Sociology of Being Gay

[yussi1]

lol I hate sociology with a passion as well because of my prof. At least I'm done with it now. My transcript will probably look like this:

Calculus - A+
Economics - A+
Business - A-
Sociology - C

I'll be lucky if I get a C in that class.

with me its looking
English - C (BUT I WANT AN A!!!)
Socio-fuking-ology- B
ICT- C

how the hell im gettin my highest grade in my most hated subject ill never knw!

 

[Treborf]

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.

Supposing this is the case, then where did our preference for a particular gender come from?

And so from this definition, there is no homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Just because homosexuality is determined by how we're socialized doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

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.

I'm not sure I understand this. If this were the case, wouldn't everybody with the same gender have the same sexual orientation? What of men who are attracted to the same gender they are? Or what about men who are attracted to feminine men. How did they come to associate their attraction to femininity with men?

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying that (1)gender is socially constucted and fluid and (2)we're all attracted to gender, therefore (3)our sexuality is socially constucted and fluid. That's a nice enough argument, but you seem unwilling to adress that there are very real differences between being gay and being straight.

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.

How does your theory explain this? Are you saying that these men are really attracted to masculinity but theyre also attracted to women or one of those other 4 sexes? But anyway, I think a much more intuitive explaination is that those "straight men" are gay men still stuggling with the guilt of being gay.

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.

In other words, they're straight.


I disagree with some of your premises:
1.I think our preference for one sex over another determines what gender we're attracted to, not the other away around.
2.Your explaination of homosexuality seems needlessly complicated.
3.Attraction being a product of socialization just doesnt make sense to me.
4.You seem to be trying to make a distinction between who people are physically attracted to and who people are romantically attracted to. I think that is a false distinction.

Good post though.

 

[Soilwork]

Hummer, I don't wanna jump all over you since you only just started posting, but you're not even making the slightest bit of sense.

at one point, you seem to be saying that we're not attracted to sexes, that we're attracted to personalities (and trust me, I'm not jacking off thinking of courtesy), and then you're saying that if we thought of our closest female friend and found a guy with that same personality we'd be into him because it's NOT personalites that we want but sex with people of the same sex.

*just as a side note, I don't really have many female friends, but no.. if I found men who acted like any of them I'd not be remotely interested in them.

 

[Soilwork]

Another side note.

I have NEVER fallen in love with a woman and I'd be incapable of doing it.

 

[Jay.Jay]

Hummer, how would you explain the findings described in the literature related to fraternal birth order? The more older brothers that you have, the more likely you are to be gay. Interestingly, this effect holds even if you have no contact with the older brothers - adopted children with more older brothers are also more likely to be gay, irrespective of how many brothers with whom they grow up, suggesting a biological rather than a sociological origin.

According to the study:

Cantor, J. M., Blanchard, R., Paterson, A. D., and Bogeart, A. F. (2002). How many gay men owe their sexual orientation to fraternal birth order? Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 31(1), 63 - 71.

about 1 in 7 gay men owe their sexual orientation to the fraternal birth order effect. Of course, it isn't possible to determine who they are with any certainty, but this does point to a strongly biological origin for homosexuality in some men.

 

[Jay.Jay]

It's pretty clear to me that there are many reasons why people can have psychological problems and merely being gay is not the reason. I would say it's more likely that gay people repress their sexual desires because it's not considered normal. Repression of desires leads to perversion (not necessarily sexually like in this case), which may manifest itself in preying on children who are relatively defenseless and innocent. Think about it this way: how often is it that when a gay man does something bad, like rapes a boy, he is either horribly repressed, or not adjusted into society. Yet gay men who are out and adjusted can have a loving relationship and adopt and raise children. It's no different with straight men who rape girls, except that society makes it easier for heterosexuals to explore their sexuality and therefore avoid repression and perversion.

