Homosexuality/heterosexuality: socially constructed? [Archive]

Decommissioner

4th January 2010, 05:23

Sorry if this is the wrong forum to post this, and sorry in advance if this is incoherent.

I have a question, do you think homosexuality, and conversely heterosexuality, are determined by genes or by society? Or both?

I know it is irrelevant to the cause of gay liberation, however I notice a lot of people, while well-meaning, who support the cause of gay liberation because "they cant help that they are gay". And while true, we cannot really help who we are attracted to, does this necessarily mean our attraction to others is based on genes? And if not, (or if so, but only partially), what are the implications for prevailance of the heterosexual in present day society? I personally do not know, which is why I ask. The only scientific claims I've heard of such "sexual preference genes" was on the bill o'reilly show, so naturally I am skeptical of their claims(I listen in now and then for giggles/rage, in case you wonder).

I have a hunch, and only a hunch due to lack of research, that in a post sexist, heterosexist society, the distinctions between straight, bi and gay people would become obsolete. I come to this assumption based on the fact that it seems hetero-normative culture is based on the notion that sex is merely an act of reproduction, reinforced by the church and patriarchal society, thus making it the only "natural" sexual orientation. If we embraced sex as an act of human interaction in the pursuit of pleasure and love instead of mere reproduction (similar to how we eat because food tastes good, not because we consciously are trying to provide mere sustainance), would the average man or woman, free of pressures to conform to cultural norms, be more willing to stray from strict heterosexual relations and embrace bisexuality or homosexuality? Would, say, someone who vehemontly opposes homosexuality today be more willing to romanticly love someone of the same sex, even though they aren't "naturally" inclined to in the present, if they were raised in a liberated future? And if they did remain a heterosexual, would they be conscious of the distinction? Or would they make the distinction, but with sexual preferences being as frivolous as preferences between height and hair color (subject to change in individuals)? Or would it be much of the same as today, with clear distinct classifications for all sexual preferences (without the oppression, of course)?

I ask these questions not because I think it matters whether or not homosexuality is genetically determined, but rather because I think it matters to question the "natural" existence of the heterosexual.

Jimmie Higgins

4th January 2010, 05:34

I think the idea that people are separated into these categories is socially constructed. Homosexual/herosexual acts and attractions are both totally natural and many people identify with one or the other at the same time or at different times in their lives.

I absolutely think that we should not argue that LGBT rights depends on people being "born with a particular preference" or some kind of genetic determination. I think the "gay gene" is pseudo-science and has terrible eugenic implications.

I agree that when sexism and LGBT oppression have been defeated gender and sexual categorizations will potentially become non-factors on an overall societal level and I think that's the way it should be. People should have whatever consensual sex they want whenever they want and however they want and they should be able to identify themselves however they want.

jake williams

5th January 2010, 01:37

I was actually having a discussion about this with a comrade a couple hours ago. He was making some sort of argument involving Engels and The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, that heterosexuality and homosexuality are both almost entirely the product of socialization. I argued that while it's virtually self evident that there is a really important role for socialization, at the same time there is also really strong evidence that to some degree it's biological. One interesting study from awhile ago with interesting implications was of bisexual-identified men. I only have an approximate memory of the details but it was something like this. The men were shown images (I forget if they were pornographic or not) of men and of women, and their physical sexual arousal responses were measured by some kind of sensor(s). The results that almost entirely, men either thus responded only to men or only to women. That's interesting.

YeOldeCommuniste

5th January 2010, 04:09

I've heard about that study, it's quite interesting. To draw on my own experiences, I consider myself bisexual (I'm a girl, though) and I've been having intense attractions to other females ever since I was very young. I've tried to determine, for years, why this may be, but have never come to any conclusions other than the realization that I must've been born this way. I had a completely "normal" childhood, meaning I was raised in the same manner as my friends and siblings, yet somehow they all turned out straight. So, at least in my case, I don't think the causes are social. I've also read that some scientists think that certain conditions in the womb may "cause" a child to be homosexual. It's a very interesting topic, to me.

