Homosexuality, Bisexuality

[AGITprop]

So most of society has accepted the fact that homosexuals and bisexuals do not CHOOSE to be so but are born that way.

I was wondering what fellow comrades thought about the fact that this being "gay" could be the result of material interaction, a conditioning I guess. I'm sure that there are genetic factors but it seems to me that a certain social aspect is there as well.

Is there any research on this, because I haven't seen or heard of much research on homosexuality or the causes of it.

[Dean]

So most of society has accepted the fact that homosexuals and bisexuals do not CHOOSE to be so but are born that way.
That's a false dichotomy.


I was wondering what fellow comrades thought about the fact that this being "gay" could be the result of material interaction, a conditioning I guess. I'm sure that there are genetic factors but it seems to me that a certain social aspect is there as well.

Is there any research on this, because I haven't seen or heard of much research on homosexuality or the causes of it.
I think sexuality is dominantly a conditioned experience, but I can't cite any research. Researching conditioning very hard and usually relies on surveys, rather than more solid empirical data. Some purely biological factors are known to influence sexuality, though.

[TC]

I think, you have to consider it conceptually, what the catagory of 'homosexual' or 'heterosexual' really entails.

Sexual orientation is by definition, dominant sexual preference...and basic, impuslive desires to fulfill impulsive wants, like sex, hunger, sleep, etc, are not chosen percisely because they the underlying motivation of choices.

Its therefore impossible to conceptualize sexual orientation as a choice. To use a non-sexual example to illustrate this point, you might choose to eat one flavour of icecream over another, but its impossible for you to 'choose' to like the taste of one or another, either you find it enjoyable or you don't.


Now, whether or not the cause of sexual orientation is exclusively genetic (like say eyecolour), exclusively environmental (like say, language or religion), based in fetal or neo-natal development (like certain non-genetic developmental abnormalities), child hood development (like phobias), or a combination of all four (like height) or several (like skin colour) is an empirical question that has to be evaluated empirically.

I think its pretty obvious from twin studies that both exclusively environmental and single gene mutations can be ruled out (since the orientation of an identical twin is more predictive of the orientation of their twin sibling than for a fraternal twin, but its not 100% predictive.)

Its also possible though that there might be multiple causes for homosexuality, just as there are multiple causes for other statistically unusual human traits such as pale skin. Its concievable that some gay people posess a group of genes that so strongly predispose them to being gay that it can be said to directly cause it, while others posess other sets of genes or fewer of the same set that only weakly predispose them to being gay and certain developmental factors acted as contributing causes.

[Gitfiddle Jim]

Personally, I believe sexual preference comes from environmental aspects such as upbringing.

[Lector Malibu]

Homosexuality is a natural thing. It does not have to do with upbringing. If your homosexual , your going to be homosexual. It does not have to do with how you were raised , or anything like that. Also to say that it does have to do with upbringing is dangerous ground because it suggest that homosexuality is re-enforced by the way kids are raised. This could be interpreted by some, as grounds to suggest that homosexuality is a result of a flaw in the way parents raise their children.

[TC]

Personally, I believe sexual preference comes from environmental aspects such as upbringing.

Your 'personal belief' has absolutely no grounds. Just because you want to believe something is the case does not make it so. Back it up with some evidence (as all available evidence points to the contrary, gay people grow up in every type of environment as do straight people) or your position is just a superstition.

[The Intransigent Faction]

My knowledge of such studies has been relatively limited though I have taken a look at them occasionally.
I agree with an above statement though--the nature vs. nurture debate over homosexuality is a false dichotomy.
Choice or not, nobody has any place to be saying to homosexuals "You can't do that!"
I suppose there is legitimate reason for concern, though. With scientific advances in the field of genetics as they're going we risk seeing a "designer baby" market which could seek to "cure" homosexuality among other things. I mean if we meddle with genetics to get rid of serious physical impairments that are detrimental to quality of life then a case could be made for that..but this could easily be misused.
I suppose that's a bit of a digression. So getting back to the main point, I would say that it's important to remember that nature and nurture aren't necessarily exclusive. However, in either case (as stated above) we should not be in the business of pushing heterosexuality on homosexuals.

[jake williams]

TC's dead on.

Also, individuals' sexualties are not simple entities. They're composed of all kinds of elements and some of them are certainly defined by environment, and others seem to be the result of "natural" factors of some kind.

[anarchista feminista]

gay people grow up in every type of environment as do straight people) or your position is just a superstition.

Exactly. I personally have not read any research on the matter. But I can only assume that it is biological. Of course external factors can influence people, but it cannot change who they are. There could be a possibility that someone chooses their sexuality. What if a woman were attracted only to men, and say was raped, then decided she would swear off men? Or perhaps that could be something that triggers something deeper, and she already did like women?

I don't see why someone couldn't choose their sexuality for any number of reasons. Not to say that is always the case. I suppose though, there needs to be reason for that choice.

[Chom]

I can't understand how people (and surprisingly many from the left) are willing to accept so easily genetic determination of human life, just because some scientist says so and gives out a (biased) report on human nature. Science today has to justify itself in economical ways (I would say this is quite obvious, just by the single fact that for example universities are being privatised; many other examples, that being the simplest one). What the ultimate goals are, is quite more complex than the simple statement I just made (I believe).

So, when it comes to the homosexual/bisexual issue, I kind of dislike to say it, but I believe that Freud's study of the unconscious structures and sexual desires (OMG RUN, IT'S FREUD! DON'T WANT TO LISTEN LALALAAAAA! :rolleyes:), as I've read most of his sexual theory, is the best explanation to it (Freud's "Three essays on the theory of sexuality").

As TragicClown stated,


Sexual orientation is by definition, dominant sexual preference...and basic, impuslive desires to fulfill impulsive wants, like sex, hunger, sleep, etc,
where sexual orientation is...

not chosen percisely because they the underlying motivation of choices

I believe you got it the wrong way around; sex is a basic impulse, on which choice is constructed upon. So, sexual pleasure can manifest itself in many ways (homosexuality, bisexuality, perversions, fetichism, sado- and masochism, etc) depending on childhood experience. Since Freud states that humans differenciate from animals in that sexual behaviour is not fully determined by biological/genetical structures, but is more "liberal" (that sounded a bit pathetic, sorry) and is based upon learned experiences. Seriously, that book is a must-read for anyone that wants to investigate on this subject.

[meL_]

One stumbles across IT.

What is there to talk about ?

If someOne ask me if i am gay.. i say.. i dont go there.

That sounds very decent to me.

Gay is a non-existant problem.
IT is a feature of the brain that got too big.

Finished.

[Kami]

One stumbles across IT.

What is there to talk about ?

If someOne ask me if i am gay.. i say.. i dont go there.

That sounds very decent to me.

Gay is a non-existant problem.
IT is a feature of the brain that got too big.

Finished.


WTF? Are you suggesting that homosexuality either doesn't exist, or that it's a brain defect?
And no, it's not finished.

[Module]

I believe you got it the wrong way around; sex is a basic impulse, on which choice is constructed upon. So, sexual pleasure can manifest itself in many ways (homosexuality, bisexuality, perversions, fetichism, sado- and masochism, etc) depending on childhood experience. Since Freud states that humans differenciate from animals in that sexual behaviour is not fully determined by biological/genetical structures, but is more "liberal" (that sounded a bit pathetic, sorry) and is based upon learned experiences. Seriously, that book is a must-read for anyone that wants to investigate on this subject.
I'm going to have to disagree with that.
I'm sure if you ask most straight people they will say that they have been straight for as long as they can remember, including during their childhood.
Same as how a lot of homosexual people say that deep down they 'always knew they were gay'.
I agree that sexual pleasure can manifest itself in many ways, but I don't think that homosexuality, bisexuality belong in the same list as fetishism.
Homosexuality, bisexuality is more of a base attraction. Fetishism, I believe is something that is more likely be determined by childhood experience, but not basic sexual orientation.
I think fetishism isn't so much about attraction to someone or something else as it is about sex, as an act, or acts surrounding sex. You know what I mean.

