Is a revulsion reaction to homosexual sex biological, cultural (or some combination of both)?

[qpw3141]

@Peeta_Mellark

@qpw3141

He’s denying half of the mechanism by which we (most of us) are guided to have sex with others of the opposite gender.

What I have denied–and what you have failed to provide even one cite for–is that there is anything innate about “revulsion” in regards to non-procreative sex. The preponderance of non-procreative sex animals engage in automatically makes your position weaker, but the utter lack of evidence you provide is what is truly damning. Until such a time as you actually provide a cite, there is nothing to debate with you because you are simply typing your own opinion over and over again.

I really can’t take seriously anyone who keeps wailing ‘cite’ to confirm something that most people know perfectly well from their own experience and the experiences of others with which they have discussed such a common matter over the course of their lives.

That anyone would seriously try and deny that most people find the idea of indulging in many of the types of sex that they are not actively attracted to is so bizarre as to be laughable.

You would have us believe that evolution provided us with the psychological and physiological reactions required for revulsion for purposes that exclude sexual activity and yet we managed to somehow subvert those reactions to cause people to be revolted by the idea of taking part in homosexual sex because of some cultural bias. :rolleyes:

And yet, typically, people do not feel psychological revulsion for many of the other things that society frowns upon.

And, if there was no innate revulsion to homosexual sex why is that cultural bias so close to being universal?

I know that you desperately want to believe that such revulsion is not innate and that the whole of humanity is engaged in some massive and weird conspiracy against homosexuals to force people into feelings of revulsion that are against their nature but that just isn’t plausible to anyone thinking coherently and no amount of yelling ‘cite’ is going to make it more so.

[Peeta_Mellark]

@qpw3141

I really can’t take seriously anyone who keeps wailing ‘cite’ to confirm something that most people know perfectly well from their own experience and the experiences of others with which they have discussed such a common matter over the course of their lives.

That is not how science works. If you make a claim about a scientific fact–such as alleging that a human behavior is an evolved trait–you must back it up with facts. Casual anecdotes that aren’t even backed up with statistics are useless. If you wish to just ramble on about your opinion without proof, then don’t discuss it in a debate forum.

That anyone would seriously try and deny that most people find the idea of indulging in many of the types of sex that they are not actively attracted to is so bizarre as to be laughable.

Men may not be aroused by sex they have no interest in, but this has not been definitively proven. In at least one study women have been found to exhibit genital arousal regardless of orientation when viewing sexually explicit material. However, a revulsion response has never been noted to such a degree and absent cultural factors as to warrant scientific investigation. There is a difference between “not aroused by” and “repulsed by.”

You would have us believe that evolution provided us with the psychological and physiological reactions required for revulsion for purposes that exclude sexual activity and yet we managed to somehow subvert those reactions to cause people to be revolted by the idea of taking part in homosexual sex because of some cultural bias. :rolleyes:

And yet, typically, people do not feel psychological revulsion for many of the other things that society frowns upon.

The fact that you don’t recognize the many things people are repulsed by due to culture just shows that you should read more about cultural anthropology. Are Muslims evolved to find pork repulsive? Have Americans evolved revulsion at the idea of eating cockroaches? Did East Indians evolve revulsion at touching someone’s left hand? Those are all cultural responses and yet can be overwhelmingly powerful, to the point of making people physically ill.

I know that you desperately want to believe that such revulsion is not innate and that the whole of humanity is engaged in some massive and weird conspiracy against homosexuals to force people into feelings of revulsion that are against their nature but that just isn’t plausible to anyone thinking coherently and no amount of yelling ‘cite’ is going to make it more so.

I do not care if it’s innate or not. The people I want to have sex with want to have sex with me. It doesn’t matter if a straight man wants to watch or not. That would be bizarre on a number of levels. If there was evidence that it was innate, that would be very peculiar and I’d be interested in learning more about it. But you have given no evidence. You’ve simply made an argumentum ad populum repeatedly. A common view is not automatically the result of evolution.

No, I don’t care if it’s innate. What I do care about is someone refusing to even vaguely educate himself on this topic while going on at great length about something I hold very dear to my heart. No, not homosexuality. Science.

[qpw3141]

@Peeta_Mellark

@qpw3141

I really can’t take seriously anyone who keeps wailing ‘cite’ to confirm something that most people know perfectly well from their own experience and the experiences of others with which they have discussed such a common matter over the course of their lives.