Elect Marx

5th January 2010, 11:54

I think part of the issue here, is the understandable conflation of various human interests and feelings. The desire to procreate, for sexual stimulation, companionship, romance and love, are all connected but not all the same. As human beings we have a diverse array of bonds and desires that overlap. These qualities are often divided into platonic and romantic, but life doesn't work that way and we would do well to accept this.

I don't believe in gender or sexual binaries. I consider myself a heterosexual male, as a gross approximation. I don't use the term straight for two reasons: 1) I don't consider non-heterosexuals crooked and 2) People identifying with the sexual monoculture would likely consider me crooked. As a quick note on being male, I use the term to identify my sex, and that's it. I don't identify with gender stereotypes of what a man must be, or any cultural masculine/feminine behavior dichotomies. I use heterosexual as a descriptive term, to mean that I have no interest in a same-sex relationship; not that I categorically exclude it from all possibility, but rather that such pursuits have never appealed to me. I'm not sure that this is clear, but to sum up: the labels I would use are from my experience of what I am, rather than what I am not. I find many people use such labels to distance themselves from other identities, and that I see as (yes) social constructs at work. For example: "I'm not a part of the heterosexual norm, I'm gay," or "I'm a hetro-straight man in the boy's club." No offence to anyone (identifying any way) intended, rather just a point; that if you identify for social reasons other than to express yourself, this really isn't just about self-identity, but rather socialization in the prevalent culture or counterculture.

I see the most merit in the idea that humans are naturally bisexual or more accurately pansexual, to various degrees. We are all indeed trained to see the world in a binary way. Rather than reforming sexuality, I see this as simply repressing or deforming a person's natural sexuality. If someone is primarily interested in one sex, the pressure in on for them to choose, when perhaps they might naturally be taking a wider interest in the population.

Elect Marx

5th January 2010, 12:11

One interesting study from awhile ago with interesting implications was of bisexual-identified men. I only have an approximate memory of the details but it was something like this. The men were shown images (I forget if they were pornographic or not) of men and of women, and their physical sexual arousal responses were measured by some kind of sensor(s). The results that almost entirely, men either thus responded only to men or only to women. That's interesting.

I am familiar with some of those studies, showing pornographic material to men and measuring blood-flow to the penis, if I remember correctly. I can't remember how women were rated in similar studies, but it must be more interesting. Men who have sex with men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men), as a category, was quite interesting to me. I had no idea before finding the article, the extent to which people (non)identify in this way.

Revy

8th January 2010, 17:58

There is this absurd idea pushed by some that we are all bisexual. It is simply not true. I am a gay man. As for bisexual men, they are oppressed for their desires for men and that only. Society does not oppress bisexuals for not being either heterosexual or homosexual, it oppresses them for being attracted to the same sex.

Our society does "construct" heterosexuality, but as the only traditionally accepted sexual orientation.

A post-revolutionary society would eliminate this bias, and bring equality and freedom to LGBT people.

I don't doubt there are exclusively heterosexual people, as I am exclusively homosexual. Believe me, if I could make myself attracted to women, I would with all my heart. It might be the influence of homophobia in our society, or my desire to be normal and gain the freedom that comes with such a status. That is not to say that I do not feel proud to be gay. But I strongly feel that it's not my problem, and that society must change, not I. And when society does, everyone will have the freedom to like the sex that they do. They won't magically mold into some species where everyone is bisexual.

Whether there is a gene involved is not really relevant but I would say that it is the most likely cause (otherwise, some kind of process in the womb , maybe). There are people born male, born female, born with light skin or dark skin. I don't think saying someone is born gay or straight or bisexual has any more implications than those things.

We're not even talking about sexual behavior, but attraction. Attraction involves no physical contact. A lesbian can become a nun and shut herself away in the name of holy virginity, having never become intimate with a woman, but she will still be a lesbian.

Elect Marx

8th January 2010, 18:46

There is this absurd idea pushed by some that we are all bisexual.

What is absurd about it? Perhaps "all," is a bit of an overstatement and "bisexual" isn't the best term to use. However, I don't see how it is unreasonable to theorize that humans to varying degrees are pansexual, or tend to be diverse and not fit a handful of categories.