[Chom]

I'm going to have to disagree with that.
I'm sure if you ask most straight people they will say that they have been straight for as long as they can remember, including during their childhood.
Same as how a lot of homosexual people say that deep down they 'always knew they were gay'.
I agree that sexual pleasure can manifest itself in many ways, but I don't think that homosexuality, bisexuality belong in the same list as fetishism.
Homosexuality, bisexuality is more of a base attraction. Fetishism, I believe is something that is more likely be determined by childhood experience, but not basic sexual orientation.
I think fetishism isn't so much about attraction to someone or something else as it is about sex, as an act, or acts surrounding sex. You know what I mean.

How can you remember anything from your shock when discovering the confusing world and having certain needs that are also confusing (as a child)? It's so complex you can't have any memory about how your impulses were directed. Bisexuality, Homosexuality, Fetishism, and so on, are basic perversions (that is, deviations from "normal" sexual developement), that occur when "learning" about relations among people. It's hard to explain all this in one post (or thread). Humans learn sex, (therefore it's an impulse); they're not biologically determined to accept it (as animals do; they have instincts, they have to have sex; it's inevitable). Speaking of attractions, I feel that I always, deep down, have been a communist; Is communism determined genetically? You could say the same about the colour yellow, for example.

[ifeelyou]

So most of society has accepted the fact that homosexuals and bisexuals do not CHOOSE to be so but are born that way.

I was wondering what fellow comrades thought about the fact that this being "gay" could be the result of material interaction, a conditioning I guess. I'm sure that there are genetic factors but it seems to me that a certain social aspect is there as well.

Is there any research on this, because I haven't seen or heard of much research on homosexuality or the causes of it.

there has been a ton of research done on this issue, in terms of heterosexuality, homosexuality, and everything in between and outside. the disciplines that have addressed it range from philosophy, anthropology, sociology, cultural studies, women studies, human sexuality studies, socio-biology, biology, psychoanalysis, evolutionary psychology, psychology, etc. etc.

for the last few decades the question of whether sexual orientation is something biological or learned has been debated, over and over. as a result, two important groups of thinkers and activists have formed: essentialists (those who believe sexual desires are inborn) and constructionists (those who believe we learn how to be and understand gay, straight, etc. through social interactions and experiences that are guided by any given culture).

essentialism (incorporative of biological determinism) as explanatory of sexuality, more or less, has been around for a long, long time, and it really wasnt until people like michel foucault and john gagnon analyzed sexual orientation from a historical perspective and using a symbolic interactionist framework, respectively, that it was challenged. foucault, in The History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge, argued that the creation of "sexual orientation" (i.e., "homosexual" and "heterosexual") can be dated back to the 19th century with the works of people like karl heinrich ulrichs (who, in 1864, developed the prototypal terms "urning" [males who desire men, explained as a third sex] and "dioning" [males who are attracted to women]), havelock ellis (a sexologist who wrote Sexual Inversion in 1897), karl-maria kertbeny (who coined the term "homosexual" in 1869), and richard von krafft-ebing (who published Psychopathia Sexualis in 1886, exploring "deviant" and "perverse" forms of sexuality). along with others, these writers, having various goals, contributed to comprehending certain sexual practices as belonging to "distinct" and particular "kinds of people" with innate, and unchangeable, yearnings--like "the homosexual": an essentialized being who was for some, including for most if not all of the aforementioned authors of the 1800s, in need of defending and emancipation. this would become the objective for modern day gay liberation. in another sense, such as for religion, he or she was another "species" and a "menace" needing to be regulated for the "good" of society. consequently, "the heterosexual"--defined as "the norm"--came into existence along with all of its accompanying privileges and benefits. take a look at The Invention of Heterosexuality by jonathan ned katz.

foucault and gagnon opened up new and radical ways of looking at sexuality which eventually, in part, led to the development of queer theory and 3rd wave feminism. many from both groups favor constructionist views of both homosexuality and heterosexuality, in contrast to more traditional gay liberation theorists and heterosexuals who favor essentialist discourses. importantly, scholars like judith butler, in Gender Trouble, argue that the question of "are we born with certain sexual desires or do we learn them?" presupposes a false binary (as others here have already mentioned). untrue because it is probably both.

perhaps its good to keep in mind that the idea of sexuality as being socially and culturally constructed (intended by many feminists and both LGBT and queer theorists to critique deterministic, reductive, or essentialist arguments) differs from supposing homosexuality, or "being 'gay'," is a formation because of "conditioning" due to "material interactions" and relations. the former assumes that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are historical and socio-cultural constructs and, as a result, neither have a "natural" privilege; the latter assumes homosexuality is a product of capitalist society and culture and has been the justification for discrimination against homosexuals even by the most "radical" communist activists and thinkers who claim heterosexuality is "natural" and thus privileged. in a letter to marx dated june 22, 1869, engels described homosexuality as "extremely against nature" (see Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Marx and Engels Collected Works 1867-70) and dismissed it as a real issue.

turning to disciplines like anthropology, social scientists stephen murray and gilbert herdt, to just name a couple, have done numerous ethnographic/empirical and historical studies of sexuality and sexual practices across different cultures that confront the traditional marxist assumption that homosexuality is a western byproduct of capitalism. such research contends that homosexuality, in some form or another, has existed throughout history, in both pre-capitalist and capitalist times, and is found in MANY, if not all, non-western and non-capitalist societies. for some examples, take a look at The Sambia: Ritual, Sexuality, and Change in Papua New Guinea (Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology), Homosexualities (Worlds of Desire: The Chicago Series on Sexuality, Gender, and Culture), and Boy-Wives and Female Husbands: Studies of African Homosexualities.

furthermore, constructionist accounts have been used to problematize certain kinds of biological determinism that have defined homosexuality, in various ways, as a "natural defect" (for example, see above to the person meL_'s description of "gay" as "a feature of the brain that got too big")--which obviously contributes to homosexual degradation.

in short, and clearly, the question of whether we are born with certain sexual desires or are they learned (whether they be hetero, homo, bi, etc.) is very complicated and far from being answered definitively. like judith butler, i tend to think that its probably both biological and socio-culturally constructed, with neither one being totally deterministic.

[Plagueround]

One stumbles across IT.

What is there to talk about ?

If someOne ask me if i am gay.. i say.. i dont go there.

That sounds very decent to me.

Gay is a non-existant problem.
IT is a feature of the brain that got too big.

Finished.

You ramble about humans having a "brain that got too big" and list homosexuality as one of the brain's features...which completely discounts the numerous examples of homosexual animals. While I don't believe we are completely tied to the concept of "human nature", homosexuality is not exclusive to humans and cannot be a mere product of our brain's advancement.

[ifeelyou]

One stumbles across IT.

What is there to talk about ?

If someOne ask me if i am gay.. i say.. i dont go there.

That sounds very decent to me.

Gay is a non-existant problem.
IT is a feature of the brain that got too big.

Finished.

you have got to be kidding me. a "non-existent problem"? is that why gays and lesbians have been discriminated against so much in history, by so many kinds of people, ranging from the most conservative to the most "radical," including marx and engels?

