I've come to accept that none of our commenters want to talk about what I want to talk about. This has been a serious blow to my ego. It's fortunate our commenters have interesting conversations among themselves, which keep me distracted from my own pain.
One of the most interesting discussions has been the one about whether homosexuality is innate. This isn't anything I was prepared to go into, but if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
I obviously think sexual orientation, itself, is innate, as does BobN. Quo, Debrah and TS seem to think otherwise - though they may only be talking about homosexual orientation, and may think heterosexuality is innate. Needless to say, they can all speak for themselves.
This is a subject fraught with political implications, and I think Debrah is right to question the bona fides of a lot of the research. On the other hand, I know that while I had to learn some things about sex, no one had to coach me into being attracted to men. On this, I am with Augustine, who noted long before our present debate that men, in particular, have an objective indicator of who they are sexually attracted to, and it is notoriously impervious to persuasion. (This may be different for women).
I think the discussion got off track with discussion of a media story (which I never saw) about some boys who were molested by their adoptive father; the boys (apparently) "became" gay. I'd like to know more about that, but I think it's wise to separate psychological traumas that may play themselves out in sexual behavior from sexual orientation, itself, which may (or may not) develop independent of environment.
So the question for everyone, gay or straight (or otherwise) is this: how did you learn your sexual orientation? Or did you simply recognize it? If you're heterosexual, do you think you could become homosexual?
Now, of course, I'm dying to see what other subject you all will want to talk about.
52 Comments for “Innate Debate”
posted by Grant on
I was thinking about this very subject yesterday, as I find myself thinking about it quite often. While I am not an expert in psychology or any other science, I am an expert on myself. I know without a shadow of doubt that my homosexuality is innate. I know, because when I first came to grips with it in my early 20s (I had attractions to the same gender long before then – but simply tried to bury such thoughts), I was appalled with myself, felt a deep sense of shame, and also believed that in order to survive, I would at the very least need to hide the fact. I spent the next 15 years trying to avoid any heterosexual relationships from admiring women while giving the appearance of being straight. I found moving to different cities every 5 years or so usually did the trick.
Finally, I decided I couldn’t put off my life and happiness any longer. So I came out to myself, then started quietly dating once I moved to a new city (my current one), found a loving partner, and began coming out to family and friends.
Throughout all of this, whenever confronted with someone asserting that homosexuality is a choice – I would be flabbergasted. Why, in God’s name, would anyone want to put themselves through that. Why would I “choose” to be gay, and then spend more than half my life hiding and avoiding the fact?
Thankfully, I was never molested, did not have overly domineering parents, not from a broken home – so all of the various causal “factors” I’ve heard over the years didn’t apply to my homosexuality. So I just don’t buy it.
At least in my case – I KNOW my sexuality is innate. I’m not 100% sure of many things in life – but on this subject, for myself at least, there is no doubt.
posted by Elizabeth on
I was in a phase starting at the end of middle school through to the end of high school where I was consciously attracted to girls, though I dated and had sexual encounters with boys exclusively (though I did try something with a girlfriend of mine once when I was drunk). Although I recognized my same sex attractions, I scoffed at the idea of “being gay”. I quite honestly would tell myself – “so what if you’re attracted to girls, that doesn’t mean you are gay.”
Clearly this was a period of intense internalized homophobia. I eventually got over it and came out as gay in college.
posted by Elizabeth on
To add to my above post – I don’t know how or why I am gay, but I do believe it is an innate and fundamental part of my being. Under duress, I could probably force myself back into the “straight lifestyle” like I did when I was a confused teenager (and like my dad did before coming out as gay when I was 10….), but would never do so willingly. All of the denying, hiding, and lying about my sexual orientation made me a bad and neurotic person, in my opinion.
posted by Lymis on
There are two related answers to the basic question. How did I learn my sexual orientation?
The reason there are two answers is that there is what was going on, and there is the point that I understood and could put a name to my experience.
I was the stereotypical “creative and artistic” child in a big Irish-Catholic Army family, born 6th of 7 kids in 1960. There is no question, looking back, that I was gay from the beginning. I always knew that I was different, and that for some reason I had to be a lot more careful than anyone around me seemed to need to be. Looking back, I never seemed to pick up on or understand the gender cues everyone else internalized. I was as happy playing with dolls as with guns or bows and arrows. I loved cooking, but also enjoyed Scouting. There’s home movies of me “putting on a ballet” in the back yard. And so on. I loved “The Wild Wild West” – but was very aware (at what, 4?) that I really, really liked the chaps and tailoring on the costumes, and was riveted by what they showed off.
It wasn’t until 7th grade that I learned the word for it. Puberty, of course, added explicitly sexual things to the mix, as far as fantasy went. For various reasons, including a Navy career, I never had sex with anyone until I was 27.
I was never molested. I had a pretty good relationship with my Dad. I had extremely solid male role models, in a wide mix from very authoritarian to very open and laid back. I also have a number of extended family members who are gay or lesbian. I never chose my orientation, except to the degree that I eventually chose to be open about it and to actively and happy pursue it.
posted by BobN on
I obviously think sexual orientation, itself, is innate, as does BobN.
Just to clarify, my point was that any discussion of the innateness of homosexual orientation must also be a discussion of the innateness of heterosexual orientation or bisexual orientation or, if recent studies are correct, asexual orientation.
I believe people are born, if not with an innate sexual orientation, with a strong predisposition to an orientation and that by early childhood, that orientation is set (keeping in mind that the wide range of bisexuality is also an orientation). I knew what I was drawn to by age four. I knew the word(s) society used to describe what I was by age five.
I think that there are gender differences in sexual orientation that sometimes make female sexuality appear more flexible, but I don’t think the fundamental understanding of innateness is any different.
posted by Debrah on
Just a drive-by post.