It is simply not true. I am a gay man. As for bisexual men, they are oppressed for their desires for men and that only. Society does not oppress bisexuals for not being either heterosexual or homosexual, it oppresses them for being attracted to the same sex.So you are saying that bi-phobia doesn't exist? Are bisexual men just pretending to face discrimination in both the gay and heterosexual communities?

Our society does "construct" heterosexuality, but as the only traditionally accepted sexual orientation.Is it not possible that exclusive homosexuality is simply a reverse construct that attracts people who are oppressed by elements in the hetero-normative community.

I don't doubt there are exclusively heterosexual people, as I am exclusively homosexual. Believe me, if I could make myself attracted to women, I would with all my heart. It might be the influence of homophobia in our society, or my desire to be normal and gain the freedom that comes with such a status.I am hetero in my relationship history, but I feel no need to brand the 100% label, and I am suspicious of anyone that seems to prove themselves to some exclusive category. I am no purist; if my brain and hormonal systems put me at 80 or 90% hetero, that is just fine. I have no need to wash my hands of connections to others, or put a border around my sexuality. I have no doubt that sexual repression has inhibited my development and I don't believe we can judge natural human sexuality in a society wrought with repressive ideals.

We're not even talking about sexual behavior, but attraction. Attraction involves no physical contact. A lesbian can become a nun and shut herself away in the name of holy virginity, having never become intimate with a woman, but she will still be a lesbian.For that matter, a pansexual woman who is primarily interested in other women, can do the same.

Revy

8th January 2010, 19:43

No, homosexuality is not a reverse construct caused by hetero-normativity. You have your assumptions, I have my experiences. I was raised as a heterosexual and truly believed myself to be attracted to girls (romantic attraction, though) until I hit puberty at 11, the only sexual attraction I ever felt in my life was for other males. This is in a climate where there was nobody my age that was willing to be openly gay either. Had I been stupid, I could have assumed that I was the only one. Gay people do not say they were born gay as some kind of argument for gay rights, they say it because it is true.

If you cannot feel attracted to a man at all, how else possibly can you NOT be exclusively heterosexual? Sexuality exists on a scale. There are the exclusives on either end, and the bisexuals and pansexuals inbetween.

Bisexuals suffer because of homophobia. I don't deny biphobia I merely stated that it takes the form of homophobia. An openly bisexual man who declares his love for men will be hated for his homosexuality. Just like how people of mixed race are not hated by white racists because they are mixed, but for not being white.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

8th January 2010, 20:00

The concept of contrasting Homosexuality with Heterosexuality, in a cultural (stereotypical sense), is a social construct, in that gay men clearly needn't all talk like Alan Carr or wear pink, but that the pro-Capitalist establishment has decided to blacken the name of homosexuality with insulting miscontructions.

However, taking heterosexuality on its own for a second, it is not something that is 'constructed'. Sex between a man and a woman clearly must take place for the survival of the human race, so to an extent I guess you could say that it is genetic in that it is part of our survival instinct, although it would be wrong to say that it is more natural for any one person to feel more heterosexual than homosexual, since, due to the hegemony of heterosexuality as a practice, it is unlikely that one persons homosexuality threatens the continuity of breeding and thus the human race.
In short, heterosexuality is not something that is directly genetic. Rather, by proxy, it is the prerogative of the human race as a collective body to breed in order to survive.

I guess this could then lead to a new question: if the only - indirectly - genetic link between humans and heterosexuality is the instinct to survive, as a species, then does one need to be heterosexual to breed?

Elect Marx

8th January 2010, 20:58

No, homosexuality is not a reverse construct caused by hetero-normativity. You have your assumptions, I have my experiences.

You are arguing against a point I am not making. I am saying that we have no reason to believe exclusive identities are the natural norm. You act is if I only know people in traditional heterosexual relationships; talk about an assumption.