[Module]

How can you remember anything from your shock when discovering the confusing world and having certain needs that are also confusing (as a child)? It's so complex you can't have any memory about how your impulses were directed. Bisexuality, Homosexuality, Fetishism, and so on, are basic perversions (that is, deviations from "normal" sexual developement), that occur when "learning" about relations among people. It's hard to explain all this in one post (or thread). Humans learn sex, (therefore it's an impulse); they're not biologically determined to accept it (as animals do; they have instincts, they have to have sex; it's inevitable). Speaking of attractions, I feel that I always, deep down, have been a communist; Is communism determined genetically? You could say the same about the colour yellow, for example.
People can remember plenty about their childhood. They can remember the first crush they ever had, in primary school, they can also remember how happy they were, and what, in their memories, they associated with such happiness, for example.

If sexuality is learnt, then why can't people un-learn it? There are people that try really hard, pay a lot of money for psychiatrists to turn them straight - and it simply doesn't work.
And human beings do have instincts, we can just choose to ignore them.
It is possible that genetic predispositions to communism exist, though again, I don't think that's such a good example. Human beings are taught as children that it's good to share, and so on, and it's likely that these childhood, socially decent values contradict our economic environment.
However, it would also be just as valid a point to say that human beings are naturally social animals, and looking out for other members of your community has been an advantage for our species, in terms of natural selection, which can cause this predisposition.

Lots of italics used in this post. :p

[chimx]

Your 'personal belief' has absolutely no grounds. Just because you want to believe something is the case does not make it so. Back it up with some evidence (as all available evidence points to the contrary, gay people grow up in every type of environment as do straight people) or your position is just a superstition.

I have never seen any biological evidence that suggests bisexuality is biologically determined actually. There are many things to point for it for homosexuality and heterosexuality, but from all the studies I heard of, none have found anything to suggest that bisexuality is "not a choice".

And of course environment plays a significant factor. If it didn't, you wouldn't hear about gay men and women "coming out" after a life of engaging in heterosexual sexual activity. Nor would you probably hear about men and women that "experiment" for a time, and then settle down with a certain gender. And of course, look at the gay men and women who have been "turned straight" by Jesus... XD

[ifeelyou]

I have never seen any biological evidence that suggests bisexuality is biologically determined actually. There are many things to point for it for homosexuality and heterosexuality, but from all the studies I heard of, none have found anything to suggest that bisexuality is "not a choice".

And of course environment plays a significant factor. If it didn't, you wouldn't hear about gay men and women "coming out" after a life of engaging in heterosexual sexual activity. Nor would you probably hear about men and women that "experiment" for a time, and then settle down with a certain gender. And of course, look at the gay men and women who have been "turned straight" by Jesus... XD

the fact that we think biology organizes sexuality into the categories of either homosexual and heterosexual is both historically and culturally contingent. at certain times in history, and within certain societies and cultures, bisexuality was the norm.

the hetero-homo binary may seem totally natural to us because it us all around us, we are born into it; it is, maybe, all we know. thus, any other system of sexual classification may seem absolutely foreign and impossible. but, the homo-hetero binary, no matter how strange it may sound, is not a biological universal.

take a look at michael rocke's book Forbidden Friendships: Homosexuality and Male Culture in Renaissance Florence (Studies in the History of Sexuality)

here is a brief abstract, that mentions rocke's study, written by randolph trumbach for a lecture he gave as part of The UCLA Center for Society and Genetics Third Annual Symposium called Gender and Genomics: Sex, Science and Society held on january 30, 2005.

"Michael Rocke’s study of Renaissance Florence has established statistically that c. 1450 at least one western society was universally bisexual with sex between males organized by differences in age. The sex surveys of the 1990s in England, France and the United States establish the coexistence of homosexual minority under five percent and an overwhelming heterosexual majority. The transformation from one system to another began in northwestern Europe in the generation after 1700. It subsequently spread to central, eastern and southern Europe, reached Japan in the early twentieth century, and seems to be about to become worldwide. In Europe, the transformation first began among men and seems to have become central to women’s identities only in the twentieth century, especially after 1960.

Sexual interaction between homosexual men and the heterosexual majority has occurred throughout the last three centuries but sex with male adolescents became increasingly controversial in the twentieth century and sex with adult male heterosexuals probably declined markedly after 1960 due to the reorganization in women’s behavior. This has been accompanied by a marked decline in the age of puberty in the twentieth century. But there does not seem to be any easily identifiable biological reason for the transformation from a bisexual to a heterosexual/homosexual system, which began after 1700."

many scholars (the most obvious ones being alfred kinsey and sigmund freud)--which include socio-biologists and evolutionary psychologists (such as Daniel Fessler, professor of anthropology and evolutionary psychology at UCLA)--have argued that most people are actually bisexual. however, for social and cultural reasons it is very difficult for people to identify as such because often times they are pulled, by both heterosexuals and homosexuals, in one way or the other. the amount of times ive heard someone say, referring to someone being scrutinized for sexual behaviors, that "he [or she] is really a closeted homosexual" or "he [or she] is experimenting but is really straight" or "she [or he] doesnt really know what she wants yet" is unbelievable. our society simply doesnt make much room for bisexuality. too frequently we have to identify as either "gay" or "straight." i sometimes wonder how many of us americans would actually practice bisexuality if it was a more fundamental and accepted part of our everyday discourse. perhaps we are already doing so and just not saying anything.

[chimx]

the fact that we think biology organizes sexuality into the categories of either homosexual and heterosexual is both historically and culturally contingent.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Environment can and does effect human sexuality, and in the case of bisexuality (from what I have read, unless someone can point me to research otherwise) it is probably more reliant on environment than biology.

[ifeelyou]

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Environment can and does effect human sexuality, and in the case of bisexuality (from what I have read, unless someone can point me to research otherwise) it is probably more reliant on environment than biology.

reread my original post. i gave u the names of researchers and a book :) bisexuality, homosexuality, and heterosexuality are all affected by and, in terms of how we understand and interpret them, dependent on history, society, and culture. heterosexuality and homosexuality are not biological givens while bisexuality is simply a product of environment.

[Hyacinth]

I have to thank ifeelyou for the excellent summary of research (references included, something that one doesn`t find too frequently online).

That being said, though, the question that I have is: what does it matter what the cause of sexuality is?

This question seems to crop up every so often (often in the form of ‘is homosexuality a choice or not?’, the very question betrays the assumption that heterosexuality is the norm [in the normative sense] and homosexuality a deviation).

What difference does the origin of sexuality make? People, regardless of who they fuck, can be productive members of society. The only question that should, politically, matter to us is whether the sex is consensual or not, everything else seems entirely [politically and morally] irrelevant.

Of course, if the OP was purely interested in the question from a scientific or sociological stance, then no harm no foul.

[ifeelyou]

I have to thank ifeelyou for the excellent summary of research (references included, something that one doesn`t find too frequently online).

That being said, though, the question that I have is: what does it matter what the cause of sexuality is?

This question seems to crop up every so often (often in the form of ‘is homosexuality a choice or not?’, the very question betrays the assumption that heterosexuality is the norm [in the normative sense] and homosexuality a deviation).

What difference does the origin of sexuality make? People, regardless of who they fuck, can be productive members of society. The only question that should, politically, matter to us is whether the sex is consensual or not, everything else seems entirely [politically and morally] irrelevant.

