable.* It isn’t far from the 3 points in the OP to “Make sure your boys have lots of male friends and don’t play with dolls! Otherwise they’ll grow up gay!” (My discomfort with how such research results may be used is no indicator, however, of the research’s inherent relationship with the truth.)
I see now that when you said, “Why does it matter?” it was related to your point that, “… everyone should be treated equally and their life decisions respected.” I agree with your point, but I had trouble making the connection at first because I have not had a good meal yet today and it seems like this point is kind of off the topic. Which is fine, because I myself hijack threads all the time. And if I do it, it must be fine.
As to taking the sentence out of context, I just meant that you chose to reply to it alone. I couldn’t tell you if you agreed with most of what I said but that sentence, or if you had no opinion of the rest of it, or if you disagreed with it all but chose to respond to that sentence in particular.