I'm a little surprised that no one has taken issue with this. Rape is a crime that is about power, dominance, and humiliation. This sounds like you are suggesting a cause-effect type relationship between repression of sexual desire and a propensity to rape. In addition, there is a big, huge, enormous, gigantic, collosal difference between sexual attraction to men or women, which are well within the range of normal human behaviour, and sexual attraction to children, which is not. Could the fact that men (gay or straight) who rape children may not be well adjusted to society have something to do with the fact that they seek to engage in a behaviour which is near-univeresally condemned? Be careful about using evidence of correlation to infer conclusions about causation.

This argument is also wandering very close, in my opinion, to the argument that gay men are more likely than straight men to be pedophiles - an argument which is not supported by the evidence.

 

[Treborf]

Consider this: think of your closest friend that's a woman. If you met a person that had her personality but was a guy, would you consider this person as a possible mate? At least in my experience, I would say yes. So why am I not attracted to her sexually?

Because she's a woman. And you're a gay man. By definition that means you won't be physically attracted to her. It needn't be any more complicated.

 

[hummer7979]

Thanks for all the replies again. Some of you seem borderline offended and I don't mean for that. It's just a discussion and I'm not above willing to admit that I'm wrong.

I'll start reading through the posts and responding accordingly.

 

[hummer7979]

eurgh i study sociology at college (in england) its such a BLEUGH subject.. my teacher teaches it like its a maths lesson and its done very formal.. other colleges teach it SO much better.. due to the way its taught.. i hate the subject =(.. im new btw.. this is my FIRST EVER POST!

I'm sorry sociology was taught to you in such a dull way. I just took a course in it this past semester (which is why I've become interested in it) and it was taught in a very edgy way. My professor suggested a lot of things that caused people to be offended, particularly in the religion department.

Anyway, it's too bad you dislike it. To me, the interesting thing about it is to consider as a new point of view on topics. If you merely consider the point of view that who we are is almost completely determined by how we are raised, then that puts into new perspective ideas of race, gender, sexuality, etc. things that supposedly intrinsically separate us. I find it humbling that it leads to the idea that despite certain slight physical differences, we are all in fact very similar social capsules when we're born.

 

[hummer7979]

Hi. I appreciate that you're responding to many of my points individually. I'll try to do the same. (the bold is my addition)

Supposing this is the case, then where did our preference for a particular gender come from?

I don't know really. I realize that since I'm putting out a new idea, it's natural that I have the burden of proof. But really, I'm just suggesting that perhaps it happens in a different order. If I had to give you an explanation, I would say it has to do with the way you interact with adults as an early child. Freud suggested that children go through stages of sexual development (http://www.victorianweb.org/science/freud/develop.html) but I'm not so sure I believe that.

Just because homosexuality is determined by how we're socialized doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Those were probably too strong of words to use. What I meant by homosexuality and heterosexuality not existing isn't that we don't make that sexual association with a certain sex (I certainly have), but that if it's true that we are attracted to gender before sex, then really, the least common denominator doesn't start with genitalia.

I'm not sure I understand this. If this were the case, wouldn't everybody with the same gender have the same sexual orientation? What of men who are attracted to the same gender they are? Or what about men who are attracted to feminine men. How did they come to associate their attraction to femininity with men?

This is one of the underlying points of my hypothesis - that gender is not sex specific, and therefore, if one is attracted to a certain gender, there are both men and women who could potentially fulfill, and therefore solidify the preferred sex of a person.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying that (1)gender is socially constucted and fluid and (2)we're all attracted to gender, therefore (3)our sexuality is socially constucted and fluid. That's a nice enough argument, but you seem unwilling to adress that there are very real differences between being gay and being straight.


I don't think that gender is necessarily fluid in that at any time, we can instantly change from being very masculine to very feminine. What I do mean is that gender is not predetermined from sex, i.e. you may be born male, but you aren't born masculine. I do think there is a certain rigidity in terms of the gender type that we develop into, and therefore I don't think that sexuality itself is fluid. I hope that makes sense

How does your theory explain this? Are you saying that these men are really attracted to masculinity but theyre also attracted to women or one of those other 4 sexes? But anyway, I think a much more intuitive explaination is that those "straight men" are gay men still stuggling with the guilt of being gay.

