The enormous number of heterosexual male transvestites would seem on the surface to put a serious kind (no pun intended) in the premise of the OP, that identification with feminine characteristics is a “cause” of homosexuality. Thoughts?
Could it just be a form of mental illness, like schizophrenia? What are the causes usally attributed to other deviations from straight heterosexual sex, such as attractions to children or animals?
Boris B wrote:
It’s just what I chose to respond to. Whether or not I agree with the rest of it or not is irrelevant. (There, chew on that!)
pldennison wrote:
Hey, good point. Why didn’t I think of that? 
Maxwell Edison wrote:
OK, so are you a troll, or a banned poster come back to haunt us? Because if you’re serious, you need to stop reading those 1950’s psychological texts and join us in the 21st century.
Esprix
Maxwell, a sexual attraction to children is usually about power and domination. I.E the person feels powerless in other areas of his life, but can dominate a child and feel powerful while doing it.
I would hate to use the term “illness” to describe homosexuality, considering that some cultures have felt it perfectly normal, just as some cultures to this day practice ritualized sex with children. One tribe that I know of belives that a young man doesn’t naturally produce his own semen, so he must aquire it by performing oral sex on the elders from early childhood until puberty when he begins producing sperm of his own.
Maxwell, a sexual attraction to children is usually about power and domination. I.E the person feels powerless in other areas of his life, but can dominate a child and feel powerful while doing it.
I would hate to use the term “illness” to describe homosexuality, considering that some cultures have felt it perfectly normal, just as some cultures to this day practice ritualized sex with children. One tribe that I know of belives that a young man doesn’t naturally produce his own semen, so he must aquire it by performing oral sex on the elders from early childhood until puberty when he begins producing sperm of his own.
In regards to the OP, I think that the question needs to be asked, “which comes first, the chicken or the egg”. Are the males developing as gay, and are then ostracized? Or are they ostracized and thus become gay. It’s a fallacy to look at the common elements as see causation when they may actually be symptoms.
Actually, what is really, really interesting me about this thread is the assumptions being made about gender roles. Typically, when homosexuality is examined, it is usually the male version that is looked at. I think this causes some problems. That’s because the gender roles for males are much more strict than they are for females. Woman have gone from the skirts only mentality of 1900 to having the option of either pants or dresses in 2000. Men can’t say the same.
For instance, if a woman plays sports is she assumed to be a lesbian? Not necessarily. Because for every Billie Jean King, there seems to be ten Chris Everts. If a woman is in a field that was long considered a “man’s field” such as engineering, is she assumed to be a lesbian? No. A woman can work in either a traditional female or male career and can avoid assumptions about her sexuality.
On the other hand, certain careers are earmarked as “gay” for men. For example, a dancer, a interior designer, florist, etc. All these careers raise eyebrows. A straight man may very well find the pressure overwhelming to stay away from these careers no matter how much they may interest him. A girl can say her favorite color is either pink or blue, but for a boy the color pink is off limits if he wants any respects from his friends. A girl can be a tomboy without too much worry by her parents. You can’t say the same for a “sissy” male.
Based on my experience, I can say that there are all kinds of lesbians; femmes, butch, casual, mildly androgynous, etc. However gay males have thus far fit mainly into the feminine or flamer stereotypes (the only exception I have seen was a linebacker couple). Isn’t it possible that gay males feel the pressure to fit into their social role just as much as a straight male? I think that before you can look at simplistic explanations for sexuality, you first must examine the more complex formation of personality.
Lissa, is there actually evidence to suggest that pedophilia is a behaviour specifically related to “power” as opposed to sexual attraction?
The notiong that deviant sexual behaviours - usually pedophilia or outright sexual assault - are based in “power” rather than sexual desire seems to be a recent invention, and I’ve seen little evidence that backs it up. The notion has strong political connotations, because (at elast with respect to man-woman rape and assault) it places sexual assault along the same continuum as discrimination, paternalism, etc. Removing the sexual part of its motivation allows it to be used as a political football, to be overly blunt.