That is not how science works. If you make a claim about a scientific fact–such as alleging that a human behavior is an evolved trait–you must back it up with facts. Casual anecdotes that aren’t even backed up with statistics are useless. If you wish to just ramble on about your opinion without proof, then don’t discuss it in a debate forum.

OK, please provide a credible citation that shows that revulsion to homosexual sex amongst heterosexuals is a result of societal conditioning.

You see, it works both ways.

Men may not be aroused by sex they have no interest in, but this has not been definitively proven.

OTOH, has it ever been definitely disproven?

The fact that you don’t recognize the many things people are repulsed by due to culture

Whoa, cowboy, hold it right there!

I certainly do recognise that there are many things that people are repulsed by that are due to training.

I actually mentioned one - children eating things that were bad for them. The only thing was that you were so obsessed with the idea that everything I said was wrong that you just came up with the knee-jerk response: ‘cite?’.

I must admit that that did, at least, give me a good laugh.

I know that you desperately want to believe that such revulsion is not innate and that the whole of humanity is engaged in some massive and weird conspiracy against homosexuals to force people into feelings of revulsion that are against their nature but that just isn’t plausible to anyone thinking coherently and no amount of yelling ‘cite’ is going to make it more so.

I do not care if it’s innate or not.

Yeah, right.

But you have given no evidence. You’ve simply made an argumentum ad populum repeatedly. A common view is not automatically the result of evolution.

I’ve detailed several salient points that would need to be answered before your assertion that revulsion amongst heterosexuals to their own participation in homosexual activities is purely a result of cultural influences.

And your reaction to each of these has been … surprise, surprise, to ignore them and scream: ‘cite cite cite’.

No, obviously a common view is not necessarily a result of evolution. Nice attempt at a straw man argument but, I’m afraid, no cigar.

No, I don’t care if it’s innate. What I do care about is someone refusing to even vaguely educate himself on this topic while going on at great length about something I hold very dear to my heart. No, not homosexuality. Science.

ROFLMAO.

You claim to hold science dear and yet you refuse to use your own mind but just reflexively yell: ‘cite cite cite’ whenever someone says something with which you you disagree.

Now, tell me, do you believe that very few teenagers spend more than five minutes a day banging their head against a wall?

Can you provide a citation for that?

[Rigamarole]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

Gay sex requires either or both anal and oral sex both of which are not all that common in the straight community

I’m going to have to disagree with you there.

[Mozart1220]

@Damuri_Ajashi

@Sablicious

As with most human traits, it’s nuture.

Everything a child knows about sexuality is what their instincts tell them. As such, all children themselves have the propencity for homosexual behavior - sexual desire does not discriminate if one has no basis to do so. In fact, a lot of children exhibit and even ingage in homosexual behavior without growing up to be homosexuals per se.

All children start out wu wei (無爲), uncarved wood, and don’t judge based upon something as relatively complex as sexuality. So if one truly is reviled by the sexual practices of others, whatever they may be, its almost certainly because as a kid papi told them "Don’t be growin’ urp to be no faggot/dyke/et al, ya hears?! :mad: "

For revulsion to a particular sexual behavior cannot be a rational, empirical conclusion one arrives at as an adult, as this would clearly be nonsequitur for a sentient being to be so absurdly biggoted.

I have heard it frequently said that it is not the homosexual’s choice to be homosexual, its the way they are built. Perhaps the OP is asking if perhaps homophobes are compelled in the same way, its the way they are built.

I have always held the position that while there may be a question of whether or not Homosexuality is “learned” behavior, there is no question that bigotry IS.

The best example of this comes from the life of Ray Charles. He was sent to a BLIND school. The kids had to be told why they were segregated.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

When I first learned about homosexuality my visceral reaction was incredulity and disgust. Since then I have learned to accept homosexuality, and even like individual homosexuals, but I do not like to observe overt expressions of sexual desire between men.

[qpw3141]

@Mozart1220

The best example of this comes from the life of Ray Charles. He was sent to a BLIND school. The kids had to be told why they were segregated.

Can you elaborate on that?

Who was bigoted?

Are you saying that blind people do not deserve to have special efforts made to accommodate their special needs?

I have to say that as an example of bigotry, not only is that somewhat opaque but I can, sadly, think of many much more egregious examples.

[Guinastasia]

@qpw3141

I really can’t take seriously anyone who keeps wailing ‘cite’ to confirm something that most people know perfectly well from their own experience and the experiences of others with which they have discussed such a common matter over the course of their lives

That’s not how it works – you make a statement, you better be prepared to back it beyond “everybody knows.”