Oh definitely. There's no denying that there are gay men who struggle with their sexuality. I think we all do/did at some point. My point was that I think it's possible for someone to be genuinely sexually attracted to women, and yet not be able to fall in love a feminine person. I always wondered if misogynistic men who rape and beat their wives secretly are attracted to masculinity, but not men. Would such a person really be gay? I think being gay is a lot more than simply wanting to have sex with men. I would consider it something much more deep-seated.

In other words, they're straight.


I disagree with some of your premises:
1.I think our preference for one sex over another determines what gender we're attracted to, not the other away around.
2.Your explaination of homosexuality seems needlessly complicated.
3.Attraction being a product of socialization just doesnt make sense to me.
4.You seem to be trying to make a distinction between who people are physically attracted to and who people are romantically attracted to. I think that is a false distinction.

Hmm I understand what you mean. I admit, my explanation is very complicated. Here's a question that might give insight to my POV: Do you think you could fall in love with a person whose sex is not obvious? What if you genuinely fell in love with an intersexual, say a person who looks like a man but has a vagina. How do you define what a man looks like? Is a man only determined by his genitalia? Or do you have an idea of what a man should be? If so, how did this idea develop? And if you *can* fall in love with a masculine intersexual, would you conclude that you tend to fall in love with humans with a penis or humans that are masculine?

Good post though.

Thanks - I hope we continue to discuss

 

[hummer7979]

Hummer, I don't wanna jump all over you since you only just started posting, but you're not even making the slightest bit of sense.

at one point, you seem to be saying that we're not attracted to sexes, that we're attracted to personalities (and trust me, I'm not jacking off thinking of courtesy), and then you're saying that if we thought of our closest female friend and found a guy with that same personality we'd be into him because it's NOT personalites that we want but sex with people of the same sex.

*just as a side note, I don't really have many female friends, but no.. if I found men who acted like any of them I'd not be remotely interested in them.

I'm glad you're attempting to make sense of what I'm saying, and just because I'm new doesn't mean I'd be totally put off if you said that I was spouting bullshit.

But to respond to your point:

My idea of gender has more to do with aggression/submission, power/control, nurturing, protecting, serving, etc. Basically, within the dynamics of a relationship between two people, the differences of their "role" in the relationship. Not every relationship has extreme "roles," and in fact, I think my ideal gay relationship to be closer to the both-sides-equal role. But that's what I mean by gender.

Think of it this way - you may want to have sex with certain men, but I'm willing to bet that the subset of those men who you could have a truly fulfilling relationship, purely based on, for example, how aggressive or submissive you are and how that relates to your partner, would be much smaller. Some guys might never feel right being the aggressive one all the time and he would not be as compatible with another man who was also very non-aggressive.

Your side note relates to what I'm saying too. There are men whom you don't find attractive if they act like your female friends. So perhaps you do also have definable range of gender types that you're attracted to. You've also already established that you like men and only men. What I am suggesting is that perhaps the reason you have established this attraction to men is that during your sexual development, you've projected your preferred gender type onto the male sex. That's all.

I don't know. Rereading what I've written, it does often sound like I'm just making up stuff. But really, my idea is very simple. I'm just not good at explaining it.

 

[hummer7979]

Now we have a "social component to breeding sexually?"

I've been attacted to males since I was old enough to walk and talk. Never to females (in the "breeding" or romantic way).

I certainly did NOT have any social component to follow or be influenced by.
Everyone I knew around me in those early years, up until I had the first other gay guy in my life (when I was 16) admit to me that "he was too," everyone was sending me strong and clear messages that homosexuality was wrong and unacceptable.