I’m not saying YOU are doing this, but I get the sense that’s where the notion originated. If sexual assault isn’t sexually motivated, then why does it take the form of sexual activity? I can force other people to my will and hurt and abuse them and exercise power over them without using sex; if I choose to use sex, that means, by definition, that sexual motivation is involved.
This may be another thread, but does anyone actually know when this “Rape/abuse/pedophilia isn’t about sex, it’s about power” notion got started, and what evidence supports and/or opposes it? It’s become something of a political catchphrase, and like the old domestic-abuse-on-Super-Bowl-Sunday yarn I’m suspicious of it.
beakerxf wrote:
Why, some of my best friends have gone from pants to skirts… oh, never mind! 
Well, 9 at least. 
Hoo, honey, you’ve been hanging around the lesbian bars too much - time to make some more gay male friends! Trust me, based on my {koff koff} “experience,” there is as much diversity in gender behavior among gay men as there are among lesbians, and the rest of society.
And RickJay, although I have no cites handy, my understanding is that the statements about power come from the rapists and molesters themselves - they themselves say it’s about domination, not sex; sex is merely their weapon of choice. But, again, that’s just my understanding, and if I find cites I’ll post them. Does sound like an interesting topic in and of itself - you should start it.
Esprix
Esprix
Exprix wrote:
quote:
OK, so are you a troll, or a banned poster come back to haunt us? Because if you’re serious, you need to stop reading those 1950’s psychological texts and join us in the 21st century.
Neither. I never said I thought that. I thought it was a legitimate question. Is it unreasonable to think it might be a form of mental illness? On the surface it seems plausible, but I am sure there is more to it than meets the eye.
bearkersxf, “… However gay males have thus far fit mainly into the feminine or flamer stereotypes (the only exception I have seen was a linebacker couple)…”
You brought up many good points that seemed accurate from my experience except for the one above. Most of the gay men I know are not flaming or particularly feminine. If you are basing this assumption off of a few gay men that you personaly know, I understand that. However, if you are basing it off what the media shows you (they typically only show the more outrageous/flamboyant gays because they are there for ratings, not to inform you) then you should go out a little more. I am not saying this to be mean or argumentative at all. As I said earlier, most of the gay men (not all) are basically normal men in mannerisms, appearance, and vocation. There are some stereotypical feminine gays and there are some stereotypical butch gays but I can not stress enough that most gay men fall somewhere in between as do most straight men.
As for the causes of homosexuality, who knows? I don’t really care, I just know that I am gay and have known since I was three or four but didn’t learn the words for it until I was six or seven. That knowledge is not uncommon for gay children though some repress it for most of their lifetime only to come out in old age but that really isn’t as common now that homosexuality is more open. This would suggest to me that it is biological in nature. I would also say the numbers of practicing gay/bisexual men and women are a lot higher than the number of admitted gay/bisexual men and women. It has been my experience that some people just won’t admit it and deal with it when they are gay. We have a perfect example here who now considers himself completely straight. If you don’t know who he is, I won’t tell.
HUGS!
Sqrl
Maxwell Edison wrote:
Well, since the psychology and psychiatry professions are the leading authorities on what is and what is not considered a mental illness, and they removed it from their respective lists of mental illnesses in the late 60’s/early 70’s based on extensive research and study (not to mention my quote from the APA above), then, no, it’s not particularly plausible - it’s not a mental illness, and yes, there’s much more to it than meets the eye.
Esprix
I would hope that Esprix, Sqrl, and other out gays would recognize my bona fides as regards gay questions. But given the topic of this thread, one has come to mind that could very easily be seen as a troll, so I am starting by categorically denying such intent.
What is the “purpose” of homosexuality?
