Not homosexuality, which has been ubiquitous since time immemorial. Gayness- the identification, self or otherwise, as someone having a permanent sexual orientation the opposite of the usual male-female heterosexual pairing; i.e. “I’m a man and I prefer sex with men instead of women” (or vice-versa). I’ve heard arguments that although homosexual couplings have taken place in all cultures throughout history, the current western idea of gayness is recent and far from universal. That in most cultures homosexual acts, whether condemned or accepted, were not taken to imply an exclusive orientation.
For example, even in European cultures where Christianity led to the condemnation of “sodomy”, it was regarded more as a decadent excess than an orientation (e.g., “he’ll fuck anything alive”). Or that homosexual acts would simply be a temporary substitute when women weren’t available (prison, ships, boarding schools, etc.).Or they would be part of the bonding rituals in all-male associations (Greek soldiers) Or as acts of dominance and submission in societies with strong master/servant structures (pedophilia, homosexual rape of slaves and prisoners, etc.) Or even that men were regarded as naturally being so horny that it was taken for granted that they would use any avenue of sexual release available to them. None of which presupposed that the men in question did not or would not also have sexual relationships with women.
Granted that such social constructs left plenty of room for men who were almost exclusively homosexual in their orientation; but that socially there was little or no conciousness of gays as a distinct group. Comments or rebuttals anyone?
In some ways yes. Even today, in parts of Latin America, the role of gay males isn’t viewed the same as in other cultures. In fact, a “top” (the one who sends rather than receives) may not be looked at as gay at all while the bottom will. This theme has repeated itself through different places in history. Homosexual activity was often viewed as transient for the person and just something he chose to engage in to get his rocks off or bond with other males. The view has changed in American cultural as well. There used to be little acknowledgement of gay men even through the 50’s. Those that were known to engage in such activities were often lumped under the generic term “pervert” rather than acknowledge a whole sexual orientation.
The Lakota word “winyanktehca”, or “winkte” for short, describes a biological man living as a woman. They are believed to have special powers of prophecy and good luck, and often act as a sort of marriage counselor. The concept, from what I know of it, isn’t exactly equivalent to Western notions of either gayness or transgenderedness, but a little of each with some unique features of its own.
I’m not Filipino, but I work with many Filipino people. One of them is a man - well respected in the local Filipino community, active in charity work in his homeland, etc. - who would be considered an extremely effeminate gay man by American standards. Flaming, even.
Filipino culture calls these people “bakla” (I may be mis-spelling). During a conversation we had, he said that in his culture, two baklas do not get together, and that in the Phillipines his boyfriends would have been straight-acting or married. This, in fact, was making a dent in his sexuality here, because in the US it is more expected for two gay men to date, while basically in the Phillipines the bakla dates men who appear straight.
(Caveat: This was a conversation at work, and while this person has been in the US for a fair number of years his English is still fairly accented. I may have misunderstood the details, but I think I got the gist.)
This sounds a lot like a conversation I had with a flaming gay man from Guatemala. He said that a lot of men in his culture/country are bi-sexual, but the real flamers, the very feminine type gay men usually have sex with more masculine, straight acting men, men who have families and are married for years. A lot of these men “live a lie” with their wives and children. They rarely get their sex from their wives, but from their flaming gay boyfriends.
A “social construct” is something that has a social, but not a biological meaning. We call “race” (as it is usually used) a social construct because it doesn’t correspond to what we actualyl find in the natural world. “Gay” is the opposite-- it’s a recognition that there is something biological about actions which we once thought were simply “social constructs”. First it was a sin, then it was a psyochological disorder, then it was “oh, I guess they’re actually born that way”.
But the social construct question is: born what way? Gay? What does that mean to you? I’ll bet anything your definition reflects a definition your own culture has supplied. Were Japanese samurai or Spartan warriors gay because of biological predispositions? Or because their society instructed them from birth that male-bonding with a sexual component is not only natural but superior to that between men and women?
My firm conviction is that social identities are not determined genetically or in the womb. In fact, I don’t even believe we are actually “persons” or have “personalities” until we actually meet other persons. I cannot accept that fetuses are programmed to desire sexual contact with particular sex organs.
My suspicion is that a society which treats heterosexual acts as abnormal would result in a perfect reverse of the percentage of “gays” to “straights” that our 21st century social scientists proclaim is the norm. Human beings are not ruled by instinct.* Human beings seek pleasure, wherever and however that can be found. Human beings want to be confirmed and touched and loved and needed by other human beings. Society instructs us from the minute we’re born how to do that.
Man is not a centaur, he is man through and through. He can be understood only when one knows, on the one hand, that there is something in all that is human including thought which belongs to the general nature of living creatures, and is to be grasped from this nature, while knowing, on the other hand, that there is no human quality which belongs fully to the general nature of living creatures and is to be grasped exclusively from it. Even man’s hunger is not an animal’s hunger. . . .
There is a difference between engaging in homosexual acts, and being primarily attracted (both physically and emotionally) to the same sex. The latter is not a “social construct”.
If it were just a “social construct”, then we’d be able to convert gays into straights and vice versa.
You have only given me your own cultural definition of what it means to be “gay.” What makes you think a social construct is so malleable? In any case, once any behavior pattern has been established, it is difficult to change. A man who associates leather with sexual pleasure over the course of 20 years (or even one year) is not an easy or simple subject for reprogramming. A man who repeatedly experiences an emotional and/or physical attraction to blondes is not easily reprogrammed. Are “macho” Hispanic men who fuck “effeminate” males attracted to such types? Or has their culture simply given them permission to use a certain type as a sexual outlet? Human beings inevitably form emotional attachments with other human beings, even sexual outlets, whether that is affection or contempt. It is possible to be “straight” and loathe women. It is possible to be “gay” and loathe men. The question remains: is sexuality a behavior or an identity? My guess is that it is a behavior that becomes an identity. Am I right in understanding that you believe it is an identity that becomes a behavior? Or that identity and behavior are one and the same?