:rolleyes:

[Mozart1220]

@qpw3141

@Mozart1220

The best example of this comes from the life of Ray Charles. He was sent to a BLIND school. The kids had to be told why they were segregated.

Can you elaborate on that?

Who was bigoted?

Are you saying that blind people do not deserve to have special efforts made to accommodate their special needs?

I have to say that as an example of bigotry, not only is that somewhat opaque but I can, sadly, think of many much more egregious examples.

I’m sorry, I was not more specific.

They were segregated according to RACE, and that IS an example of bigotry.

The kids had no clue about skin color, they just thought everyone was blind kids like them. They had to have it explained to them why Black and White kids couldn’t go to school together.

[Mozart1220]

@New_Deal_Democrat

When I first learned about homosexuality my visceral reaction was incredulity and disgust. Since then I have learned to accept homosexuality, and even like individual homosexuals, but I do not like to observe overt expressions of sexual desire between men.

What about between women?

[Doxy]

I just don’t see what’s supposedly so “gross” about people having sex.

I believe any “revulsion” to such is culturally induced and point to the many examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom as evidence that it is not biological.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

What is it that people find objectionable anyway? The anal sex?
Women take it up the pooper too. Is that revolting?

[Illuminatiprimus]

@Doxy

What is it that people find objectionable anyway? The anal sex?
Women take it up the pooper too. Is that revolting?

Well - therein lies the question doesn’t it? Why is anal sex with a woman awesome and anal sex with a man a horrible abomination which driveth man unto madness?

If you really like one practice and find another mentally unpleasant you have to accept you’re dealing with a cultural issue, because it’s the same practice and if there was a biological motivation for not wanting to do it with men (as proffered, it doesn’t lead to procreation) you’d find it equally distasteful with a woman. Given trends in porn I don’t think we can say that with any certainty.

[Sablicious]

@acsenray

@Sablicious

All children start out wu wei (無爲), uncarved wood

I thought “wu wei” meant effortless action.

According to Wikipedia, yes.

@Mozart1220

I have always held the position that while there may be a question of whether or not Homosexuality is “learned” behavior, there is no question that bigotry IS.

The best example of this comes from the life of Ray Charles. He was sent to a BLIND school. The kids had to be told why they were segregated.

[TOPIC CLOSED]… right?

[Mozart1220]

@Sablicious

@acsenray

I thought “wu wei” meant effortless action.

According to Wikipedia, yes.

@Mozart1220

I have always held the position that while there may be a question of whether or not Homosexuality is “learned” behavior, there is no question that bigotry IS.

The best example of this comes from the life of Ray Charles. He was sent to a BLIND school. The kids had to be told why they were segregated.

[TOPIC CLOSED]… right?

The topic will never be closed completely I’m afraid, but this was the best and simplest example of bigotry being “taught” that I know of. To them, skin color was not an issue.

[Cat_Fight]

@even_sven

If we mapped responses to the question “Are you revolted by gay sex?” in America, we’d have areas with high concentrations of “yes” and others with high concentrations of “no.” I’d bet my money that these reactions would correspond pretty well to cultural ideas about gay people.

That’s culture.

I’m pretty sure it would get a bit skewed once someone reminded the male respondents that ‘gay sex’ includes lesbians. Forget reproduction. Unless some of the people answering here are exactly as disgusted or put off by two women having sex (or kissing), something tells me most of the freaking out lies in a man being ‘the woman’ and in a vulnerable, even degraded position. Not exactly a wild new theory, I know.

[Meyer6]

@qpw3141

One thing that points to revulsion of homosexual activity (or hetro if you are homosexual yourself) is the fact that this revulsion generally manifests itself at puberty. Before that time children will ‘play show’ me games with other children of either sex but at the onset of puberty will find that they are disgusted by the idea of intimacy with the ‘wrong’ sex.

A lot of behaviour changes at puberty. Younger children often have no embarrassment about nudity, for example, and around puberty the idea of nudity as inappropriate (which is highly cultural) appears. Intimate contact with siblings and parents also changes around then. While an aversion to mating with close relatives makes evolutionary sense, our aversion to bathing or sleeping together is entirely cultural.

@qpw3141

You are trying to deny one of the most powerful evolutionary traits that exists - the mechanism that channels creatures to have sex with others of their species of the opposite sex (and not waste time and resources having sex with those of the same sex), in order that said species may continue.