Clearly a homosexual orientation is not “normal” in the strict statistical usage of the term. Heck, being male is not “normal” by that standard – there is a slight preponderance of girls and women over boys and men. But the highest statistic I have ever seen is one of 37% of males having experienced one episode of gay sex to orgasm sometime in their lives. (The female equivalent statistic was substantially lower.)
Now, the legislative moralists among us would have us believe that the purpose of sex among humans is for reproduction, and without bringing any philosophic sense into the question, the idea clearly has merit. Guy boinks girl, baby is apt toresult; guy refrains from boinking girl, no baby. And without some serious technological intervention (turkey baster at minimum), guy boinking guy or girl boinking girl is not going to result in a baby. Or at least I would suggest that the occurrence of rectal or pharyngeal pregnancies is lower than that of virgin births.
Theorists have suggested (and I agree with them) that an additional social purpose to sex in humans is for enhancing pair-bonding. And there would seem to be plenty of evidence for that concept. And where attraction is same-sex, a pair-bond can very easily form between two men or two women. (Opinions of the “Family Research Council” to the contrary notwithstanding.)
But whether you accept any teleology to the universe or not, most things have a purpose. Sickle-cell anemia continues to exist because the gene for it is selected as a malaria preventative. Most human rituals have their origins in some sensible practice, even down to coming-of-age ordeals in primitive tribes, which bond the man-or-woman-to-be into the tribal culture and affirm his or her status in that culture. If there is no teleology to the universe, there is still purposiveness in human behavior.
Given that, what are your thoughts on why some humans are homosexual? What benefit does this convey on the culture? (While humorous answers like “improved decor” are welcome, I would welcome serious answers from those of you who have had occasion to contemplate the question.)
Why do I get the idea that if someone who was straight felt he might be homosexual, you wouldn’t say they truly were straight and just wouldn’t deal with it? bias?
Why do you think I was talking to or about you or anyone you are involved with?
Sqrl
Poly—why are some people left-handed? That has no “purpose,” it’s just a natural variation; like homosexuality.
Everything in nature doesn’t have to have a “reason.”
**
Do you know any crossdresser who are not gay? Gay men may have a relatively easier time wearing women’s clothing than a straight man because it fits into the “accepted” stereotype.
Actually the only gay establishment in my little Bible belt town went out of business right before Thanksgiving. So I don’t get much gay male interaction anymore. I was basing my comments on the few gay men I had met at the club during it’s short run. Trust me, I don’t trust the media portrayal of anything, especially gays.
Polycarp, you (as usual) raise some interesting points. No one really can tell what the purpose of homosexuality is even while looking into the genetic code. However, there are many speculations.
-
Homosexuality within the family could be to help raise children. This is present with African Wild Dogs since only the Alpha Male and Female reproduce. All of the other dogs support the enormous litter that the Alpha Female produces. (I believe they produce between 12-30 puppies.) The theory behind this is that one is more likely to protect another depending on how close their chromosomes match. I have also seen some Discovery Channel nature show that had two brother cheetahs having sex with one female cheetah without competing. They theorized that they didn’t need to compete because their genetic material was almost identical. Anyway, that is a little off topic of homosexuality but it goes to show that since they are passing on the same genetic material then they are not trying to kill eachother.
-
I have heard that most homosexuals are artists. I don’t think it is a purpose nor true. It is just something that I have heard theorized upon. Some psychology teacher I had said since homosexuality has been taboo basically since Christianity came on the scene (there were some other cultures too, but none as dominant) then gay people had to express their desires through art or other abstract means. Supposedly this led to great artists such as Michelangelo et al. Granted this may have had play with their artwork but it is not really an aspect for there being gay people.
-
Gay people as population control. Personally I don’t believe in this one exactly either. It may be true, but I don’t exactly believe it. Some say in big cities there are a lot of gay people. I don’t really think it is because of the crowd as has been suggested but more a social factor. In the big city there is definately going to be more gay people because there are more people. If the gay people get organized and form ghettos/neighborhoods then other people hear of them and will move into the area to be around other likeminded people.