Of course, if the OP was purely interested in the question from a scientific or sociological stance, then no harm no foul.

thanks, and u ask a good and very important question: "what does it matter what the cause of sexuality is?"

in a personal way, i sometimes ask myself the same question: what does it matter? i cant help but come up with the answer: it matters because its a question that has profound implications for countless individuals. the question of sexuality has contributed to the policing of people, which include not only homosexuals but also women, children, and people of color (i cant express to u how important michel foucault has been for this matter, read him :))

this question has obviously been asked for a long time now, and it has been from the get-go political. in part, through this question and by "answering" it, some people have tried to identify, monitor, and control others by using "sexuality" to define and label certain people as "deviant" and "doomed" (e.g, "the homosexual") and others "normal" and "healthy" (e.g. "the heterosexual"). foucault probably would have referred to such as part of the "deployment of sexuality" and "bio-politics" (terms he coined in the History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge).

my interest in researching the origins of sexuality isnt really about finding "The Answer" that will determine, once and for all, if sexual desires are congenital or not. its more about tracing out and understanding how certain discourses have been used and are used to police people. as an obvious example, look at how gays, lesbians, and transgendered people have been denied access to marriage and the social and economic benefits that heterosexuals enjoy and look at how homosexuals at numerous moments in history have faced massacres, from within nazi germany to right here in the US during the 1980s when regan ignored the aids epidemic. the marriage ban is and the extermination in WWII was dependent, in important ways, on understanding homosexuality as "unnatural" and "abnormal." being literate in the history of sexuality, ideally, will help us recognize and resist such tactics of power that have been used in the past and which have not gone away.

on the other hand, the question of sexual origin seems restrictive and narrow. we should all be able to do what we want, so long as we aren't truly hurting anyone, right? well, this just isnt the case. the question of sexual origin matters to me because it matters to society and is being used to deny rights and freedom. sadly, in some ways, even if the question is answered, its seems homosexuals will be put in a predicament, unable to win. if its discovered that there is a traceable "gay" gene, which many LGBT people would like to see, just imagine how many people are going to abort pregnancies if they are carrying babies with a homosexual predisposition or will alter genetic make-up so that kids with heterosexual tendencies will be born. now imagine if its determined that homosexuality is a "choice," just think about how many people are going to, yet again, enforce psychological or some other kind of "change," which 20th century psychiatrists attempted and which religious institutions still shoot for. as such, i cant simply ignore the question.

these discourses, these ways of understanding and speaking about sexuality, must be interrogated (in whatever form they come in, whether it be religious, "scientific," etc.) and the politics they are created by and the power they are invested with must be laid bare and exposed.

[Hyacinth]

thanks, and u ask a good and very important question: "what does it matter what the cause of sexuality is?"

from a personal point of view, i ask myself the same question: what does it matter? i often come up with the answer: it matters in some ways and in others, not so much. its of major importance because this question and its "answers" have contributed to the policing of people and not only homosexuals, also women, children, and people of color (i cant express to u how important michel foucault has been for this matter, read him :))

this question has obviously been addressed for centuries now, and, it has been from the get go political. in part, through this question and by "answering" it, some people have tried to identify, monitor, and control others by using "sexuality" to define and label certain people as "deviant" (e.g, "the homosexual") and others "normal" and "healthy" (e.g. "the heterosexual"). in the History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge, foucault called such the "deployment of sexuality" and "bio-politics."

my interest in researching the origins of sexuality isnt really about finding "The Answer" that will determine, once and for all, if sexual desires are congenital or not. its more about tracing out and understanding how certain discourses have been used and are still used to police people (as an obvious example, look at how gays, lesbians, and transgendered people have been denied access to marriage and the social and economic benefits that heterosexuals enjoy and look at how homosexuals at numerous moments in history have faced massacres, from within nazi germany to right here in the US during the 1980s when regan ignored the aids epidemic). being literate in the history of sexuality, ideally, will help us resist tactics of power that have been used in the past and are still being used today.

on the other hand, the question of sexual origin seems restrictive and narrow. we should all be able to do what we want, so long as we aren't truly hurting anyone. but, this is just not the case. the question of sexual origin matters to me because it matters to society and is being used to deny people rights and freedom. for that reason, i cant simply ignore it. with all due respect, heterosexual privilege, like any naturalized privilege, should be challenged.
I think that is the best answer as to why the question matters that I have heard.

I suppose I was more venting my frustration that it is the case that sexuality, among the multitude of so many other things, is used as a means to control and oppress people. In the context of fighting this oppression it is obviously necessary to know why, and more importantly how, sexuality is constructed and employed in the power relations of society.

Foucault’s History of Sexuality has been on my reading list for some time now, it is just that the list is rather long and I, hence, haven’t gotten around to it yet.

[meL_]

"
that it's a brain defect
"
NOPE...dont mis-read me. Read 10 times.

i use the phrase "brain got too big"
THEN
"a feature of evolution"

I SHOULD TAKE BACK THE WORD "too"
in "too big".

Why do i say too big?
We have had 15,000 wars in 5,000 years
and THAT doesnt work...simple.

The brain that got *too big can NOW destroy the world.
SIMPLE.

You SEE that......dont You.

The brain that got ***too*** big CAN SURVIVE( Salvation )

Knowledge/pretzel-logic wont save us !!!!!

Only SEEing with ordinary functional senses will save US!!!!!!!!!

My words come out like an arrow.
My words are NOT truth.

The what-is is SEEN, not known...Dr. Bohm.
.

[meL_]

wild animals CANT have sex
for pleasure.

they fck like goats.

WE CAN have sex for pleasure.....the big brain feature allows for that

THIS is so simple.

there is nothing wrong with the gay/bi people.

[ifeelyou]

wild animals CANT have sex
for pleasure.

they fck like goats.

WE CAN have sex for pleasure.....the big brain feature allows for that

THIS is so simple.

there is nothing wrong with the gay/bi people.


what the hell are u talking about??????? lol

P.S. dolphins and other animals have sex for pleasure, not just humans.

P.P.S. many other types of species engage in homosexuality, not just humans.

[Kami]

meL_ is insane, isn't he?
15,000 wars in 5000 years? Firstly, you pulled that figure out of your arse. Secondly, what the fuck does that matter?


The brain that got *too big can NOW destroy the world.
SIMPLE.
Erm... you're making the mistake that brain size = intellect, aren't you? I didn't think anyone still thought that these days -.- simply put, you are wrong.


After that, you're just rambling.

[meL_]

"
simply put, you are wrong.

meL_ is insane, isn't he? ... YES
"
-- Kami
OK
Watch CNN to see the sane people.





AND

"
...other animals have sex for pleasure, not just humans.
...
"
-- ifeelyou
OK

i forgot about the "dog humping your leg stuff"


BUT

the other animals CAN'T( or i am wrong again )
build h-bombs
and destroy weather systems.

i am NOT saying we cant deal with the BIG BRAIN.
Some people like Carl Sagan can SEE !
... not many.

[meL_]

ALSO .. the big brain thinks *somebody is in there.

There is only movement of knowledge.

STILL, You are unique.
.

[Lector Malibu]

Epic Troll

[RedAnarchist]

meL_, is English your first language?

[Lector Malibu]

meL_, is English your first language?

I think she(I'm pretty sure meL is a woman) can understand English. Some of her post indicate a understanding of the language .

whatever the case may be it's killing me :lol:

[TC]

I have never seen any biological evidence that suggests bisexuality is biologically determined actually. There are many things to point for it for homosexuality and heterosexuality, but from all the studies I heard of, none have found anything to suggest that bisexuality is "not a choice".

Okay fair enough I agree I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that there exists a biologically distinct bisexual catagory; bisexuality might be a chosen social identification based on a socially created category.

There was a recent study referenced I think in the NYT that showed that self-identified bisexual men have arousal patterns matching either self-identified gay men or self-identified straight men but not both (whereas gay and straight men showed patterns clearly distinct from each other).

So maybe principle sexual preference is biological but choosing to follow second preference sexual interest is basically chosen (and probably environmentally influenced). This would explain both bisexuality and closeted christian gays with opposite sex spouses until they come out.