Hold on there. You have some beliefs that are so firmly rooted in the nurture part of the mature/nurture debate that hardly any scientist of any discipline would support them at least not since the early 1970’s.
I am a former PhD student in the neuroscience of sexual differentiation. The evidence for a mainly biological component of male homosexuality is massive and getting more massive every day. There is a whole sub-field called “sexual differentiation” within neuroscience which has been hot since the 1970’s and encompasses hundreds of researchers all over the world and tens of thousands of experiments. It is a little ignorant and brazen to brush off an entire academic discipline with decades of supporting results without batting an eye. The discipline studies inborn sex differences in lots of ways, one of which is sexual orientation.
I used the word biological instead of generic because it is the sex hormones rather than the chromosomes that determine almost all of sexual differentiation including the development of the sex organs. I don’t know where to begin. There were some scientists that had beliefs like yours until contrary evidence became too hard to ignore. One of the early problems were pseudo-hermaphrodites with ambiguous genitalia that were “corrected” shortly after birth but they were reassigned to the wrong sex (usually female because it is easier). Even though the kids did not know, all hell broke loose when they hit puberty and their personal contractions were disastrous to them psychologically.
Since the, we have well defined animal models (I have even worked on them myself) to manipulate sexual behavior via pre and postnatal hormones. More recently, neuroscience has become more sophisticated and we have been able to study brain sex differences in humans including newborns.
Your view is called a tabula rosa or blank slate model and I haven’t ever actually heard anyone advocate it seriously in real life although I have read about it in history of psychology books.
Assuming you want to defend your position, how do explain all those males that grew into homosexuality without any obvious influences and even against their own wished.
I don’t want to defend my position. I only want to share it. I’m having a conversation, not an argument. I think we find ourselves in the sphere of philosophical anthropology, in which each person can only bring their own experiences and observations to the discussion.
I understand and agree that sex hormones have a huge impact on our biological development. However, I am not a scientist and not equipped to debate the theories and conclusions of scientists (you may dismiss me now), yet I am wary of presuppositions scientists may bring to the table. The article you linked does not discuss sexual identity or orientation, only the influence of sex hormones on behavior and cognitive development. Sexual differentiation is not the same as sexual identity, preferences, or orientation.
As a mere layman, I can see genetically-influenced differences between males and females, even across cultures. Testosterone makes men aggressive, it works on their brains and physiologies in certain ways, but does it make them masculine? Are men who prefer women for sexual encounters more or less masculine than men who don’t? I still suspect that biology determines maleness from femaleness, but that culture determines what is masculine or feminine. I suspect that all human beings want to be loved, needed, and confirmed, but I think that route is culturally determined. As for differences between men and women who casually, opportunistically, or otherwise permanently experience intimate encounters with the same sex, I don’t see the biological imperative.
How do I explain all those males that grew into homosexuality without any obvious influences and even against their own wishes? My personal suspicion (not a belief, not a certainty) is that our personality (our relationships with other persons) develops with incremental influences and decisions from birth onward even before we, as infants (or adults observing infants), are aware of it. When did you realize you preferred strawberry ice cream to chocolate? Was that innate? I think the preference for ice cream flavors or the numerous flavors of human sexuality takes place before we even realize we are making choices.
But this is not intended as an argument, only to share where I am coming from.
All of that is correct but you have to realize that the neuroscience of sexual differentiation is a hard science. Studying behavior and cognitive development are the realistic limits for a hard science. You are correct that articles of that caliber won’t talk much about the softer, more philosophical aspects of gender identity and things. Those are harder to work out and more worthy of speculation than the basic biology.
I’m enjoying our conversation, but please don’t tell me what I have to realize. I wish, of course, that your confidence in scientific conclusions (as opposed to scientific inquiries) also realized my confidence in my own experience, but I think your last statement establishes a common ground for discussion. These are indeed matters worthy of speculation.
There is a strong undercurrent of “gayness” in Thailand that I believe predates any Western influence. There’s even a transvestite tradtiion – the Thai word for a transvestite is “kathoey” – and kathoeys are often referred to as “The Third Sex.” In some ways they are accepted by society much more easily than they are in a lot of places in the West, but they do still encounter some problems. They’re a lot more visible here than in the West, though, and even gay Thai men who are not transvestites tend to be even more gentle than the run-of-the-mill Thai man. I think this developed separately from in the West.
And just to be clear, there is a distinction between being “gay” and being “transexual” (which I think is what you mean instead of “transvestite”). Perhaps the Thai tradition is similar to the Lakota tradition of *winkte *mentioned above.
No, a transvestite is definitely a kathoey, someone who has not yet undergone the operation but dresses up as a woman. Once the man becomes a transsexual, he is no longer considered a kathoey by the Thais. A lot of Westerners are unclear of the distinction and apply "kathoey to transvestites and transsexuals alike, but that is not correct.
Um, I didn’t mean that a lot of Westerners are unclear about the distinction between transvestite and transsexual. I meant a lot of Westerners in Thailand are unclear that a kathoey is a transvestite but not a transsexual.
OK, we can speak of pre- and post-op transexuals, but there is a difference between a male who like to dress in woman’s clothes (a transvestite), but still thinks of himself as a male, and male who feels that he is a woman.