Thoroughly provocative topic.
Right now I have several things going at one time and will not comment at length the way this topic deserves; however, do keep it going.
To correct a wrong impression that David got off a story…….
…..the small boys who were adopted by Frank Lombard did not “become gay”. Who would know? They are too young and thankfully have been taken out of the home.
Reread this case for the details.
Quite telling that you have to hunt for coverage of this horrific crime perpetrated by a high official who worked at Duke University, but with the Lacrosse Hoax it was nonstop.
Poor Andy Towle and rickety Allan Gurganus were overdosing on those “white hetero boys” in the Spring of 2006.
But NO CRIME was ever committed. Just the lies of a drugged-up prostitute on the take.
Did Gurganus and the former bartender Towle ever apologize for their gross utterances?
(Crickets chirping)
Later on the real topic………
posted by William on
So often we hear this tiresome question: âAre people born gay (or straight) or is it a choice?â This is a false dichotomy. Obviously if people are born with their sexual orientation already programmed it canât be a choice. But that doesnât mean that if theyâre not born with it already programmed then it must be a choice. It quite clearly isnât. There are all sorts of things that we werenât born with, but which we certainly didnât choose, e.g. our native language.
Countless people, myself included, will be able to relate how, when they first became conscious of their erotic attraction to people of their own sex, they tried to ânip it in the budâ, and how they spent years in this fruitless endeavour. If sexual orientation were a choice, it wouldnât have been fruitless. Six years elapsed between my first realisation that I was gay and my first gay sexual experience. During that time all my erotic dreams were about other guys. I tried to ignore my dreams, my feelings, my attractions etc., waiting for my youthful âhomosexual phaseâ to burn itself out. It didnât.
I think that we probably ARE born with our sexual orientation already programmed. While the evidence for this certainly doesnât amount to proof, that is the conclusion to which it points. To borrow the words of Sherlock Holmes, âThe probability lies in that direction.â A particularly informative book on this subject is Cheryl Weillâs âNature’s Choice: What Science Reveals about the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientationâ (2008).
posted by John on
While an interesting subject, I don’t think it matters and may be unwise to pursue.
posted by TS on
Hey, I did say everything I could think of to say about the original topic. Uganda’s a very sad situation, important for us to be aware of, and to me a reminder that we don’t really seem to live in a very nice world.
So yes, I am gay. Admittedly, I don’t honestly like it as much as several other gay people do. But I accept it, hope it will make me a better or at least more interesting person, and don’t regard it as changeable. So why don’t I consider it innate? Because I consider the word innate to be meaningless. The theoretical concepts of 100% innate and 100% environmental both end in the same place, inanimacy. What makes life so unique is that it forces the two together, like a jet engine that pulls in air and ignites it.
I rationally think, like B.F. Skinner did, that life is just a well-disguised version the laws of physics playing themselves out. But I fiercely believe that I am a moral agent, making choices as a being that somehow has dignity. I have homosexual feelings and desires for some hopelessly complex reason to do with the way my nervous system is currently laid out, as influenced by my DNA and everything that has happened to me for my whole life. I choose to describe myself as gay and to date men because I think that to do so is a) not immoral and b) given the layout of my nervous system, hopefully going to turn out for the best for me.
Perhaps that’s not so different from essentialism. But I feel it’s important to assert that I’m perfectly capable of deciding not only whether I will date someone, but whether a feeling I have is worth indulging, without anything “innate” bubbling to the surface.
posted by Nathan on
I don’t think that sexual orientation is inborn, or that it is changeable at will. Biology surely has something to do with it, but the modern gay identityânot the same-sex attraction that has surely been with us for eonsâis not preordained by our genes. There’s too much going on in modern gay sexuality to suggest that it’s all determined in our genes. The various preferences for dominance or submissiveness, monogamy or un-connected sex, femininity or masculinity, and all the other aspects of gay expression could not be determined by genes or the pH level in the womb. Not any more than a preference for particular colors.
That is, biology plays a role, and may even a necessary one; but biology alone is not sufficient to determine sexuality.
***
I was attracted to women long before I was attracted to men, and tried to accentuate the heterosexual attraction before I finally accepted my dominant gay attraction. I never would have chosen to be gay, but that doesn’t mean that my sexuality was set on birth. I’m quite sure that my parents’ divorce, and subsequent estrangement from my father and idolization of my sisters, played a role in my eventual turn to homosexuality, though probably not a decisive role.
***
Consider the twin studies that indicate that particular characteristics tend to be associated with homosexuality, and that one twin’s gayness increases the likelihood that the other will be gay.
Doesn’t the very fact that identical twins don’t always turn out the same sexual orientation mean something? Doesn’t it very strongly suggest the obvious middle ground? That biology can have something, but not everything, to do with sexual orientation?
posted by Debrah on
“I don’t think it matters and may be unwise to pursue.”
*******************************
Nothing about sex is unwise to pursue.
Provided the discussion is somewhat cerebral and not tumbling toward a low-rent porno avenue, this topic makes the world go ’round.
Yet we humanoids spend most of our waking hours pretending otherwise.
posted by David Link on
I’m with Debrah on this one. This is a subject worth our time. Moreover, it’s not something we have the luxury of avoiding. TS reminds me that the whole thing came up during the discussion of the Uganda bill, which not only presupposes that sexual orientation is learned, but enshrines that opinion in law, with the full force of the state to back it up. I’d like nothing better than to be able to leave this one behind.