And of course environment plays a significant factor. If it didn't, you wouldn't hear about gay men and women "coming out" after a life of engaging in heterosexual sexual activity. Nor would you probably hear about men and women that "experiment" for a time, and then settle down with a certain gender. And of course, look at the gay men and women who have been "turned straight" by Jesus... XDThats relevant in terms of whether or not the active expression of sexuality is environmental (and a choice); it obviously is. That doesn't show anything about sexual desire as such.

[Kami]

Epic Troll
Worryingly, I don't think it is -.- Whatever it is, it's certainly epic fail.

[YeOldeCommuniste]

I'm really not too well-versed on this subject, for I've only done minimal research, but as a bisexual female myself, I can draw from my own personal experiences. I had the most normal upbringing, I was raised loosely Catholic in the modern equivalent of a 1950's-esque "perfect" family, in a wealthy town, and had no exposure whatsoever to homosexuality until at least adolescence. However, I do remember, as a young child, having innocent attractions towards people I saw on TV and in movies, and these attractions just happened to be towards people of both genders. Now as a 21 year old, I've had a few boyfriends and one girlfriend thus far. I've have had sexual relations with both genders, and have considered myself to have been in love with each of these significant others at different points in time. The love and attraction that I had for my girlfriend felt no different than the feelings I had for my boyfriends. I've tried to figure this out myself, and even through adolescence I tried to repress the same-sex attractions (to no avail). I know I didn't choose to be attracted to women out of my own free will, for if it was up to me, I'd have chosen to be solely attracted to men, just so I wouldn't stand out or be judged negatively, since I'm a shy person. But I am what I am, and I've realized after years of trying to change myself that I can't. Whether it is something that is innate or something that came out of my childhood experiences I really can't say (and don't think is really relevant anyways, as some others have said before), but my gut feeling is that I was born this way, since my experiences growing up were no different than those of my straight peers. In any case, I didn't wake up one day and decide "I think I want to be bisexual". :bored: In any case, I don't want to be discriminated against, and I don't think it matters if the cause of it is genetic or social.

[sonicbluetm]

It is neither social nor genetic. It's hormonal. Studies indicate that testosterone is treated as an invasive agent and attacked by some mothers' immunities and that's what causes homosexuality in males. I have no clue about females though and I suspect neither do scientists at the moment.

[Sharon den Adel]

As a gay female, I think I can weigh in on this debate.:)

I started to realise I liked females a lot more than males around the age of eleven or twelve, although that didn't concern me then, because I didn't fully realise I was 'different' - I thought every girl my age liked other girls.
I did, however, realise very soon that I was different when I started High School. I was never bothered by the fact that, while other girls were into boys, I was into girls. I never saw anything wrong with myself, and I still don't.
Fast foward four years of physical and verbal abuse, and I was a very unhappy individual - and highly confused as to why I would be singled out for attacks in the schoolyard simply for being me.

I can honestly say that I never chose my sexuality. Sexuality itself cannot be chosen, it is simply something that we are. As we grow older and more mature, we start to realise what our sexual identity is.
Those who claim that homosexuality is chosen need to think about what they are saying. If they are suggesting that homosexuality is chosen, wouldn't heterosexuality also be chosen? Would people claim they 'chose' to be heterosexual? How does one chose ones sexuality?

We know one thing for certain, and that is that sexual orientation is about attraction. Attraction is something that cannot be chosen. It is physically impossible to look at a person and choose to become attracted to them, for the reason being that attraction is out of our control.

I wish that people would consider what they are saying at times. If you think about it, you'll come to the conclusion that it is impossible for people to choose their sexuality. That much is obvious. Choosing to lead a homosexual lifestyle is a different issue entirely, because this is something which indeed involves choice, but this thread is not about lifestyle choice, rather, sexuality itself.

[Vanguardian]

So most of society has accepted the fact that homosexuals and bisexuals do not CHOOSE to be so but are born that way.

I was wondering what fellow comrades thought about the fact that this being "gay" could be the result of material interaction, a conditioning I guess. I'm sure that there are genetic factors but it seems to me that a certain social aspect is there as well.

Is there any research on this, because I haven't seen or heard of much research on homosexuality or the causes of it.

Greetings Comrade!

Sexuality is part of Man which is part of nature. Due to Eternal conflict between Entropy and Evolution, Man could be "programmed" to form of sexuality which is non-beneficial to continued existence of human species and to well-being of individual humanoid specimen.

If you feel your sexuality is dirty, and want to atone for sexual acts you committed, you should identify forces around you and within you which drives you towards immediate satisfaction of primitive desires.

To curb Entropy, you must deny these evil mind worms of rootless cosmopolitanism to get hold on you!

I have several comrades who have cured involuntary erection or homosexualism through Path to Socialist Enlightenment.

Yours truely
Davyd Martynovich Smertin
KGB Officer
First Librarian
RUSS-L

[RedAnarchist]

Greetings Comrade!

Sexuality is part of Man which is part of nature. Due to Eternal conflict between Entropy and Evolution, Man could be "programmed" to form of sexuality which is non-beneficial to continued existence of human species and to well-being of individual humanoid specimen.

If you feel your sexuality is dirty, and want to atone for sexual acts you committed, you should identify forces around you and within you which drives you towards immediate satisfaction of primitive desires.

To curb Entropy, you must deny these evil mind worms of rootless cosmopolitanism to get hold on you!

I have several comrades who have cured involuntary erection or homosexualism through Path to Socialist Enlightenment.

Yours truely
Davyd Martynovich Smertin
KGB Officer
First Librarian
RUSS-L

Can you explain that in language people can actually understand, because it seems homophobic to me.

[Vanguardian]

Can you explain that in language people can actually understand, because it seems homophobic to me.

It is in contradiction with Book of Marx that sexuality is biological.

Biology is inferior to force of Dialectal Materialism. Sexuality is a social construct.

Capitalism supports homosexualism and other non-reproductive sex because it wants people to degenerate down to level of ape, so that Man cease to think and only live to consume, eat, and fuck!

BOGOVICH will not persecute homosexualism. But He will not glorify that way. Neither will he glorify heterosexualism. Vanguard should be chaste.

But if you feel that your sexuality is making you feel bad as person, BOGOVICH will teach you how to defeat it.

Yours truely
Davyd Martynovich Smertin
KGB Officer
First Librarian
RUSS-L

[RedAnarchist]

Book of Marx? Is that your Bible?

[Vanguardian]

Book of Marx? Is that your Bible?

The Books of Marx are part of Dossier, which BOGOVICH is summarising. Dossier will be Scripture of Future Glorious Soviet Motherland. All other scripture will be purged.

BOGOVICH has arrived to final and complete interpretation of what Communism truely is!

Yours truely
Davyd Martynovich Smertin
KGB Officer
First Librarian
RUSS-L

[RedAnarchist]

This Bogovich (I'm not going to write his name in capitals, because thats what Christians do with their lords), is he a real person or just a figment of your imagination?

[Vanguardian]

This Bogovich (I'm not going to write his name in capitals, because thats what Christians do with their lords), is he a real person or just a figment of your imagination?

BOGOVICH is Supreme General Secretary. He is very real person.

Once he was ordinary Man, but then he started to take deep interest in ideology and history and philosophy of Socialism. During three years, he finally reached BREAKTHROUGH and saw TRUTH.

He is Lawful inheritor of Leadership over Glorious Soviet Motherland, because of virtue of ideology.