That had no affect upon me. Other than to make me a little miserable because I knew that I only liked males for intimate contact and these people weren't going to like me when they found out who I was.

I can only give my personal experiences. I know not what goes through another person's head.

This is kind of frustrating because I seem to have explained my point to mean the opposite of what I want to say.

First, I don't believe that we are attracted to guys and girls when we're very young in the same way that we do when we develop our sexual identity. So although you never made the conscious decision to like men, I'm not convinced that you were necessarily attracted to men since you exited the womb. In fact, for most of our young childhood, the only difference between boys and girls was that they were dressed differently and told to play with blocks or dolls. How can you say you were attracted to boys when the whole idea of what it means to be a boy is so weak? Gender, the social construction, is much more identifiable when you're young, which is why I'm more willing to believe that we develop gender attractions before sexual attractions. In other words, you can learn that a typical adult men and women may act differently before you know what a penis or vagina are.

When I say there is a social construction to breeding, what I'm saying is that I question whether or not copulation is instinctive. That's why I brought up the panda video. Why does a video of pandas copulating help pandas copulate? Why don't they know to do it by themselves? Could it be that if they grew up in captivity all their lives with no other pandas, they male pandas might have no idea where to stick their panda penises? Maybe the female pandas don't know how to signal to males that they're receptive? I'm not necessarily suggesting that we are like pandas. As the most social species on earth, it is quite possible that we rely on social interaction to learn more than on "instinct."

I'm going to go off on a limb and say something politically incorrect. It's possible that something in your very early life affected you to become homosexual. I do NOT suggest that it is necessarily another homosexual, or that it was even remotely a sexual encounter at all. All I'm saying is that I don't think we come out of a womb knowing what a man or a woman is, or that we prefer a penis over a vagina, or that we prefer the western world's ideal version of a man or a woman, because it's not even close to being that clear cut. Not all men look like men. Not all people who look like men are men. We learn what these things are after we're born. So how can we prefer one before we know what it is?

 

[hummer7979]

Hummer, how would you explain the findings described in the literature related to fraternal birth order? The more older brothers that you have, the more likely you are to be gay. Interestingly, this effect holds even if you have no contact with the older brothers - adopted children with more older brothers are also more likely to be gay, irrespective of how many brothers with whom they grow up, suggesting a biological rather than a sociological origin.

According to the study:

Cantor, J. M., Blanchard, R., Paterson, A. D., and Bogeart, A. F. (2002). How many gay men owe their sexual orientation to fraternal birth order? Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 31(1), 63 - 71.

about 1 in 7 gay men owe their sexual orientation to the fraternal birth order effect. Of course, it isn't possible to determine who they are with any certainty, but this does point to a strongly biological origin for homosexuality in some men.

Does this mean that you're more likely than your other brothers to be gay, or you're more likely than than the 7% or whatever average people are gay? I think that makes a difference. And is there any significance to why this study only includes men? I'm not saying that the study is wrong, but it does bring up some questions. Statistics is a very very tricky field, so I also approach it with caution.

 

[hummer7979]

I'm a little surprised that no one has taken issue with this. Rape is a crime that is about power, dominance, and humiliation. This sounds like you are suggesting a cause-effect type relationship between repression of sexual desire and a propensity to rape. In addition, there is a big, huge, enormous, gigantic, collosal difference between sexual attraction to men or women, which are well within the range of normal human behaviour, and sexual attraction to children, which is not. Could the fact that men (gay or straight) who rape children may not be well adjusted to society have something to do with the fact that they seek to engage in a behaviour which is near-univeresally condemned? Be careful about using evidence of correlation to infer conclusions about causation.

This argument is also wandering very close, in my opinion, to the argument that gay men are more likely than straight men to be pedophiles - an argument which is not supported by the evidence.

You're right. I don't know that repression necessarily leads to perversion and so perhaps I went too far with that. I don't think that being gay makes you more likely to be a pedophile. However, I also don't think that pedophiles are born that way, because we aren't born knowing what sex or children or the line between child and adult are.