Are there any heterosexuals out there willing to testify? That, for me, is the most important part of this discussion, which BobN and I do seem to agree on. And rightly so, since we’re following in the well-established footsteps of Frank Kameny, who has said — loudly and proudly since the 1950s — that what’s good for the gay goose ought to be good for the straight gander. I don’t know any heterosexuals who believe they could become gay if they only found the right guy. Why do so many still insist on believing that our sexual orientation is different than theirs in this? It’s enough to make you weary.
posted by Debrah on
“So yes, I am gay. Admittedly, I don’t honestly like it as much as several other gay people do. But I accept it, hope it will make me a better or at least more interesting person, and don’t regard it as changeable. So why don’t I consider it innate? Because I consider the word innate to be meaningless. The theoretical concepts of 100% innate and 100% environmental both end in the same place, inanimacy. What makes life so unique is that it forces the two together, like a jet engine that pulls in air and ignites it.
I rationally think, like B.F. Skinner did, that life is just a well-disguised version the laws of physics playing themselves out. But I fiercely believe that I am a moral agent, making choices as a being that somehow has dignity. I have homosexual feelings and desires for some hopelessly complex reason to do with the way my nervous system is currently laid out, as influenced by my DNA and everything that has happened to me for my whole life. I choose to describe myself as gay and to date men because I think that to do so is a) not immoral and b) given the layout of my nervous system, hopefully going to turn out for the best for me.
Perhaps that’s not so different from essentialism. But I feel it’s important to assert that I’m perfectly capable of deciding not only whether I will date someone, but whether a feeling I have is worth indulging, without anything ‘innate’ bubbling to the surface.”
****************************************
This is outstanding.
And exactly how I believe things actually transpire for any interesting, thinking person.
That’s why those loud “activists” who basically have nothing going for them at all except the desire to scream “I’M GAY AND EVERYONE HAD BETTER STARE AT MY NAVEL!” are so tired and nauseating.
And they give “gay” a bad name.
I also found the HBO documentary Outrage thoroughly odious as well.
Imagine one’s life consisting of writing about what other people might be doing in their bedrooms and “outing” them.
Stumpy midgets like Michelangelo Signorile really need to get a life.
Do they have no imagination? Only to write about where the d!cks of other men might be at any moment?
You can say that people who are so-called “gay” and who get on with their lives and successful careers without public acknowledging it are harming other self-identified gays; however, it’s quite the opposite.
Men like David Geffen, Anderson Cooper, the late Roy Cohn, and yes, even the old and unattractive Ed Koch, do much more good than these sleazy little roaches whose livings are made from pointing fingers and sticking out their semen-laden tongues at their betters.
I find it endlessly more intriguing and exciting that a man gets on with a successful life and does not succumb to the present gay culture of dime store bubble gum swapping tabloid fare.
posted by Debrah on
I also think that there can sometimes be an attraction—emotional or intellectual—between a hetero woman and a gay man.
In many ways there’s a shared sensibility and a strong identification on certain levels.
That’s why I like the sentiments from “TS” so much.
Humans are extremely complex creatures and I believe it is possible to have physical attractions across self-identified lines of the sexual spectrum.
After all, the most bombastic sex always originates above the neck.
posted by BobN on
Doesn’t the very fact that identical twins don’t always turn out the same sexual orientation mean something?
The more significant analysis is the reverse one. The identical twin of a gay man is 50% likely to also be gay. The fraternal male twin, 25% likely. Both of those numbers are multiples of the background likelihood in the species. Something genetic is undoubtedly going on.
posted by BobN on
And they give “gay” a bad name.
Speaking of tiresome. Without gay activists, most of the posters on here would be heterosexually married and having some gay sex on the side, if at all. Just like our predecessors did.
If you don’t like the tactics or activities or personalities of the “gay activists”, go out and be a gay activist of the sort you would like, but don’t just dump on the ones you don’t like, because they’ve accomplished an awful lot in a relatively short time.
posted by Jorge on
This is a subject fraught with political implications
You know, back when I was a liberal I liked stuff like that. Oh well. Fortunately most gays are still liberals.
When did I first realize my sexual orientation? I was reading an article in my junior year of college: Dear Ann Landers, my friends say this BOY likes me but I don’t know. How do I know? And Ann Landers responds something like “If he starts smiling around you, gets all nervous and dumb, and he finds excuses to be around you, that means he likes you.” BAM! That hit me like a ton of bricks.
Denial is a powerful force and I still don’t like talking about the years before at all. Everything “sexual” passed, in my mind, for things that were atypical but perfectly within normal heterosexual thoughts, especially with all the researh and the jazz that sexual orientation isn’t two or so categories, it’s a continuum.
As for whether I think homosexuality is innate, if I were challenged on it I would say yes, because most people who challenge you do so based on factually faulty assumptions and are best challenged by using progressive values and the sciences. But I have always believed that homosexuality–and not necessarily heterosexuality–are designed and assigned directly by God. We are a special people, with a special witness. In this country, we are the observers and soldiers of the latest front of the American civil rights movment. To me it is quite an honor.
For gays in other countries who do not have that hope, being gay has an even more powerful meaning, for they are part of a people forgotten by history, known to perhaps no one but God. We will never know the value of their contribution to our history, for without *them,* God may not have decided to recognize gay people at all.
Anyway, to me homosexuality is something that can be assigned late in our lives, based on our lives and faith, and this can affect everything, even into the past, for God exists outside of time. It stands to reason that if a person can become gay because of who they are and their willingness to accept a purpose in life, then it is also possible for a gay person to wake up one day and be Not. Of course, we will never prove it.