Yours truely
Davyd Martynovich Smertin
KGB Officer
First Librarian
RUSS-L

[eyedrop]

As a gay female, I think I can weigh in on this debate.:)

I started to realise I liked females a lot more than males around the age of eleven or twelve, although that didn't concern me then, because I didn't fully realise I was 'different' - I thought every girl my age liked other girls.
I did, however, realise very soon that I was different when I started High School. I was never bothered by the fact that, while other girls were into boys, I was into girls. I never saw anything wrong with myself, and I still don't.
Fast foward four years of physical and verbal abuse, and I was a very unhappy individual - and highly confused as to why I would be singled out for attacks in the schoolyard simply for being me. I hope you came trough it without your spirit completely zapped dry.


I can honestly say that I never chose my sexuality. Sexuality itself cannot be chosen, it is simply something that we are. As we grow older and more mature, we start to realise what our sexual identity is.
Those who claim that homosexuality is chosen need to think about what they are saying. If they are suggesting that homosexuality is chosen, wouldn't heterosexuality also be chosen? Would people claim they 'chose' to be heterosexual? How does one chose ones sexuality? As far as I remember noone argued that sexuality, but rather that society affects sexuality. That wouldn't mean that someone chooses to be straight or gay, but rather that their surroundings is also a factor who determines where their sexuality is headed. Well it would only matter to homophobics if heterosexuality was chosen. I envision a post-revolutionary society would gravitate towards a bisexual society, but I could be completely wrong.


We know one thing for certain, and that is that sexual orientation is about attraction. Attraction is something that cannot be chosen. The beauty ideal has changed has changed a lot through the times, and therefore what one is attracted to so one can say that the idea that your surroundings have a bit to play in what one sees as attractive. I've got no idea if that can be extended to such important (for a person) as what sex one is attracted to.

It is physically impossible to look at a person and choose to become attracted to them, for the reason being that attraction is out of our control. I totally agree with you that attraction is largely out of our control, but I'm not sure if society can condition persons and decide what they are attracted to.



I wish that people would consider what they are saying at times. If you think about it, you'll come to the conclusion that it is impossible for people to choose their sexuality. That much is obvious. Choosing to lead a homosexual lifestyle is a different issue entirely, because this is something which indeed involves choice, but this thread is not about lifestyle choice, rather, sexuality itself. Agreed that people don't choose their sexuality, but I'm holding my vote open for if society can be said to condition people to a sexuality. Not the sole reason but atleast a factor. The reason "males" like big boobs now are mostly because they have been told a hundred times by the media. This would actually lead to there being less heterosexuals in an open society. If it was just surroundings who decided we would kinda get a problem with explaining why todays homophobic surroundings haven't exterminated gayness though.

I don't really like the other solution that is it mostly genetic as that would lead to it being more "natural" to be heterosexual.

[ifeelyou]

Greetings Comrade!

Sexuality is part of Man which is part of nature. Due to Eternal conflict between Entropy and Evolution, Man could be "programmed" to form of sexuality which is non-beneficial to continued existence of human species and to well-being of individual humanoid specimen.

If you feel your sexuality is dirty, and want to atone for sexual acts you committed, you should identify forces around you and within you which drives you towards immediate satisfaction of primitive desires.

To curb Entropy, you must deny these evil mind worms of rootless cosmopolitanism to get hold on you!

I have several comrades who have cured involuntary erection or homosexualism through Path to Socialist Enlightenment.

Yours truely
Davyd Martynovich Smertin
KGB Officer
First Librarian
RUSS-L

REPOST:

there has been a ton of research done on this issue, in terms of heterosexuality, homosexuality, and everything in between and outside. the disciplines that have addressed it range from philosophy, anthropology, sociology, cultural studies, women studies, human sexuality studies, socio-biology, biology, psychoanalysis, evolutionary psychology, psychology, etc. etc.

for the last few decades the question of whether sexual orientation is something biological or learned has been debated, over and over. as a result, two important groups of thinkers and activists have formed: essentialists (those who believe sexual desires are inborn) and constructionists (those who believe we learn how to be and understand gay, straight, etc. through social interactions and experiences that are guided by any given culture).

essentialism (incorporative of biological determinism) as explanatory of sexuality, more or less, has been around for a long, long time, and it really wasnt until people like michel foucault and john gagnon analyzed sexual orientation from a historical perspective and using a symbolic interactionist framework, respectively, that it was challenged. foucault, in The History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge, argued that the creation of "sexual orientation" (i.e., "homosexual" and "heterosexual") can be dated back to the 19th century with the works of people like karl heinrich ulrichs (who, in 1864, developed the prototypal terms "urning" [males who desire men, explained as a third sex] and "dioning" [males who are attracted to women]), havelock ellis (a sexologist who wrote Sexual Inversion in 1897), karl-maria kertbeny (who coined the term "homosexual" in 1869), and richard von krafft-ebing (who published Psychopathia Sexualis in 1886, exploring "deviant" and "perverse" forms of sexuality). along with others, these writers, having various goals, contributed to comprehending certain sexual practices as belonging to "distinct" and particular "kinds of people" with innate, and unchangeable, yearnings--like "the homosexual": an essentialized being who was for some, including for most if not all of the aforementioned authors of the 1800s, in need of defending and emancipation. this would become the objective for modern day gay liberation. in another sense, such as for religion, he or she was another "species" and a "menace" needing to be regulated for the "good" of society. consequently, "the heterosexual"--defined as "the norm"--came into existence along with all of its accompanying privileges and benefits. take a look at The Invention of Heterosexuality by jonathan ned katz.

foucault and gagnon opened up new and radical ways of looking at sexuality which eventually, in part, led to the development of queer theory and 3rd wave feminism. many from both groups favor constructionist views of both homosexuality and heterosexuality, in contrast to more traditional gay liberation theorists and heterosexuals who favor essentialist discourses. importantly, scholars like judith butler, in Gender Trouble, argue that the question of "are we born with certain sexual desires or do we learn them?" presupposes a false binary (as others here have already mentioned). untrue because it is probably both.

perhaps its good to keep in mind that the idea of sexuality as being socially and culturally constructed (intended by many feminists and both LGBT and queer theorists to critique deterministic, reductive, or essentialist arguments) differs from supposing homosexuality, or "being 'gay'," is a formation because of "conditioning" due to "material interactions" and relations. the former assumes that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are historical and socio-cultural constructs and, as a result, neither have a "natural" privilege; the latter assumes homosexuality is a product of capitalist society and culture and has been the justification for discrimination against homosexuals even by the most "radical" communist activists and thinkers who claim heterosexuality is "natural" and thus privileged. in a letter to marx dated june 22, 1869, engels described homosexuality as "extremely against nature" (see Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Marx and Engels Collected Works 1867-70) and dismissed it as a real issue.

turning to disciplines like anthropology, social scientists stephen murray and gilbert herdt, to just name a couple, have done numerous ethnographic/empirical and historical studies of sexuality and sexual practices across different cultures that confront the traditional marxist assumption that homosexuality is a western byproduct of capitalism. such research contends that homosexuality, in some form or another, has existed throughout history, in both pre-capitalist and capitalist times, and is found in MANY, if not all, non-western and non-capitalist societies. for some examples, take a look at The Sambia: Ritual, Sexuality, and Change in Papua New Guinea (Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology), Homosexualities (Worlds of Desire: The Chicago Series on Sexuality, Gender, and Culture), and Boy-Wives and Female Husbands: Studies of African Homosexualities.

furthermore, constructionist accounts have been used to problematize certain kinds of biological determinism that have defined homosexuality, in various ways, as a "natural defect" (for example, see above to the person meL_'s description of "gay" as "a feature of the brain that got too big")--which obviously contributes to homosexual degradation.

in short, and clearly, the question of whether we are born with certain sexual desires or are they learned (whether they be hetero, homo, bi, etc.) is very complicated and far from being answered definitively. like judith butler, i tend to think that its probably both biological and socio-culturally constructed, with neither one being totally deterministic.