-
Gay people are God’s mistake. I hear this one a lot. Do I believe it? Nope. Even if I did believe in God I wouldn’t think of gay people as a mistake. Most of the loons out there think along this line. There are enough people here that will try to argue this one. You know who they are. I never understood the logic of God making a mistake but the inbreds out there manage to make the argument quite heatedly.
-
Gay people are here to live and love. This is my own personal one. I don’t think love falls into one specific category and trying to give any explanation to the purpose of a living being leads to too much conjecture. I however believe that gay people are here for the same reason as straight people. Personally I believe we are here to make eachother’s lives happy when we can and maintain interesting ideas when at all possible (even if they are hurtful). I do my best to live and love and think that is all we can do as people.
I have been away from this computer for a while since I had some work to do and haven’t refreshed since my last post (there were no other posts at the time.) and hope this answers some of your questions, Polycarp. I hope you and your wife are well.
HUGS!
Sqrl
Polycarp asked:
Dunno. What is the “purpose” of blue eyes? Of left-handedness? Of red hair? Of masculine traits? Of humorlessness? Of flinging a cat into a bucket of water? These things also are not “normal” in the strictest statistical usage of the term.
Maybe God isn’t ready for us to figure it out yet.
Esprix
Polycarp asked:
To give the rest of humanity style and glamor, obviously!
**
Well, I don’t see things teleologically, and I also don’t agree that the “purpose” of sickle cell is to prevent malaria. (Unless you are using “purpose” metaphorically, the way a geneticist would. More on that below.) To me, that seems like a fortuitous accident of environment rather than “purpose.” Although you may think I am picking nits, I really think that an important distinction needs to be made. To me, ascribing purpose to a gene is sort of like saying that the “purpose” of plate tectonics is to produce mountain ranges. One certainly is the effect of another, but I see no evidence of “purpose.”
Human behavior is usually purposive, but the causes of the behavior may not necessarily be. For instance, while drinking may be purposeful behavior, the predisposition to enjoy alcohol may be nothing more than a genetic trait. While you can argue that the drinking is purposive, it does not necessarily follow that the alcoholism itself is purposive. Likewise, while homosexual behavior may be purposive in that it addresses the personal desires of the individual, the cause (whatever that may be) need not be purposive.
The difference between homosexuality and the social ritual you mentioned is that we can be reasonably sure that the latter is entirely a social construct, while we can by no means say that of the former.
Geneticists do often ascribe “purpose” to genes, but this is a conventional shorthand method of describing the effects (usually advantageous) the gene has on it’s host. Given that your examples of social ritual and human behavior were lumped together with your sickle cell example, I didn’t think this was the sense of the word “purpose” you were referring to. But, even from a geneticist’s angle, even if genetics is the sole source of homosexuality, there need not be a purpose to it.
Posit a set of genes that increase libido. Those genes would tend to be passed on more than others because they would urge their host to engage in more sex. Posit a second set of genes that offers more acute eyesight, and a third, fourth, and fifth that offer neither significant benefit nor cause undue harm, but are present in a large portion of the populace. It may be be that a combination of all these genes has the predispose someone toward homosexuality. The idea that homosexuality lessens the chance of one reproducing and passing on his genes is easily countered. The “libido” gene increases the number of total offspring to start with, while the “eyesight” gene has a survival advantage, and the other three neutral genes are extremely common in both the hetero- and homosexual population, and will remain so despite the fact that homosexuals that have them aren’t as likely to pass them on. So, even using “purpose” in the way geneticists do, there is no need for there to be one. Homosexuality in the above example would merely be an “unintended” effect of a combination of genes.
If there is a strictly social purpose to homosexuality, as in: “What purpose does homosexuality serve to society, and in what ways does society encourage people to be homosexual?” then I am not even able to hazard a guess here.