Anyway, I’m gay and quite stuck there. God is completely uncompromising for me. Except that for some strange reason he doesn’t seem to want me to get married.
posted by Jimmy on
As both of my parents worked, childcare for me and my younger sister was lovingly provided by an aunt of mine until we became latchkey kids. It so happened that my aunt was a dance teacher and her studio was in the basement of her house. During much of my youth I found myself surrounded by all the accouterments of the dance world such as sequined top hats, tap shoes, tutus, fishnets, and feathered boas. I was very involved with the goings on of her studio for years. Someone might observe, “It’s no wonder,” but looking back, none of that had any bearing on my later realization that I was gay. I do think it was a stroke of incredibly good luck that I had such a milieu in which I could express a natural proclivity for music and performing that surely was innate. It has served me well over the years. Besides, like Roseanne Barr used to say, “If it wasn’t for gay men, fat chicks would have no one to dance with.”
With the onset of full blown puberty, and entering junior high school with a bunch of hormonal adolescents with the same condition, it became pretty clear to me what direction my young sexual self was pointing me in, and it wasn’t chicks. Not to say that the recognition came with no reservations. I had the same inner turmoil about it that many others experienced, and I probably didn’t get my gayness fully reconciled until college, which to me, seems about right. Kids today address their sexuality so much earlier than they did 25 years ago. I suppose that is a good thing. I always figured there was a time and a place for that sort of thing, and that time and place was college.
Coming to terms with my sexuality at the advent of the AIDS epidemic in the late ’80s was a trip. I remember a lot of hysteria fueled by prejudice and a lack of information. Every time I got a sore throat, I was sure I was going to die, and I wasn’t even sexually active. I knew I was gay though, and AIDS was THE GAY DISEASE. While still in college, I started getting symptoms of what would only be diagnosed years later as Crohn’s Disease, but at the time I was certain I was a goner due to some heavy petting I had earlier engaged in causing me to get infected. I got an all clear from a test, and then I got some education about which activities where most risky. It was AIDS that caused our community to come together, to a degree, because we were under siege. I was made to understand that I was a member of a community that could and would be demonized, stigmatized, and politicized. That meant that we had to become organized and mobilized in order to take part in a political process that directly affected us, and it still does today.
posted by William on
I’ve found it interesting reading through both the original post and the comments here. In ways I find it strange that this is considered a question given all we’ve learnt in the twentieth century, but even the variety of the experiences of gay people shows that it isn’t black and white.
I’d use a biological equivalent of the society pressure case for innateness, the “why would anyone bother being gay given the societal repercussions if they weren’t” argument. The biological argument is that given that we are all here as the latest in a line of successful parents back to the first sign of life, the imperative to meet some of the opposite sex and reproduce would surely be sure a strong and natural instinct that it could only be countered, going in the opposite direction, by something internal and biological.
It is a topic of interest, it is natural for people to wonder why they are different in this respect to most people, including (usually) their parents. Unlike John above, I don’t think we should fear whatever the answer is. We can be sure that whether it’s innate, it is almost certainly immutable. And as human beings in general, we shouldn’t fear to learn more about ourselves.
I don’t think that there is single cause for homosexuality, or homosexual feelings. From what I’ve read, there are a few things, such as genetics, or the level of testosterone in the mother’s womb, as well as other elements, that have a degree of explanatory power. I think the interplay between these various factors can have an affect in the differences in sexuality between gay people, possibly explaining the distinctions Nathan made above about preferences for dominance or submissiveness, femininity or masculinity, and also the existence of bisexuality.
Earlier this year, at the end of a night out, I was with a girl and straight boy. I said about someone else, “I think he’s more gay than me”. The boy said, “Isn’t it binary, you are or you aren’t?” The girl said that there were degrees, mentioning the Kinsey Scale. In ways, I think both statements are true. Something like 85% of people (I made that statistic up on the spot) are straight for all intents and purposes. So you are or aren’t somewhat gay. Within that there are degrees. If we acknowledge that, and that there isn’t just one possible biological cause, gay people should also be a little less dismissive of those who say they are bisexual.
posted by Thom on
From the time I was very young – maybe 5 or 6 – I was very attracted to men’s bodies. This was before I had any inkling of what ‘sex’ was about. I thought I was just ‘admiring’ something i really liked. When it came to teen dating, I never dated seriously, was never interested in sex or “going for home base,” and would get upset over a trio of feelings: I wasn’t successful at dating girls; I was jealous of the guys who were successful; but I was also confused as to why I really wasn’t interested in girls in the first place! I ended up marrying the one and only girl I ever had sex with, because she was a good friend – my best. I didn’t have strong sexual feelings about her – and i thought all the other str8 guys i knew were simply exaggerating and ‘playing the role’ when they would talk about their own sexual appetitites.
Little did i realize, it was ME that was ‘playing the role.’ 20 years later, I finally gave up fighting myself, came out, divorced, and am happily partnered homosexually.
My orientation was always there, though i denied it and fought it and did my damndest to explain it away. In the end, I was exhausted, and no straighter than the day I was born.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Is sexual orientation innate? Yes, I believe generally it is.
Is homosexual orientation innate? Yes, I think it generally is.
Are there exceptions? I’m sure there are. Some people claim to have “become” gay from molestation. I can understand how a traumatic event could cause someone to develop attractions or confusions or any manner of behaviors that did not exist prior to the trauma. In my experience, most homosexuals including myself and my partner, were never abused in our childhood. Surely that myth that homosexuals are mostly the product of molestation and indoctrination by older pedophiles and homosexuals has been effectively discredited by now…
Now some folks claim that people can switch after a bad relationship or divorce (or many). Seems far-fetched to me, but I suppose a person could become resentful of the opposite sex and seek out members of the same sex, but honestly, I just don’t see how a person develops a sexual attraction to a gender that did not attract them prior to this development, at least not in adulthood… Obviously, being bisexual with a preference one way or the other, could be a whole other matter.
As has been pointed out here, humans are extraordinarily complex creatures, and so to is our sexuality. Trying to pin this one down is, a bit like understanding the meaning of life. It seems so varied, so subjective.