[ifeelyou]

Greetings Comrade!

Sexuality is part of Man which is part of nature. Due to Eternal conflict between Entropy and Evolution, Man could be "programmed" to form of sexuality which is non-beneficial to continued existence of human species and to well-being of individual humanoid specimen.

If you feel your sexuality is dirty, and want to atone for sexual acts you committed, you should identify forces around you and within you which drives you towards immediate satisfaction of primitive desires.

To curb Entropy, you must deny these evil mind worms of rootless cosmopolitanism to get hold on you!

I have several comrades who have cured involuntary erection or homosexualism through Path to Socialist Enlightenment.

Yours truely
Davyd Martynovich Smertin
KGB Officer
First Librarian
RUSS-L

so, is a sexuality that is "non-beneficial to continued existence of human species and to well-being of individual humanoid specimen" the result of "primitive desires" or "rootless cosmopolitanism"? the first suggests a lack of control over some primordial sexual impulses; the second implies influences of modern day society and culture. im a little confused. which is it?

before u start talking about things that u clearly dont know anything about at least try to come up with a coherent argument.

do u even know the definitions of the words ur using?

[Sharon den Adel]

I totally agree with you that attraction is largely out of our control, but I'm not sure if society can condition persons and decide what they are attracted to.

Agreed that people don't choose their sexuality, but I'm holding my vote open for if society can be said to condition people to a sexuality.

Hmm, do you mean, say, if someone is the victim of child abuse, they may be more likely to be homosexual? I've heard that arguement quite a few times, and don't believe it has basis. But I'm not sure if this is what you implying, so I'll wait for you to clarify.

I think society can possibly condition people to be attracted to something, but not to someone. I'd like to hear exactly how you believe it possible that society could condition people to feel certain attractions. Do you have a few examples?:)

[eyedrop]

Welcome to the forum btw. :)



Hmm, do you mean, say, if someone is the victim of child abuse, they may be more likely to be homosexual? I've heard that arguement quite a few times, and don't believe it has basis. But I'm not sure if this is what you implying, so I'll wait for you to clarify. What I meant was that I think that a society that constantly bombards it's members with the message that the opposite sex is attractive would make it's members more likely to find the opposite sex attractive and visa versa. With all the different sexual ideals throughout history I think it is at least a plausible hyphothesis that it could extend to sexes too. It is just unqualified guessing by me though. In a society which pushes the heterosexual ideal on it's inhabitants it will be more genuinly heterosexual people and vica versa, sounds plausible to me.



I think society can possibly condition people to be attracted to something, but not to someone. I'd like to hear exactly how you believe it possible that society could condition people to feel certain attractions. Do you have a few examples?:) I think many people find what todays fashion says is attractive to be genuinly attractive. Such as how most people now genuinly thinks tan skin (on "white" persons) to be more attractive than pale skin. Earlier in the days of feudalism it was as pale skin as possible that was considered attractive, the fun times where females carried sun-umbrellas with them:cool: I think those people also genuinly tought that pale skin was more attractive. So to me it seems as what society tells you is more attractive is generally found attractive. SoI would think it is a plausible possibility that since todays society tells you that the opposite sex is attractive more people are likely to genuinly find the opposite sex more attractive.

It doesn't explain why there have been gay people, trough the most repressive societies, very good though. So I'm open on the question, it doesn't matter that much except which arguements one should use against conservatives, if someone is gay because of conditioning of society, genes or a combination it doesn't really change anything. They are still gay through no choise.

And almost all women will respond positively when a skillful lover feeds them, the right way, homosexual fantasies when in an aroused state. I would think the same would hold for men (atleast when one get rid of the knee-jerk reaction that this especially male-homophobic produces) when in an aroused state.


Thanks for a good post ifeelyou

[Sharon den Adel]

Welcome to the forum btw. :)


Thank you.:)


What I meant was that I think that a society that constantly bombards it's members with the message that the opposite sex is attractive would make it's members more likely to find the opposite sex attractive and visa versa. With all the different sexual ideals throughout history I think it is at least a plausible hyphothesis that it could extend to sexes too. It is just unqualified guessing by me though. In a society which pushes the heterosexual ideal on it's inhabitants it will be more genuinly heterosexual people and vica versa, sounds plausible to me.

Hmm. Interesting theory. I agree that society does seem to give the impression that the opposite sex is attractive, but I think this is because society still believes that people should not attracted to members of the opposite sex, not the same.
Society considers heterosexuality to be 'normal' so therefore society is more likely to push heterosexuality on the masses.
What defines attraction, though? What is attraction? Are people attracted to other people because society has given them the impression that they should be attracted to certain people? Or is attraction simply the feeling of being drawn to someone, or something, because we think someone is good looking?

For a gay female, I know that society likes to tell us that the opposite sex is attractive, and while I can take note of this, I couldn't make myself feel attracted to men because society tells me men are attractive, or should be attractive to women.

I wonder, if it were found that homosexuality were genetic, would society change? Meaning, instead of telling us that the opposite sex is attractive, would society also tell us that the same sex is attractive, too? Or would society dismiss scientific evidence and continue pushing heterosexuality on us?

[Taevus]

I don't really see how homosexuality is detrimental to society, except that my fine genes won't be passed on to the next generation, save via a sperm bank! ;)



Oh and by the way Vanguardian, it's "yours truly", not "truely", I don't really care but, improving literacy isn't a bad thing.

[Dystisis]

This thread is getting better by the minute. Not long and we will have Westboro Church paying a visit I bet.

Anyways, somebody brought up a point about sexuality being equal to taste, in that it can not be controlled, it is something innate that makes you like or dislike a flavor/gender. My response was that while taste can not be chosen, it does change. Most children in some countries, for example, dislikes coffee. While later, perhaps as a result of social conditioning and influence, many grown-ups enjoy drinking coffee.

That being said, I haven't studied this and obviously gender and sexuality is not the same as taste.

[eyedrop]

What defines attraction, though? What is attraction? Are people attracted to other people because society has given them the impression that they should be attracted to certain people? Or is attraction simply the feeling of being drawn to someone, or something, because we think someone is good looking? Well what we consider good looking could be affected by what we are "conditioned" to feel looks good. On the other hand I remember reading studies which shows that babies likes certain kinds of faces more than others.


For a gay female, I know that society likes to tell us that the opposite sex is attractive, and while I can take note of this, I couldn't make myself feel attracted to men because society tells me men are attractive, or should be attractive to women. What one are attracted to is hardly a thing the councious mind decides. Why should you. It can also be noted that many females I've talked to, atleast says they are more sexually attracted to middleaged men with cash than without the cash.


I wonder, if it were found that homosexuality were genetic, would society change? Meaning, instead of telling us that the opposite sex is attractive, would society also tell us that the same sex is attractive, too? Or would society dismiss scientific evidence and continue pushing heterosexuality on us? Pretty much the same as now I would guess. The conservaties pushing heterosexuality as the "natural" thing and progressive people going for both.


Does anyone know where there is any research done on how people who later turn out homosexual after tens of years of marriage? If most of them say they have always been homosexual in their hearth or if they have become gay in the later years.

[Vanguardian]

so, is a sexuality that is "non-beneficial to continued existence of human species and to well-being of individual humanoid specimen" the result of "primitive desires" or "rootless cosmopolitanism"? the first suggests a lack of control over some primordial sexual impulses; the second implies influences of modern day society and culture. im a little confused. which is it?

before u start talking about things that u clearly dont know anything about at least try to come up with a coherent argument.

do u even know the definitions of the words ur using?

Nyet, here I will explain how it is.

First was urges.