I was raised as a heterosexual and truly believed myself to be attracted to girls (romantic attraction, though) until I hit puberty at 11, the only sexual attraction I ever felt in my life was for other males. This is in a climate where there was nobody my age that was willing to be openly gay either. Had I been stupid, I could have assumed that I was the only one. Gay people do not say they were born gay as some kind of argument for gay rights, they say it because it is true.Did I deny homosexual attractions? Did I say the attraction was separate from the struggle for liberation? I think we are talking past one-another.

If you cannot feel attracted to a man at all, how else possibly can you NOT be exclusively heterosexual? Sexuality exists on a scale. There are the exclusives on either end, and the bisexuals and pansexuals inbetween.Did I somewhere deny the two ends of that spectrum? As I said before, I go by heterosexual, as I was raised to be (though I wouldn't claim the sexual norm in other senses).

Bisexuals suffer because of homophobia. I don't deny biphobia I merely stated that it takes the form of homophobia. An openly bisexual man who declares his love for men will be hated for his homosexuality. Just like how people of mixed race are not hated by white racists because they are mixed, but for not being white.Here is where we definitely seem to have some disagreement. It is quite common for those considered impure (race, gender, whatever) to feel unwelcome in multiple environments. Bi-phobia isn't just about the hetero-normative community not accepting homosexuality. I've heard people contradict your claims time and again, and yes, you are contradicting many people's life experience, even if it isn't mine.

counterblast

8th January 2010, 22:36

Aeval

8th January 2010, 22:43

Bisexuals suffer because of homophobia. I don't deny biphobia I merely stated that it takes the form of homophobia. An openly bisexual man who declares his love for men will be hated for his homosexuality. Just like how people of mixed race are not hated by white racists because they are mixed, but for not being white.

A bisexual may well face prejudice because people don't like the fact that they are attracted to members of the same sex (i.e. because of homophobia), but they can also face prejudice from people who think they're fine with the idea of people being gay, but that bisexuality doesn't exist, so they must actually be either homosexual but just 'pretending' to be straight or just confused (or 'trying to be cool' as one person so nicely put it), or they can face the presumption that because they are bi it means they will just fuck everyone or be unfaithful etc - it's not always homophobia, I've had gay people be incredibly horrible to me and other bi people I know, and I don't really think you could call that them being homophobic, 'cause, well, that doesn't make any sense. So I don't think it fair to say that bisexuals are only oppressed for being attracted to their own sex.

Nwoye

11th January 2010, 22:03

From Michel Foucault's "The History of Sexuality: Vol 1":

As defined by the ancient civil or canonical codes, sodomy was a category of forbidden acts; their perpetrator was nothing more than a juridicial subject of them. The nineteenth-century homosexual became a personage, a past, a case history, and a childhood, in addition to being a type of life, a life form, and a morphology, with an indiscreet anatomy and possibly a mysterious physiology. Nothing that went into his total composition was unaffected by his sexuality. It was everywhere present in him, at the root of all of his actions because it was their insidious and indefinitely active principle; written immodestly on his face and body because it was a secret that always gave itself away. It was consubstantial with him, less as a habitual sin than as a singular nature. We must not forget that the psychological, psychiatric, medical category of homosexuality was constituted from the moment it was characterized - Westphal's famous article of 1870 on "contrary sexual sensations" can stand as its date of birth - less by a type of sexual relations than by a certain quality of sexual sensibility, a certain way of inverting the masculine and the feminine in oneself. Homosexuality appeared as one of the forms of sexuality when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy into a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul. The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species. I think we should recognize that categories like homosexuality are functions of this historical period's discourse on sex (like gender), and that they serve to reinforce existing hetero-normality. The debate about it being natural/unnatural etc etc falls into this category as well, as it's an example of trying to justify behavior within existing moral structures; it's irrelevant whether it's natural or unnatural, it just is.* We should try to point out why these dichotomies are oppressive and why should transcend them completely, not argue within them.

I personally don't think that everyone's bisexual, but rather sexuality is never black and white nor perfectly rigid; people exist in a broad spectrum ranging from mostly attracted to same sex to mostly attracted to opposite sex and everything in between. I don't think anyone can say they never have been or could be attracted to someone of their sex (or opposite sex whatever the case may be).