I don’t know what causes homosexual orientation. I’ve often felt it is probably a combination of nature and environment in most people’s cases. Though I will say that I think environment tends to have more to do with how one identifies oneself, how deep the repression will go, perhaps to the point of nudging one toward or away from their natural predisposition. But I certainly don’t believe a little tweaking here and there would make the difference between gay Johnny and straight Johnny.
Frankly, I’m really not that concerned about its origin. Certainly not as much as I once was. I don’t believe there is a moral or immoral component to same-sex attraction or relations, I don’t believe it inherently has anything to do with the content of one’s character. It doesn’t determine how functional or dysfunctional a person will be. Though I should say that there are certainly effects from growing up with a strong sense of personal shame, being part of a persecuted minority, having to adapt to an underground society, developing a more permissive attitude about sex in general due to breaking down more conventional sexual taboos, etc. The point being, I certainly don’t believe it is something we should avoid or “correct”.
Is it important that we find out? I’d say it is, ultimately. Knowing where one comes from, why we are who we are and feel what we feel is probably important to all of us, perhaps to minorities most of all. Certainly, if it is proven to be innate it would give us a stronger argument in favor of equal protection of the laws.
But even if it can’t be reasonably proven that it is innate, does this have any bearing on the validity of our struggle for equality? I’ll answer that with two questions: does it in regards to religion, which is undeniably a choice? Does it or should it in the case of interracial cohabiting and marriage? Something that is also, clearly, a choice. I would strongly argue no, it doesn’t at all, and fortunately this has already been settled in regards to the law.
I suppose that is really all I have to say about it.
posted by Debrah on
“If you don’t like the tactics or activities or personalities of the ‘gay activists’, go out and be a gay activist of the sort you would like…..”
********************************
No, I won’t do that because I’m not gay.
But if I were gay, I’d be a gay man and a very controlling one.
Certainly not a “bottom”.
I’d do my thing and what I would do personally would not be made a part of my professional career.
Think about someone like Pete Williams. Not an exceptionally attractive man. So-so.
He did his own thing and has a relatively successful career in TV journalism. I was very surprised to learn that he was gay (after he was “outed” by the Micky midget) and admired him more for the way he’s chosen to handle his private life.
He has much more going on besides “being gay”.
I read a comment on another forum from someone who said Rosie O’Donnell “deserved a medal” for what she did on network television (“The View”).
This is such an odd mentality.
Rosie O’Donnell comes across like a two-ton truck driver and anything else she might do right is eclipsed by that fact.
posted by Debrah on
“Besides, like Roseanne Barr used to say, ‘ If it wasn’t for gay men, fat chicks would have no one to dance with.’ “
***************************************
I’ve been meaning to ask this question.
Why do so many gay men choose the ugliest or the most out-of-shape hetero women to befriend?
Is it just because those women are most often not coupled with anyone……
…….or that they are more comfortable to be around?
LIS!
posted by Debrah on
Nathan candidly questions (albeit rhetorically) amid a simply fantastic comment……
“Doesn’t it very strongly suggest the obvious middle ground? That biology can have something, but not everything, to do with sexual orientation?”
************************************************
Anyone who wishes to look at this topic objectively cannot say that sexual orientation is innate. That we are “born” a certain way.
Myriad factors go into the equation.
posted by jpeckjr on
I make a distinction between sexual orientation as a basic part of a person’s identity and sexual behavior as an expression of that identity. Orientation is primarily innate / genetic; behavior is primarily cultural / choice. I did not choose to be homosexual, but I certainly chose to behave homosexually. Even when I was a child, I found looking at other males more pleasurable than looking at females.
Over the years, I have asked heterosexual friends, especially those who are curious about “how I knew I was gay,” to tell me how they knew they were straight. To a person, they say, “I just always knew.” Culturally, then, the experience of coming out, of self-acceptance of one’s identity as a homosexual person, is a key difference between gay and straight people. Straight people don’t come out. They don’t have to because the culture is heterosexually oriented. Gay people who come out are aware, I think, they are making a counter-cultural decision that is consistent with their sense of their own identity.
posted by Debrah on
“But I have always believed that homosexuality–and not necessarily heterosexuality–are designed and assigned directly by God. We are a special people, with a special witness. In this country, we are the observers and soldiers of the latest front of the American civil rights movement.”
*****************************
Sorry to say it, but I find this ridiculous.
“……for some strange reason he (G/d) doesn’t seem to want me to get married.”
****************************
G/d has redeemed himself on that one.
posted by george on
my situation is one in which i was “straight” right through college and into my working years. those were the days of Stonewall, which made public the large population of gay people and all of the publicity surrounding it piqued my curiosity. I was working with a few men who were relatively “out” and I began to wonder just what gay meant, in general and for myself. I had been enticed in reading Penthouse Magazine when there’d be threesomes mentioned or pictured (two men). Finally, I ventured out and investigated fully my thoughts on the matter. My first two encounters with men sexually were not particularly good, and I swore off being gay. However, in the intervening years, I found myself continually seeking out gay porn and fantasizing about myself with other men. Clearly, there was an orientation in place. Innate? I don’t know – I wasn’t one of those who came out at 5 or 10 years of age. In fact, I only came out to myself at the age of 49 or 50. Yes, there is apparently a latency at play with our gay genes. I married, had children, divorced, married again, had another child, yet I recognize that I am definitely gay. I fantasize about men, I have been active with men, I no longer even look at the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue, which is only soft-core pornography. That was the test of a young boy’s testosterone when I was younger. Now I am aroused only by men.
Despite all the sexual activity I engaged in with women, I find that the most fulfilling sex I’ve ever had has been with men. No two lips have kissed me in the same way that a man kisses me. Was I born this way? It has to be true.
posted by Debrah on
“……I only came out to myself at the age of 49 or 50.”