Urges are basis, and basically conditioned reflexes remembering of Pavlov reflexes. When man see woman with no clothes for example, his sexual organ reacts, causing involuntary erection and embarassing situation.

When productive forces are released, more advanced philosophies are produced. These philosophies curb primitive sexual instincts and create more advanced form of social relationships, like progressive monogamous heterosexual family life.

When institutions are created to direct human behavior, we get progress.

When same institutions are destroyed, we get regression back to stage of monkey.

Marx shown that Capitalism destroys primordial social relationships, in order to adapt human being to new conditions of social order. After 1945-1968, we have entered Stage of Globalism, according to BOGOVICH most degenerate and evil stage of Capitalism.

In Globalism, all restraints and convenient illusions are sacrificed on altar of soulless nihilism, destroying all progressive forces in turn for immediate satisfaction of primitive desires.

Therefore, apeish instincts are released by rootless cosmopolitanism, and allowed to run amok.

Under Globalism, human beings themselves are turned into pornographic objects, and ordinary woman today dress in fashion which not even prostitute fifty years ago would wear.

That is not progress, that is regress!

Progress means we control sexual urges and tames them, not sexual urges controlling us!

Hope that settled issue.

Yours truely
Davyd Martynovich Smertin
KGB Officer
First Librarian
RUSS-L

[ifeelyou]

Nyet, here I will explain how it is.

First was urges.

Urges are basis, and basically conditioned reflexes remembering of Pavlov reflexes. When man see woman with no clothes for example, his sexual organ reacts, causing involuntary erection and embarassing situation.

When productive forces are released, more advanced philosophies are produced. These philosophies curb primitive sexual instincts and create more advanced form of social relationships, like progressive monogamous heterosexual family life.

When institutions are created to direct human behavior, we get progress.

When same institutions are destroyed, we get regression back to stage of monkey.

Marx shown that Capitalism destroys primordial social relationships, in order to adapt human being to new conditions of social order. After 1945-1968, we have entered Stage of Globalism, according to BOGOVICH most degenerate and evil stage of Capitalism.

In Globalism, all restraints and convenient illusions are sacrificed on altar of soulless nihilism, destroying all progressive forces in turn for immediate satisfaction of primitive desires.

Therefore, apeish instincts are released by rootless cosmopolitanism, and allowed to run amok.

Under Globalism, human beings themselves are turned into pornographic objects, and ordinary woman today dress in fashion which not even prostitute fifty years ago would wear.

That is not progress, that is regress!

Progress means we control sexual urges and tames them, not sexual urges controlling us!

Hope that settled issue.

Yours truely
Davyd Martynovich Smertin
KGB Officer
First Librarian
RUSS-L

u need to read more. research, in particular, michel foucault's ideas of biopolitics and biopower.

biopower refers to the regulatory practices and methods (in foucault's terms, "techniques" and "technologies") of modern institutions and states that are used to subjugate and control human bodies--for example, the policing and monitoring of sexualities. in The History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge, he outlined how biopower is absolutely necessary to the functioning of capitalism: "biopower was without question an indispensable element in the deployment of capitalism; the latter would not have been possible without the controlled insertion of bodies into the machinery of production and the adjustment of the phenomena of population to economic processes" (pp. 140-141).

so, if foucault is correct, which he seems to be, its IRONIC that u--someone who im guessing is "anti-capitalist"--would be arguing that "Progress means we control sexual urges and tames them" and "When institutions are created to direct human behavior, we get progress." A better argument might be "When institutions are created to direct human behavior," we get CAPITALISM.

in actuality, working on ur homophobia would be progress.

[Mariner's Revenge]

I don't really see how homosexuality is detrimental to society, except that my fine genes won't be passed on to the next generation, save via a sperm bank! ;)
Altruism my friend.

In many species, it has been shown that certain individuals will not have children to help raise (hence raising the fitness) of other relatives children. For example, lets say I have 10 siblings and they each have have 3 children expect me with none. If I don't have children and help raise all 30 of my nieces and nephews, their chances of survival will be raised and even though my genes will not get passed on, I am still promoting the genes of my father and mother.

Dying for your community works in the same way.

[Philosophical Materialist]

We shouldn't automatically assume that gay and lesbian people will automatically not have children. In times past, gay and lesbian couples have reached agreement to father and mother children.

Until the increasing social acceptability of homosexual relationships within the bourgeois state, it was common for homosexual men and women to go down the marriage and children route due to cultural pressure from society and family.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Altruism my friend.

In many species, it has been shown that certain individuals will not have children to help raise (hence raising the fitness) of other relatives children. For example, lets say I have 10 siblings and they each have have 3 children expect me with none. If I don't have children and help raise all 30 of my nieces and nephews, their chances of survival will be raised and even though my genes will not get passed on, I am still promoting the genes of my father and mother.

Dying for your community works in the same way.

A very good point.

Let's say there's a gay uncle to some children. He may have a single-sex partner and they are childless. In contemporary society, without the cost of bringing up children a childless couple can maintain a higher standard of living, leaving surplus to spend on the children of relatives if they so wish.

A gay sibling may invest resources (babysitting, money, goods) on the upbringing of their sibling's kids. These resources combined with the resources of the child's own parents can in some circumstances give the child an evolutionary advantage.

[Patchd]

I have several comrades who have cured involuntary erection or homosexualism through Path to Socialist Enlightenment.
I quite like having sex with males thank you, and if that contradicts your Socialism, then you can kiss my arse.

[notesinamargin]

Quite frankly, I hold to the theory that there are several causes, some at times all being present in one person. There has in fact been research concerning a biological factor in homosexuals, which they believe is carried in the Y chromsome. I'll come back to cite it later, sorry.

In many people it is purely urge and physical desire, as much of sexuality is in heterosexuals. Also, there are many homosexials (which is fairly all inclusive, since to be bisexual you must also be homosexual, and I very much doubt that the words are mutually exclusive), who are conditioned either by trauma or external social influence to the enjoyment of experience with people of the same sex 9much of sexuality is enviromental, and depends on how our brains reply to certain stimuli, we could say this is predetermined, since you don't choose to enjoy something, you can deny it, but you either do or don't, the action beyond that are irrelevant to my point).

There is yet another type , who is a mixture of this biological urge and a slanted perception of the opposite sex, or some other learned or observed motive that would cause them to be attracted to their own. Not everyone falls into a category perfectly I suppose, so don't be offended if you don't feel you fit in any of the "categories", they're purely for organizational purposes and I made them up as I went into writing this reply.

There may be many other motives, reasons, but this is what I've dug up over the yers. Hope my opinion/knowledge was of help.

[notesinamargin]

It is in contradiction with Book of Marx that sexuality is biological.

Biology is inferior to force of Dialectal Materialism. Sexuality is a social construct.

Capitalism supports homosexualism and other non-reproductive sex because it wants people to degenerate down to level of ape, so that Man cease to think and only live to consume, eat, and fuck!

BOGOVICH will not persecute homosexualism. But He will not glorify that way. Neither will he glorify heterosexualism. Vanguard should be chaste.

But if you feel that your sexuality is making you feel bad as person, BOGOVICH will teach you how to defeat it.

Yours truely
Davyd Martynovich Smertin
KGB Officer
First Librarian
RUSS-L

Oh I get it any sexuality that is not "productive" in "continuing" the human species, that's funny, I've heard about alot of straight people who can't reproduce, it's called infertility. I suppose they don't deserve a sex life either. Dude, you sound a bit offbeat, and bit cult like, it's almost religious the way you talk "Bogovich". I'm not completely sure "he" exists > . >

[YeOldeCommuniste]

I think Vanguardian is just trying to stir people up.:rolleyes: