Why do gays lisp?

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

I agree it’s not a real “lisp” that is the stereotype, but rather the esssses.

While a good answer wasn’t found by Cecil, I have read an interesting theory that I think is very plausible.

It posits that feminine behavior (like hissing esses and certain gestures) are learned in early child development. When a child is born there is an initial attachment to the mother that is not there with the father. In healthy development, the male child at a certain age (I can’t remember when it is) will detach from the mother and realize that they are like their fathers in a way that they aren’t like their mothers. They start to then model after their fathers in ways they don’t with their mother.

If the father is absent or emotionally distant then the child may not detach from their mothers at this time and will start modeling after their feminine traits. I’m sure no studies have been done on this, but my experience with homosexual friends lines up pretty well with this.

Not every gay man had distant fathers, and not every child with distant/absent fathers turn out gay. But, not all homosexual men are feminine and not all feminine men are gay.

However, it’s not hard to see why homosexual boys would have a higher than average chance of growing up with a distant father. Either the father didn’t approve of the child or just didn’t relate to him. Now, many children grow up without fathers but don’t become effiminate. There seems to require a higher level of sensitivity to be effected by it in this way. Homosexual men tend to have higher sensitivity than the average male (which can be a very good thing, leading to artistic ability, empathy, intuition, etc).

It also makes sense that many gay men become more feminine when around other gay men. Women do this too. While women’s testosterone levels actually raise in the presence of men, they tend to act more feminine when they are sexually interested. I’m sure there’s been studies on this, but I’m going mainly on my own observations. It makes sense, since straight men are attracted to feminine traits. It doesn’t make logical sense for gay men to do this, though, since gay men seem (according to Cecil) to be attracted to masculine traits and not feminine ones. But, in order to bring out masculinity in other men you must (I assume) be more feminine, and it’s easy to see how a group of gay men could subconsciously try to out-female each other. Most of them want to be the feminine one in the relationship (I’ve read somewhere recently that almost all gay sex personals are seeking the top, as everyone wants to be the bottom something I grew up believing would be the opposite).

It’s frustrating that so much tension and political pressure exists over homosexuality so that no truly objective studies can be done. There is SOOOO much we don’t know and we are sooo afraid of the possible answers!

2

Welcome to the SDMB, hoodleehoo!
Since you are new here, you are probably unaware that it is standard practice to provide a link to the column of Cecil’s you are responding to, like this.

I was wondering if you could provide a link to the theory you have presented here. I’d like to see what studies it was based on.

3

I WAS unaware! Thanks for cluing me in (and thanks for providing the link!)

I wish I could remember the source to give you. As with all research with homosexuality there’s going to be a strong bias on whichever side is doing the research so it’s very difficult to sort through the data and research from conclusions and all sorts of stuff.

The child development stuff is all well-known. I remember being taught it in college. As for the theory, I believe the first I heard the theory was from Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. He takes it to an extreme which many would disagree with (and probably find offensive). But, the theory on femininity being learned is compelling.

He claims he has never treated a homosexual male who didn’t have either abuse or distant/absent father. I can’t speak to whether or not that’s true (even if it is, the fact they are in therapy prevents it from being a truly random sample), but I know from my own experience talking with and being friends with homosexual men that at the very least it’s extremely common.

I have heard some gay men on television insist that they had a great relationship with their father, and I’ve seen families where both mother and father were accepting of their son’s homosexuality so I think it’s probably likely that the issue is a lot more complex than Dr. Nicolosi posits.

From my experience it seems clear that there isn’t a single “cause” for homosexuality, but rather multiple “causes”. And this, I believe, has led to a lot of conflict.

Some may be born with it (some kind of genetic or physical development), some may born straight but through childhood abuse and/or lack of father develop same sex attraction through puberty (we know this happens, the debate is on whether/how to treat them), others may be acting out (trying to create “chaos” because that’s what they are comfortable with, or trying to get attention), some may just be following the trend (bisexuality is apparently “cool” now according to my younger family members), some may get a sexual thrill out of it as it’s taboo and heterosexual acts have become boring, and others may actually have some kind of intersex disorder (like AIS) where their body makes some parts male and other parts female.

I imagine all of the above is true, and much of the conflict comes from each side believing all homosexuals are caused by only one of them. Some Christian groups may believe all homosexuals are just acting out or following sexual thrills, while gay-rights groups may believe all homosexuals are born gay, etc. Not leaving room for other causes ends up generating a ton of conflict and a huge lack of meaningful research. :-/

4

Joseph Nicolosi, the founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, the Catholic psychologist that thinks that fathers can “cure” their sons of homosexuality by showering with them?

5

I remember that theory about distant fathers. Specifically, I remember reading about it in a howler of a book written in the 70s or so about psychological impetuses for homosexuality. I’m not sure why my grandparents had that book and I’ve always been slightly afraid to ask. I looked for it a few years ago and it had vanished. So very freudian.

FYI, my father is not distant nor were any of the fathers of gay men that I know.

6

I don’t think he believes fathers can “cure” their sons of homosexuality by showering with them. That would go against his theories I’m pretty sure.

Like I said, you have to separate data and theories from the other stuff. I’m not comparing him to nazis, obviously, but the nazis did a lot of really bad things but their research was invaluable.

