hummer7979
Slut
Hi. Long time reader, first time poster here.
This has been on my mind for a bit and I wanted to get people's opinions.
Now, I know there are a countless number of threads about why people are gay or bi or transexual, etc. and from what I can tell, it comes down to a matter of "I can't tell, but I can't change, so who cares?" and for the most part, I agree. But, I think many of us, particularly those who aren't out, still think about it.
So I wanted to start a thread to discuss what I think is the most reasonable explanation. I won't claim this is scientific, but please hear me out.
Sociology, as opposed to psychology, claims the behavior is socially based rather than genetically or intrisically based - that our human-ness has more to do with the way we're raised than the fact that our brains work a certain way. The way that you can understand it is with this example:
Say there are two completely isolated islands, each with their own civilization. These civilizations are pretty primative and cannot communicate outside of their island. Call these islands A and B. Say civilization A speaks A-speak and civilization B speaks B-speak. Niether civilization knows anything about the other or their existance.
One day, a new child is born on island A and is raised in civilization A. What is the probability that this child will speak A-speak. 100%.
The next day, another child is born on island A, but is picked up that day by a tornado, but luckily lands unharmed on island B, where it is raised in civilization B. What is the probability it will speak B-speak. 100%
Now, what is the point of that story. Well the idea is that our very being, personality, etc, is very heavily defined by how we're raised. Change language to religion, average stress-from-work, values, and the story can be read the same.
But can sexuality be treated like this? The topic of sexuality brings up the idea of gender roles. Just to define: sex is physiology (male, female) while gender is social (masculine, feminine). I think most of us know that there are more than 2 sexes. In fact, some claim that there are really 5, ranging from true male to true female, with true intersexed in the middle. Then there are gender roles. Though I don't want to go into full detail on this particular post (and I will if someone wants to discuss), gender roles are completely socially created.
Ok ok. So what about being gay. Let's say, for sake of argument, that being gay is not genetic. However, it's also not something you can change.
Here is my hypothesis. In terms of relationships, "true love," soul mates, etc. we are NOT attracted to sex, but rather gender (the difference is genetic versus social). It is when we deeply associate a specific sex to that gender that we define it as an attraction to a specific sex. The reson I feel this way is that despite the fact that we feel attracted to the same sex, we do not feel attracted to someone solely because they are of the same sex. That is, some of us prefer more masculine or femenine partners. I also feel this way because I have "fallen in love" with women, but feel strange bridging that love to sex because it feels weird. That weirdness of course is that it goes against the deep association I've made of my preferred gender with the male sex.
And so from this definition, there is no homosexuality or heterosexuality. We all have the potential of being a full range of genders. Because gender is social, it is determined by how we are raised, though we have no control over that. This gender indentification causes us to be attracted to a certain other gender (the complementing half, if you will). And soon we associate that corresponding gender to a specific sex.
This is not the same, I think, as claiming that we are all bisexual, more like that we all start off as asexual. I don't think we necessarily start off being attracted to more than one sex, but that we are capable of associating gender roles to more than one sex. The split really happens when (and if) we have made the definite association between gender and sex. Therefore, if you are dead set that the type of, say, masculinity that you are attracted to can only be found in males, and you are a guy, then you would classify yourself as a homosexual. But a man who can see his desired gender in both men and women may classify himself as bisexual, or perhaps oftenly, heterosexual, when that association with men is never realized.
I think this also explains another effect - when sexual attraction toward a certain sex happen seperately from gender, where you get "straight men" who might completely enjoy sex with another man, but could never feel right being in an intimate relationship. Also, this explains how two men can be best of friends, complementing personalities, and perhaps perfect for an intimate relationship, but the early gender-to-sex association establishes a barrier.
So that's it.
I guess the biggest "problem" with this is that it's not the most politically friendly point of view.
I'm not a huge fan of scientists claiming that behavior is genetic. If you look at a lot of psychological studies, you'll find that, though the random sampling may be of people of diverse genetic make-up, they usually all come from similar cultures. For example, consider the conclusion that men have better spacialization skills than women, implying a genetic link with the sex gene, even though in western culture, boys are more often encouraged to join sports that would promote such skills. Psychology is very difficult to make emperical and the coolness and simplicity of genetic explanations make people forget that.
Homosexuals often like to push that their sexuality is genetic because it is irrefutably intrinsic. Saying that it's based on your upbringing implies that perhaps it was somebody's "fault." The problem is that this also tends to divide the non-heteros. Gays feel like bis are hurting their genetic and "can't-change" argument. And often both feel that transgendered people are just making them look like freaks.
I think the only way to solve this problem is to promote the idea that there isn't a gay or straight or bi, but that you are what you are at the moment, because what we're truely attracted to transcends physical sex, male or female. And when we can break that barrier, we'll realize that we have a lot more in common than we think.