**************************
This is astounding.
However, you still haven’t set the record for a “coming out” late bloomer.
I think Meredith Baxter who was in the news recently sets that record.
And I also think that women are more prone to this lateness phenomenon perhaps because so many are geared toward having children early on.
In talking with a few from the gay community, it seems there’s a kind of unspoken barrier between most gay men and lesbians. You guys don’t seem to be very interested in one another’s lives.
At a social gathering last week I was chatting with a lesbian couple. One originally from Ohio and the other from New Jersey. One resembled Ellen a bit, but both had light brown cropped hair and wore glasses.
It seems there’s much more variation among gay men regarding dress, attitudes, and dialogue than you find among many lesbians.
Those two women were not the least bit interested in getting “married” and wondered what all the fuss is continually about. They are and have been in a long-term relationship they fully expect to last for the rest of their lives and do not want the aggravation of the “marriage” agenda.
I also shared with them that the one thing that repulsed me so and was a real turn-off was the heavy-duty anal sex menu of gay men.
And they agreed!
LOL!
posted by Jimmy on
“Why do so many gay men choose the ugliest or the most out-of-shape hetero women to befriend?
Is it just because those women are most often not coupled with anyone….or that they are more comfortable to be around?”
-It may be both. It may also have something to do with compassion.
“But if I were gay, I’d be a gay man and a very controlling one.
Certainly not a “bottom”.
– If your G-spot were located a a couple of inches up your behind, Debrah, you would be whistling a different tune, that of a power bottom.
posted by Debrah on
“If your G-spot were located a couple of inches up your behind, Debrah, you would be whistling a different tune, that of a power bottom.”
************************************
Oh, Jimmy…….you know how I love it when you talk dirty.
But alas, there will never be enough time in the universe when I—male or female, hetero or gay—will ever be sexually aroused by the thought of anyone’s genitalia meeting up with the azz.
That G-spot would have to take its own carpet ride.
posted by Amicus on
Innate or not?
In 2009, it is irrelevant. Although, it helps enormously to don one viewpoint, to identify the core bigotry of the opposition, especially when they say such awful things like, “you already have equal civil rights, because you can get [nongay] married.”
Suppose everyone says, “I don’t know the answer”. What, then, is the rational course of action?
Well, you look around. You take testimony.
You find gay couples. They are no threat to society or to themselves, no threat worse than the rest we bear, willingly. They certainly don’t belong in St. Paul’s list of criminalities.
So you open your heart and make way.
Now, you can continue to have a faith-belief that they are a danger to themselves. But those are matters of conscience and clearly this harm is not, like, gambling, which is obviously destructive (although we allow more and more of that, even, these days, with the GOP voting enthusiastically for it, in some cases).
You can continue to have a faith-belief that society is going to crumble or a civil-concern of the same. But, there is nothing in scripture that lets one so easily sacrifice individuals for society, is there? To the contrary. The issues that face society are of a general nature (greed, sloth, quid-pro-quo desire, ignorance, lust, etc.). So, everyone should fight those, together, rather than use gays as a scapegoat to pretend that they are doing their level-best.
Of course, if you are blinded and committing the sin of pride in relation to your faith, you can fund make-believe public health research to convince yourself that homosexuals are Satan-like and more.
This evil never goes away. It’s like racism. It will never help to point out that denial of relationship recognition might be a causal factor. These are often people who think that marriage makes good parents, rather than the other way around. They are lost.
posted by David Link on
Thanks to everyone for some very thoughtful and personal posts. I deeply appreciate your posting them, and taking this site seriously.
posted by Quo on
William is correct to point out that the fact that something isn’t a choice doesn’t make it biologically innate.
It’s striking, however, how badly informed, how subjective, and how badly reasoned most of the comments this issue has attracted are.
posted by Quo on
Oh, and the 2008 publication of still another book arguing that sexual orientation is biologically determined, (Cheryl Weillâs âNature’s Choice: What Science Reveals about the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientationâ) really should be an embarrassment for the “born gay” crowd.
If science really had proven that sexual orientation was biologically determined, then all the books arguing that which were published before 2008 should have been quite enough (actually far more than enough).
posted by CPT_Doom on
I am firmly on the innate/organic side of this debate, not only because of my own experience (knew when I was 11, denied it until about 18, tried to change until age 30, came out at 33) but also because of my study of psychology and human biology in college.
It is not simply the studies specifically of sexual orientation that point to a biological/organic nature to all sexuality and gender identity, but studies of personality development as a whole. We know now that Skinner and the “blank slate” theories of human development are wrong – human beings are born with much, if not all, of their personalities formed. Have you ever met a parent who thought they created their child’s personality? All I ever hear from parents is how shocking it is to see children’s personalities express themselves so early and so strongly. Certainly severe abuse and neglect can warp a person’s personality – but such experiences warp all facets of the personality; the effects are not limited to specific areas like sexual/emotional attraction.
More importantly, the biological process of fetal development not only supports the development of bisexuality, homosexual and transgender people, it predicts such occurances. We all start as 8-cell bundles with specific genetic blueprints, but it takes a complicated interaction of genes, hormones, nutrients and other chemicals to complete the process of development into a human being. We know identical twins, even though they have the same basic genetic blueprint, do not share all the same characteristics – whether we’re talking about different handedness or something more striking like mirror twins (identical twins who are the mirror opposite of each other, including the location of internal organs). We also know that intersex people result when either the genetic blueprint or the chemical interactions driving development do not unfold as expected. Since all of us are 1/2 male and 1/2 female, we should not be surprised when some people turn out to be more of a mixture.
posted by Quo on
I took a look at Weill’s book at Amazon.com.