If our desire to have sex with people of the opposite sex is powerful enough (and for most heterosexuals it’s pretty powerful), why would we need to be repulsed by homosexual sex? I mean, I like steak better than chicken, and I don’t need to be repulsed by chicken in order to choose to eat steak instead. Even if steak is a little more expensive and therefore requires a little more effort to obtain (as you claim heterosexual sex is somehow harder to obtain for teenage boys than homosexual sex is) is will still make the effort to get it, because I enjoy it, not because I think everything else is gross.

If you were correct the world would be a very different place with all animals having both homo and hetro sex at a pretty much 50-50 proportion.

If you are at all familiar with genetics you should know that just because two traits are equally normal and valid doesn’t mean they will reach a 50/50 proportion. Left-handedness is much less common than right-handedness, but that doesn’t mean it’s aberrant or repulsive. The fact that homosexuality seems to be much less common than heterosexuality does not mean anything whatsoever about its legitimacy in a biological sense.

[Johanna]

@Sablicious

wu wei (無爲), uncarved wood

The term used in Taoism for a uncarved block of wood is *pu *樸. (Cf. *Daodejing *chapter I got from WP that *pu *“is a metaphor for the state of wu wei (無爲) and the principle of *jian *(儉).” Hope that clears it up.

I just don’t feel revulsion concerning anyone else’s sex. The very idea of feeling revulsion toward other people’s sex is deeply strange to me. I really don’t get how anyone’s private business is supposed to be of concern to total strangers. But then I’m queer all kinds of ways, so I suppose my perspective has no relevance for “normal” people.

I had an intensely Catholic upbringing in the 1960s, and the constant message drummed into everyone was “sex is bad, mmkay.” Implicitly this meant heterosexual sex, since gay wasn’t even acknowledged to exist in those days in my parish. This is why I became so bewildered once it finally was mentioned for condemnation. I had been programmed for years that Catholic boys and girls had to stay away from each other, it seemed only logical that to be gay must meet with the Church’s approval, since it replaced those evil heterosexual pairings? Right? The logical contradiction that gay was even worse was deeply confusing to my innocent young mind. Only after growing up and learning the analysis of patriarchal power, and why the patriarchy insisted on all these restrictions, did I understand what the point of it all really was.

You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late (before you are six or seven or eight) to hate all the people your relatives hate. Well, they did their best to carefully teach me, but it didn’t take, I was just too damn queer for all that. So from my perspective as a queer chick, I totally call bullshit on the idea that there’s any kind of biological basis for homophobia. You’ve got to be carefully taught.

[qpw3141]

[quote=“Meyer6, post:96, topic:553271”]

@qpw3141

A lot of behaviour changes at puberty. Younger children often have no embarrassment about nudity, for example, and around puberty the idea of nudity as inappropriate (which is highly cultural) appears. Intimate contact with siblings and parents also changes around then. While an aversion to mating with close relatives makes evolutionary sense, our aversion to bathing or sleeping together is entirely cultural.

If aversion to mating with close relatives makes evolutionary sense (because such a mating is considerably less likely to produce viable offspring that will further pass on genes), then why would an aversion to homosexual sex which is guaranteed not to produce viable offspring not make even more sense?

If our desire to have sex with people of the opposite sex is powerful enough (and for most heterosexuals it’s pretty powerful), why would we need to be repulsed by homosexual sex? I mean, I like steak better than chicken, and I don’t need to be repulsed by chicken in order to choose to eat steak instead. Even if steak is a little more expensive and therefore requires a little more effort to obtain (as you claim heterosexual sex is somehow harder to obtain for teenage boys than homosexual sex is) is will still make the effort to get it, because I enjoy it, not because I think everything else is gross.

You are making what is effectively a straw man argument here because my premise was not that an aversion was necessary to passing on genes, merely that it would tend to be helpful. And that is all that is needed for a trait to stand a better chance of becoming established.

If you were correct the world would be a very different place with all animals having both homo and hetro sex at a pretty much 50-50 proportion.

No.

That does not follow at all.

It’s another straw man - in this case that an aversion to sex that will not produce offspring is the only way to encourage sex that will and this is clearly not the case.

The main way that that happens is because we tend to have a much stronger attraction to the opposite sex.