Thoughts?
This has been on my mind for a bit and I wanted to get people's opinions.
Now, I know there are a countless number of threads about why people are gay or bi or transexual, etc. and from what I can tell, it comes down to a matter of "I can't tell, but I can't change, so who cares?" and for the most part, I agree. But, I think many of us, particularly those who aren't out, still think about it.
So I wanted to start a thread to discuss what I think is the most reasonable explanation. I won't claim this is scientific, but please hear me out.
Sociology, as opposed to psychology, claims the behavior is socially based rather than genetically or intrisically based - that our human-ness has more to do with the way we're raised than the fact that our brains work a certain way. The way that you can understand it is with this example:
Say there are two completely isolated islands, each with their own civilization. These civilizations are pretty primative and cannot communicate outside of their island. Call these islands A and B. Say civilization A speaks A-speak and civilization B speaks B-speak. Niether civilization knows anything about the other or their existance.
One day, a new child is born on island A and is raised in civilization A. What is the probability that this child will speak A-speak. 100%.
The next day, another child is born on island A, but is picked up that day by a tornado, but luckily lands unharmed on island B, where it is raised in civilization B. What is the probability it will speak B-speak. 100%
Now, what is the point of that story. Well the idea is that our very being, personality, etc, is very heavily defined by how we're raised. Change language to religion, average stress-from-work, values, and the story can be read the same.
But can sexuality be treated like this? The topic of sexuality brings up the idea of gender roles. Just to define: sex is physiology (male, female) while gender is social (masculine, feminine). I think most of us know that there are more than 2 sexes. In fact, some claim that there are really 5, ranging from true male to true female, with true intersexed in the middle. Then there are gender roles. Though I don't want to go into full detail on this particular post (and I will if someone wants to discuss), gender roles are completely socially created.
Ok ok. So what about being gay. Let's say, for sake of argument, that being gay is not genetic. However, it's also not something you can change.
Here is my hypothesis. In terms of relationships, "true love," soul mates, etc. we are NOT attracted to sex, but rather gender (the difference is genetic versus social). It is when we deeply associate a specific sex to that gender that we define it as an attraction to a specific sex. The reson I feel this way is that despite the fact that we feel attracted to the same sex, we do not feel attracted to someone solely because they are of the same sex. That is, some of us prefer more masculine or femenine partners. I also feel this way because I have "fallen in love" with women, but feel strange bridging that love to sex because it feels weird. That weirdness of course is that it goes against the deep association I've made of my preferred gender with the male sex.
And so from this definition, there is no homosexuality or heterosexuality. We all have the potential of being a full range of genders. Because gender is social, it is determined by how we are raised, though we have no control over that. This gender indentification causes us to be attracted to a certain other gender (the complementing half, if you will). And soon we associate that corresponding gender to a specific sex.
This is not the same, I think, as claiming that we are all bisexual, more like that we all start off as asexual. I don't think we necessarily start off being attracted to more than one sex, but that we are capable of associating gender roles to more than one sex. The split really happens when (and if) we have made the definite association between gender and sex. Therefore, if you are dead set that the type of, say, masculinity that you are attracted to can only be found in males, and you are a guy, then you would classify yourself as a homosexual. But a man who can see his desired gender in both men and women may classify himself as bisexual, or perhaps oftenly, heterosexual, when that association with men is never realized.
I think this also explains another effect - when sexual attraction toward a certain sex happen seperately from gender, where you get "straight men" who might completely enjoy sex with another man, but could never feel right being in an intimate relationship. Also, this explains how two men can be best of friends, complementing personalities, and perhaps perfect for an intimate relationship, but the early gender-to-sex association establishes a barrier.
So that's it.
I guess the biggest "problem" with this is that it's not the most politically friendly point of view.
I'm not a huge fan of scientists claiming that behavior is genetic. If you look at a lot of psychological studies, you'll find that, though the random sampling may be of people of diverse genetic make-up, they usually all come from similar cultures. For example, consider the conclusion that men have better spacialization skills than women, implying a genetic link with the sex gene, even though in western culture, boys are more often encouraged to join sports that would promote such skills. Psychology is very difficult to make emperical and the coolness and simplicity of genetic explanations make people forget that.
Homosexuals often like to push that their sexuality is genetic because it is irrefutably intrinsic. Saying that it's based on your upbringing implies that perhaps it was somebody's "fault." The problem is that this also tends to divide the non-heteros. Gays feel like bis are hurting their genetic and "can't-change" argument. And often both feel that transgendered people are just making them look like freaks.
I think the only way to solve this problem is to promote the idea that there isn't a gay or straight or bi, but that you are what you are at the moment, because what we're truely attracted to transcends physical sex, male or female. And when we can break that barrier, we'll realize that we have a lot more in common than we think.
Thoughts?