It seems to be a fairly serious attempt at reviewing the evidence on biological influences on sexual orientation. Amazon describes it as an “exciting book to educate and inspire readers from scientific and non-scientific backgrounds equally”, but with a price tag of $US 88.65, it’s hardly something average readers are likely to want to purchase.
Weill apparently wants to show that sexual orientation is 100% biological with no influence from the postnatal environment without even trying to review the evidence about the postnatal environment. The Amazon.com reviewer of her book asserts that “There is no credible scientific data showing postnatal parental, sibling, or societal influence as influencing sexual orientation”, but that is at best misleading. There are in fact plenty of studies suggesting that the postnatal environment may play some role, so Weill’s project is preposterous and unscholarly. Someone with her scientific background should know better than to attempt it; the fact that she doesn’t suggests an extremely strong bias.
posted by Quo on
CPT_Doom,
What on earth do you think the fact that you “knew” you were gay when you were eleven, and that you tried to change your orientation and failed, have to do with anything? They do not necessarily suggest your sexual orientation has a biological basis, since they’re equally compatible with it having been determined by post-natal factors.
“I couldn’t change, so I must have been born this way”, is one of the dumbest fallacies out there.
posted by Infovoyeur on
Dangerous to tie civil rights, protection, acceptance, etc. to whether something is innate therefore can’t be changed therefore not their fault. As if to “choose” orientation is not one’s right–leads to “slipperie sloap” of “if I get into power and I just don’t like your lifestyle you better change it, oh you can’t, well then that’s all right, but if you can…” Beware, you “left-handed color-blind snuff-takers” if I get into office…
posted by Jorge on
Sorry to say it, but I find this ridiculous.
Don’t feel bad. The feeling’s mutual, honey.
posted by Jorge on
What on earth do you think the fact that you “knew” you were gay when you were eleven, and that you tried to change your orientation and failed, have to do with anything? They do not necessarily suggest your sexual orientation has a biological basis, since they’re equally compatible with it having been determined by post-natal factors.
Or pre-natal factors. Wait, that’s considered being born with it, too. This is so confusing.
posted by BobN on
Quo,
My, but we’re cranky!
Science shows a biological component to the determination of sexual orientation. Of course, it doesn’t show a “biological determination”, but you knew the distinction when you built that straw man.
As for whining about the “subjective” comments, did you bother to read Link’s invitation to share our experiences? Perhaps you could tell us if you were born cranky or if life experiences made you get that way.
posted by William on
Quo, to clarify what I had said, I do think it is innate, in the “born like that” sense. I think some people could be born with the triggers only marginally towards gay, and having had a good heterosexual relationship that continued, never actually feel strongly gay enough to seek a homosexual relationship. I also think that if someone is bisexual, and only really act on that much later in life, after being married as some of the contributors here recount, I don’t think they were necessarily denying their sexuality. Or conversely, someone like Richard Cohen, who I watched on Rachel Maddow yesterday, who makes a lot of money on his own life story where he had been gay and is now married with a wife. I think that can genuinely work with some people who are on the margins, but not everyone is the same.
In my own case, I thought of myself as bisexual from when I eleven (which seems to be a common age), but there were hints before then. I had a fairly normal untraumatic life, and even apart from there having been no incident, I’ve read enough of people like Steven Pinker and Matt Ridley on evolutionary psychology and genetics to feel instinctively against the blank slate idea. I’ve only talked to others about being gay in the last year and a half. I think it’s more likely that it’ll be with a man when I settle down, but that doesn’t mean that I had been denying my sexuality by going out with a girl.
posted by CPT_Doom on
Well, Quo, I was trying to differentiate my own experience – in which my sexuality manifested itself at puberty, when I was 11, from those commenters who discussed coming to terms with their sexuality later in life. For what’s it worth, my parents knew when I was 5.
More importantly, my comment discussed the known biological processes that are part of human development as the foundation of my understanding of sexuality and gender identity as organic and biological. I could have added a long treatise on the various physical similarities between lesbians and straight men, as well as those between gay men and straight women, as further evidence of a prenatal foundation of sexual orientation, but I doubt you would be convinced.
I will pose this question, though, for those who think postnatal factors could have an impact – what other aspect of human behavior can be so thoroughly, specifically and completely altered by the external environment as is claimed can happen with sexual orientation? I cannot think of one example.
posted by Debrah on
TO “CPT_Doom”–
A few questions. No intricate details needed or requested.
Are you over or under the age of 40?
Did you choose the field of psychology as a career?
Thanks in advance.
posted by MC on
Ultimately, to decide that homosexuality is purely either innate or the product of ones psycho-social environment would be simultaneously infirm and imprecise. Infirmity in this decision comes from assumptions we as a society make about the condition of “innate”. What do we consider innate – our genetic make-up, or something more? We, like many animals are endowed with a few instincts: to love our parents, to suckle, to cry, et cetera, which facilitate our survival. What else can be innate? Children whose physical needs are met, but who are otherwise neglected demonstrate a mental and emotional lack of growth. Feral children cannot elide into our collective society. In the absence of enculturation, people do not develop standard (assuming that we can consider homosexuality standard) socio-emotional (e.g. sexual) cultural attitudes or behaviors. So, we cannot assume that the culture we grow up in does not affect us. Contrariwise, we cannot assume that biological influences do not play a role either: we have not identified a “gay gene”.
It is an important topic for discussion, and we as a society so inclined to have the answers, must decide ultimately what the causes of homosexuality are in order to make moral and ethical decisions about it.
Personally, I have always been gay. There was no choice for me. I did not instantaneously wake up one morning and decide to be gay. When I became sexually aware of myself and others, the awareness was homosexual. There are no “buzz-words” in my history that implicate causes of homosexuality: I have a good relationship with my father, no psychological trauma.