If you are at all familiar with genetics you should know that just because two traits are equally normal and valid doesn’t mean they will reach a 50/50 proportion. Left-handedness is much less common than right-handedness, but that doesn’t mean it’s aberrant or repulsive. The fact that homosexuality seems to be much less common than heterosexuality does not mean anything whatsoever about its legitimacy in a biological sense.

That is complete and utter nonsense. Homosexuality (of the strict kind where the organism will not have heterosexual sex at all) is an absolute block on the passing on of genes and so is not in any way the same as handedness which, presumably, very slightly favours (or, at some point in the past favoured) the right.

[qpw3141]

@Johanna

I just don’t feel revulsion concerning anyone else’s sex. The very idea of feeling revulsion toward other people’s sex is deeply strange to me. I really don’t get how anyone’s private business is supposed to be of concern to total strangers. But then I’m queer all kinds of ways, so I suppose my perspective has no relevance for “normal” people.

That is true of a lot of people - and one hopes eventually it will be true of a lot more.

However, it’s not really relevant to the matter at hand which is any particular person’s level of interest in their having sex with some particular class of person.

So from my perspective as a queer chick, I totally call bullshit on the idea that there’s any kind of biological basis for homophobia. You’ve got to be carefully taught.

This seems to be the view of a lot of people here and, of course, it’s possible that they are correct.

However, it seems unlikely to me for two main reasons:

1. If that were the case, where does all the homophobia come from? Why is it that most societies that we know of, throughout history, have been opposed to it with greater or lesser ferocity? If it were the case that it were entirely cultural, why have so many cultures adopted the same stance? If there was no inherited distaste for homosexuality, why on earth would so many people, over so many centuries, make such a fuss about it?

2. Whilst accepting that different people have different levels of distaste for sex with people they are not seriously attracted to. (i.e. some people will happily have sex with someone they find unattractive just so they can get sex whereas others are repelled at such sex ), why would antipathy towards homosexual sex be the one thing that has to be culturally learned?

Big, small, short, tall, fat, thin, young, old, black, white, you’ll find people who range form repulsed through indifferent to wildly attracted to any given attribute. To some extent, yes, there are cultural norms, but despite these the range of attitudes to any given attribute is enormous and thus cannot be culturally learned.

So why would the attraction or otherwise to one of the most significant attributes of a person - their sex - be the one thing that comes entirely from cultural influence?

[Zeriel]

@qpw3141

That is true of a lot of people - and one hopes eventually it will be true of a lot more.

However, it’s not really relevant to the matter at hand which is any particular person’s level of interest in their having sex with some particular class of person.

So from my perspective as a queer chick, I totally call bullshit on the idea that there’s any kind of biological basis for homophobia. You’ve got to be carefully taught.

This seems to be the view of a lot of people here and, of course, it’s possible that they are correct.

However, it seems unlikely to me for two main reasons:

1. If that were the case, where does all the homophobia come from? Why is it that most societies that we know of, throughout history, have been opposed to it with greater or lesser ferocity? If it were the case that it were entirely cultural, why have so many cultures adopted the same stance? If there was no inherited distaste for homosexuality, why on earth would so many people, over so many centuries, make such a fuss about it?

2. Whilst accepting that different people have different levels of distaste for sex with people they are not seriously attracted to. (i.e. some people will happily have sex with someone they find unattractive just so they can get sex whereas others are repelled at such sex ), why would antipathy towards homosexual sex be the one thing that has to be culturally learned?

Big, small, short, tall, fat, thin, young, old, black, white, you’ll find people who range form repulsed through indifferent to wildly attracted to any given attribute. To some extent, yes, there are cultural norms, but despite these the range of attitudes to any given attribute is enormous and thus cannot be culturally learned.

So why would the attraction or otherwise to one of the most significant attributes of a person - their sex - be the one thing that comes entirely from cultural influence?

1. Seems easily explained enough by postulating how any other belief came up–humanity is pretty consistent in factionalizing and finding people to demonize.

2. There’s a rather wide gulf between “non-attraction”, “antipathy” and “revulsion”. I would argue, further, that a biological component to attraction (which there almost certainly is) doesn’t imply the existence (or necessity thereof) of biologically-mediated revulsion. They are not the same thing, they are not even on the same spectrum. Hell, I’ve known more than one so-deep-in-the-closet-they-refused-to-believe-they-were-gay who were CLEARLY both attracted AND revolted by the idea of gay sex–and I know at least two out of three of them are gay because they eventually came out of the closet and embraced it.