*As someone pointed out the debate regarding homosexuality as a result of genetic is rather dangerous, as it imo justifies the view that homosexuality is some kind of defect or something to be frowned upon pitied.

Il Medico

11th January 2010, 22:16

I believe people's sexuality is what it is. Gay, Striaght, bi are all constructs that try to conform the absolute uniqueness of individual sexuality into predefined groups based on the gender binary. That said, as a queer, I know I didn't choose to be so, in fact I tried to resist it. Social conditions do effect the expression of sexuality, however, I believe that brith determines such.

The Ungovernable Farce

11th January 2010, 23:17

There is this absurd idea pushed by some that we are all bisexual. It is simply not true. I am a gay man. As for bisexual men, they are oppressed for their desires for men and that only. Society does not oppress bisexuals for not being either heterosexual or homosexual, it oppresses them for being attracted to the same sex.

As Aeval and Elect Marx say, "society" as an abstraction may be just homophobic and not biphobic, but that doesn't mean that gay and lesbian communities won't display biphobic behaviour. There are lesbians who say that AIDS wouldn't exist in the lesbian community if it wasn't for bi women. Stuff is complicated.

Actually the origin of "camp" homosexual culture is explicitly anti-capitalist.

Queer men of the 60s/70s began taking on a campy, flamboyant persona, to challenge the rigorous roles of masculinity and stereotypes of homosexuals of the era, that kept gay men closeted and women substandard.

There had long been a stereotype of the homosexual male as a "frail, sissy boy," and by manifesting a culture based on these stereotypes, the response was "Yeah, so? Your gender norms don't mean shit to us.".
But however honourable the culture's origin may be, I think you need to recognise that stuff gets recuperated. Camp may once have been a counterculture, but I think modern society is, if anything, more comfortable with camp homosexuals than "straight-acting" ones.

Yazman

21st January 2010, 12:41

Elect Marx

21st January 2010, 19:14

I don't understand why some people feel the need to "rage against" heterosexuality. The way some people talk it seems like they think that heterosexuality is a bad thing, or something that needs to be destroyed.

Issues of discrimination are not really my specialty when it comes to politics, so I would appreciate it if somebody could explain this to me.

I find it perfectly valid to question anyone that uncritically absorbs these prevalent social expectations (concerning sexuality and identity). Often there is the prejudicial danger of generalizing. Just as I could hold stereotypical views about what a homosexual person may be, someone may hold a stereotypical view of what a man is (the two are often connected actually). In this way, gender expectations aren't just about the oppressed or privileged as individuals, but are a set of standards that will define social relations if you let them. This same dynamic applies to various forms oppression and personal disenfranchisement.

Are you familiar with the term heteronormativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronormativity)?

cska

22nd January 2010, 02:39

What I feel is that just because we accept heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality as being natural and don't discriminate against them doesn't mean we should accept all sexuality. Take pedophilia. One can argue that that, too, is something that pedophiles can't help. Does that mean we should accept it as permissive behavior? Sexuality is a complicated issue, and you can't look at it in black and whites, wether a heteronormative viewpoint or an "anything goes" viewpoint. For example, I knew someone who would act bi-sexual. However, it was clear to me that he wasn't attracted to other males, and was only straight, but was, for lack of a better word, "perverted". I'm not arguing that there aren't bi-sexual people, but he certainly wasn't one of them, any more then I am. Now, I think that his behavior will create a bad rep for people whoa re truly bi-sexual or even simply gay. Any thoughts?

Yazman

22nd January 2010, 03:00

I find it perfectly valid to question anyone that uncritically absorbs these prevalent social expectations (concerning sexuality and identity). Often there is the prejudicial danger of generalizing. Just as I could hold stereotypical views about what a homosexual person may be, someone may hold a stereotypical view of what a man is (the two are often connected actually). In this way, gender expectations aren't just about the oppressed or privileged as individuals, but are a set of standards that will define social relations if you let them. This same dynamic applies to various forms oppression and personal disenfranchisement.