I have always felt that the “it’s a choice” argument is a weak one. My reasoning is this: if we consider sexual orientation a choice, then it must be a choice for everyone. Straight people must decide to be straight. Gay people must decide to be gay. This choice implies then two equal and opposite alternatives. I must like men and women equally. Straight people must like men and women equally. I cannot say that it was a choice for me, and I honestly don’t believe it was a choice for Mr. Warren.
posted by William on
With regard to Quoâs two points about Weillâs book:
(1) âIf science really had proven that sexual orientation was biologically determined, then all the books arguing that which were published before 2008 should have been quite enough (actually far more than enough).â
If that is a valid criticism, then it may be said equally of all the books arguing that homosexuality is the result of poor relationships with oneâs parents and that it can be changed to heterosexuality.
(2) Weill doesnât even try to âto review the evidence about the postnatal environment. ⦠There are in fact plenty of studies suggesting that the postnatal environment may play some role, so Weill’s project is preposterous and unscholarly.â
Weill says of data supporting the theory that sexual orientation can be learned after birth through interactions with oneâs social environment: âI would present such data if there were any, but there are no such data.â She says that the papers concerning social learning theory and sexual orientation are what she calls âopinion papersâ, and that âopinions are not dataâ.
posted by David in Houston on
I have no doubt that being gay is innate. There are so many current scientific studies that lean toward this conclusion. Brain scans that show that gay men have brains that resemble a straight woman. Hormones in the womb that occur more often with older women giving birth, resulting in boys more likely to be gay. Especially when she has already given birth to boys.
A few videos to back up the innate theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7aUlWjPZVw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOO1Y4OryWY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYEJpcAHz5k
I never really understood the ‘rape’ scenario. If a boy were raped by a man, I’d think the idea of being with another man would be repulsive. But what do I know. I’ve never been abused. I was raised by straight parents, surrounded by straight siblings and friends. Yet somehow my environment is suppose to make me gay. Not bloody likely.
posted by Quo on
William,
What are you trying to prove with point 1? The point of most of the books arguing that bad relationships with one’s parents help to cause homosexuality isn’t simply to make that case – it is to discuss the details, the specifics of exactly how and why. These are extremely complex issues, and it is reasonable that more than one book should be written about them.
With regard to point 2: Weillâs claim is propaganda (the fact that it is propaganda coming from a scientist doesn’t make it any less propaganda). Seymour Fisher in 1989 reviewed some 58 studies dealing with this issue, and found that they broadly supported the theory that having bad relationships with one’s father helps encourage the development of homosexuality.
I know the arguments of people who reject that conclusion – they say that gay men tend to have bad relationships with their fathers, that’s an effect rather than the cause of the homosexuality. I don’t accept such arguments. They are based on implausible assumptions and special pleading, and frankly are an embarrassment to the world of science. I’ve discussed this on my blog (you can reach it by clicking on my screen name.
posted by Quo on
David in Houston,
You may have no doubt that sexual orientation is innate, but that’s an extremely dubious theory; unthinking and uncritical acceptance of it has the potential to do great damage to the cause of gay rights.
Your reference to “Brain scans that show that gay men have brains that resemble a straight woman” seems to be confused. Some parts of gay men’s brains (the INAH3) have been found to be more similar to women’s brains on average (and only on average – it’s not an absolute rule) but their brains as a whole are like men’s brains, not those of women. It’s a little late in the day to be adhering to the “female brain in a male body” theory of male homosexuality.
posted by William on
Quo,
The point of most of the books presenting the evidence that biological, pre-natal factors mainly or wholly determine sexual orientation isnât simply to make that case â it is to discuss the details, the specifics of exactly how and why. Also, since research is ongoing, fresh evidence periodically comes to light. These are extremely complex issues, and it is reasonable that more than one book should be written about them.
When you say, âItâs a little late in the day to be adhering to the âfemale brain in a male bodyâ theory of male homosexualityâ, I entirely agree. But current theories of biological causation donât suggest postulate anything as simplistic as that. The evidence presented by Weill suggests that gay men are feminized in some respects, but hypermasculinized in others.
posted by Quo on
William,
You’re quite wrong. Weill’s book is aimed at a popular audience, and it appears to have only one real purpose: to convince the general public that gays are born that way. The details of the more recent research on biological influences on sexual orientation are there only for that reason.
It is a misconceived project, because the average reader’s mind would be numbed by all those details; the average reader would in any case not be willing to pay US$ 88.65 to read her book. That’s just as well, because it limits the effect her propaganda is likely to have.
I note your failure to respond to point 2, in my comment above.
posted by William on
Quo,
Weillâs book is indeed aimed at a popular audience, and I do not agree that âthe average readerâs mind would be numbed by all those detailsâ; on the contrary, the great merit of the book is that it has been written in such a way that the average reader of reasonable intelligence can follow the presentation of the evidence without his or her mind being numbed.
Iâm afraid that I canât comment on Seymour Fisherâs review of âsome 58 studies dealing with this issueâ, as I havenât read it and donât have access to it. However I regard the theory that homosexuality is caused by bad relations with oneâs parents â or, as you have several times put it in the past, that bad relations with oneâs parents may be, at least in some cases, a factor in the development of homosexuality â as a pseudo-scientific one, because it is incapable of either proof or disproof.
âA scientific theory is a high-risk affair; it asserts things that have a real chance of being contradicted by as yet undisclosed facts. Indeed, science conducts its business so as to encourage the discovery of precisely such disconfirming facts. A pseudoscience, by contrast, is never in danger of this embarrassment. Its propositions are so designed as to be immune to contradictory evidence, because every imaginable state of affairs can somehow be reconciled with them.â