While forcing any kind of therapy against people’s will is wrong, there is a lot of benefit to allowing psychiatrists test out their theories and do research regardless of how crazy they might sound. Again, patients/test subjects have to give permission (unlike the nazis). Even failed experiments are important as they give important results. But, because of the sensitivity of the subject most results can’t be published and now most research into homosexuality can’t be done at all (because of well-meaning laws intended to protect people from the more ridiculous forms of “ex-gay” therapy).

I understand the sensitivity and it’s a tough situation. All I’m saying is that we are not allowing knowledge and research to build. By coming up with broad conclusions based on political sensitivity before allowing data to accumulate and then not allowing any research or experimental therapies that go against the premade conclusions to be published (or even executed) we have built a wall around a vastly important subject that we know very little about.

I’m a naturally skeptical person and I have a soft heart for those dealing with homosexuality, but listening to Dr. Nicolosi talk was very interesting. I think you’d be pretty surprised if you watched some of his videos explaining what they do. They don’t claim to turn anyone born homosexual into a heterosexual, nor do they attempt to. They focus on those who believe they were born straight and struggle with same sex attraction based on trauma or developmental issues and want to change.

They seem to have made a lot of headway through the years in understanding more of what is going on, but they haven’t been able to publish any of the results of their studies. Even the former president of the APA has lauded the results of their research. Disagreeing with their conclusions is one thing, that’s what science is all about. Debate over research is healthy and necessary.

I may not agree with all of their conclusions or theories, but some of it is really compelling and I wish more research like that was being done and published so we could learn more about one of the most important issues of our time.

7
  1. Why do you think they haven’t been able to publish any of their studies?
  2. Which former president of the APA has lauded the results of their research?
8

I mean, the guy helped found NARTH so I wouldn’t trust him to know a scientific study if it bit him on the nose.

9

It’s a long video, but all the information is on there. Like I said, I don’t agree with him on everything. But I agree more research like this should be allowed to be published and we should be more open-minded about an issue that we don’t know much about at all.

10

Legitimate research is usually allowed to be published-it doesn’t get published just because fans of the subject find it interesting. Sorry, but that’s just how peer-reviewed scientific journals operate. Have any of his studies been submitted for peer-review?
Edited to add: I’m not going to waste my time watching an hour and a half video that starts with your doctor saying that there is no evidence that there is a biological nature to homosexuality.

11

Not to mention that youtube videos are not an appropriate format for scientific research.

12

The video isn’t the format, it’s just a video of an interview. I think you’ll find it very interesting!

13

That’s highly doubtful.

14

And I think you should tell us why you think he can’t get his studies published, or at the very least provide links to the studies themselves.

15

There isn’t any proof (I assume that’s what he means by evidence). Doesn’t mean there’s not a biological nature to it, but it hasn’t been proven yet (unless it has in the last year or so and it somehow didn’t make front page news). Only half of all identical twins where one is gay is the other one gay as well.

Now, I know there are some interesting results that may point to some correlations between some genetic elements and homosexuality, but correlation doesn’t equal causation so it can’t really be considered “proof”. And since he would say there are definite genetic predispositions to same sex attraction, those correlations fit his hypotheses.

But, if you carry a really strong bias and don’t think you can be objective about it then you probably wouldn’t gain anything by watching it. I don’t say that as a put down or anything, I promise. Just that if it’s that much of an emotional issue to anyone then it will just make you upset.

However, if you are open to the idea that there might be a lot we don’t know about the issue and can see value in other ways of thinking that might initially strike you as crazy (as all paradigm shifting ideas do), then I think you’ll find the video extremely interesting. As I said, you don’t have to agree with his conclusions to see that such research is extremely valuable.

16

I can’t provide links to the studies because they haven’t been published. The research won’t be published because the journals (and APA) would get crucified politically for publishing something that might be seen as anti-homosexual (even though I don’t think it’s anti-homosexual at all regardless of whether you accept their conclusions).

The APA and the field of psychiatry is extremely political. The big controversy over the DSM-V is a good example. But, he explains it a lot better than I do.

17

Kay, then call us when you have something. Some dipshit nattering on about his freudian fanwanking is neither interesting nor illuminating.

18

When I say evidence that is exactly what I mean, not proof(they are two different words-look them up if you don’t believe me), and if I have a pretty strong bias it’s towards strong evidence. Does your doctor have any studies we can take a look at that he couldn’t get peer-reviewed?

19

Are overly sibilant esses actually a feminine trait? :dubious: I’m not particularly aware of women talking that way in general, but certainly that does come out in some stereotypical gay portrayals.

This seems like a classic case of correlation/causation bias, with perhaps some observation bias thrown in.

It seems more likely the “feminine” traits are a deliberate subculture, and that those traits are more pronounced in groups of people where that subculture dominates and is, therefore, more confident. Plus, you know, gay males who don’t act feminine don’t hang out with the gay males who do act feminine, as they don’t wish to be part of that subculture. In other words, observation and selection biases.

That demands a cite. I’m not gay, and yet I’m highly dubious.

Also, if in fact there is something to personal ads being highly skewed towards bottoms seeking tops (:dubious:), it could be some other factor contributing to that selection bias.

Amazingly, people in therapy have emotional problems and have distant fathers or abuse as the contributing causes of those emotional problems!

Almost certainly.

On this point, I am in agreement with you. Finding a single cause for homosexuality seems to me to be as misguided as trying to find a single cause for liking hats.

20

Why is that “only”? Gay people are much less than half of the population, so half of a particular group (identical twins of gay people) being gay is actually quite a lot.