I'm still not sure why somebody's sexual preferences need to be abolished in order to satisfy an oppressed group. Unless thats a misinterpretation on my part. But I see a lot of posts in here that seem to indicate some sort of desire to see no more heterosexuality, or to have "exclusive" sexualities abolished (including homosexuality too). I don't really get it.

Are you familiar with the term heteronormativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronormativity)?

I am familiar with it. I'm not sure how useful such a term even is, particularly because I have no idea what sort of society the users of this term would like to see.

On another note I think human relations in a general sense will always be affected by heterosexuality given its requirement for the survival of our species.

Again, this area is my weak point in my political knowledge. SO take it easy on me :)

Elect Marx

22nd January 2010, 05:08

I'm still not sure why somebody's sexual preferences need to be abolished in order to satisfy an oppressed group. Unless thats a misinterpretation on my part.

I've never heard anyone propose abolishing heterosexuality.

But I see a lot of posts in here that seem to indicate some sort of desire to see no more heterosexuality, or to have "exclusive" sexualities abolished (including homosexuality too). I don't really get it.As I see it, many simply don't believe exclusive orientations would necessarily be prominent if heteronormativity was not socially programed into people. Whenever I see someone trying to prove themselves, I just have to wonder where their sexual insecurities come from. We have a vast culture of insecurity, and it plays off of something in human sexuality.

I am familiar with it. I'm not sure how useful such a term even is, particularly because I have no idea what sort of society the users of this term would like to see. Well, read up. The users of that term have a wide range of beliefs and models of human sexuality. Overall, I would say they call for being open and questioning, examining assigned identities and appreciating the diverse nature of human experience.

On another note I think human relations in a general sense will always be affected by heterosexuality given its requirement for the survival of our species.Heterosexuality is actually no longer required for human procreation. I am a bit surprised to see this from you, considering some of your views on technology and human progress.

Yazman

22nd January 2010, 05:25

Heterosexuality is actually no longer required for human procreation. I am a bit surprised to see this from you, considering some of your views on technology and human progress.

I mean in the biological sense. It is of course correct that technology allows creation of humans without sex even happening at all. Interestingly we can now create fetuses that have three parents, although this has only been done in test animals.

I don't necessarily agree that society should be dictated by sexuality though, and that wasn't really what I meant when I was saying that. Its more that I feel our society is the way it is in part because it has been a requirement for so long and that biologically it is part of who we are as a species.

My personal view is that sexuality should not play any role in how policy or society orients itself. Of course this isn't a practical view, as we are sexual beings ourselves.

Thanks for your posts though and for just giving straightup answers. Its much easier for me to learn that way.

Given that we are now at the point where the only thing we need to make a child is the DNA of any two (or even three!) humans, I don't think sexual orientation is something that should be shaping society, or that should even be a part of public life in general. So in this sense I oppose heteronormativity.

Elect Marx

22nd January 2010, 05:50

Interestingly we can now create fetuses that have three parents, although this has only been done in test animals.

Now that I would like to read about. Would you give me a good link?

I don't necessarily agree that society should be dictated by sexuality though, and that wasn't really what I meant when I was saying that. Its more that I feel our society is the way it is in part because it has been a requirement for so long and that biologically it is part of who we are as a species.

Yes and no regarding heterosexuality; homosexuality or anything between or around these poles can also be quite helpful in a group-evolutionary sense. Having diverse bonds within society is great in community building. Also, not every couple needs to have children regularly, as this would not be historically sustainable.

My personal view is that sexuality should not play any role in how policy or society orients itself. Of course this isn't a practical view, as we are sexual beings ourselves.

I can more-or-less agree, assuming I understand you right.

Thanks for your posts though and for just giving straightup answers. Its much easier for me to learn that way.

I'm happy to help.

Given that we are now at the point where the only thing we need to make a child is the DNA of any two (or even three!) humans, I don't think sexual orientation is something that should be shaping society, or that should even be a part of public life in general. So in this sense I oppose heteronormativity.

What do you mean by, "a part of public life?"

I think of heteronormativity much like religion (where much of it is rooted); it may have served a useful purpose at one point, but our social evolution needs to deactivate this meme.