Also normal human behavior is not defined, unless you're referring to western culture. There has already been mention of Ancient Greek society where pederasty was relatively normal, and even today where comparably "unnatural" behavior happens in New Guinea. There is nothing intrinsic about being human that makes anything we do, even having sex with children, wrong. It is when we create stable societies where killing and raping are not sustainable activities that we define them as wrong or condemnable.

 

[hummer7979]

Because she's a woman. And you're a gay man. By definition that means you won't be physically attracted to her. It needn't be any more complicated.

Ok, yes. The question was supposed to be rhetorical. What I'm saying is that I've met girls who aren't really girly and that I really like their personality and we make a good "couple" (not just as friends, but that I truly care for a girl on a deep level) and if I met a person just like that and he was male, I would think that there's a good chance that I'd be attracted to this person both physically and non-physically.

It's really strange. I've had a close guy friend say to me once "if you were a girl, I'd totally date you." Now is that sort of attraction totally fake? Is determined sex always a prerequisite before attraction? My feeling is no.

 

[Jay.Jay]

Does this mean that you're more likely than your other brothers to be gay, or you're more likely than than the 7% or whatever average people are gay? I think that makes a difference. And is there any significance to why this study only includes men? I'm not saying that the study is wrong, but it does bring up some questions. Statistics is a very very tricky field, so I also approach it with caution.

Whilst I am a researcher, this is not my field of study so I encourage you to read further and to examine the primary literature. Having said that, I'll try for a brief answer and point to some literature if you want to take it further.

Quoting the literature: "In men, sexual orientation correlates with an individual's number of older brothers, each additional older brother increasing the odds of homosexuality by approximately 33%" (Blanchard, 2001, p. 105). You will find very similar statements in a range of studies, including the one I cited above and some of those below, and I think this answers your first question.

You also asked about why only men - both have been studied, but it turns out that women don't matter (to the effect). Quoting Cantor et al. (2002, p. 63, emphasis in original): "Epidemiological studies have repeatedly shown that older brothers increase the probability of homosexuality in later-born males (Blanchard, 1997, 2001; Jones & Blanchard, 1998 ). Older sisters, in contrast, do not affect the sexual orientation of later-born males, and neither older brothers nor older sisters affect the sexual orientation of later-born females. Because females are essentially invisible to this process, we have called it the fraternal birth order effect."

I agree that one needs to be very careful with statistics, but the amount of research in this area, published in a variety of peer-reviewed journals, allows for a very high degree of confidence in the validity of the statistical methods used. Of course, problems can still arise with the interpretation of statistical results.

The study to which I referred (Cantor et al., 2002) is not one that reports the fraternal birth order effect - rather, it is addressing the question of whether this effect contributes significantly to the size of the homosexual population. Their conclusion of about 1 in 7 has been confirmed by a study by Blanchard and Bogaert (2004, p. 151) who noted that their "results indicate that the proportion of homosexual men whose sexual orientation is attributable to fraternal birth order constitutes a minority, but not a negligible minority, of all homosexual men". If you want to have a closer look at the research that reports on the effect itself, some references are:

Blanchard, R. (1997). Birth order and sibling sex ratio in homosexual versus heterosexual males and females. Annual Review of Sex Research, 8, 27 - 67.

Blanchard, R. (2001). Fraternal birth order and the maternal immune hypothesis of male homosexuality. Hormones and Behaviour, 40, 105 - 114.

Jones, M. B. and Blanchard, R. (1998 ). Birth order and male homosexuality: An extension of Slater's Index. Human Biology, 70, 775 - 787.

Blanchard, R. and Bogaert, A. F. (2004). Proportion of homosexual men who owe their sexual orientation to fraternal birth order: An estimate based on two national probability samples. American Journal of Human Biology, 16, 151 - 157.

Some of this work has received large amounts of attention in the literature. For example, the earlier paper:

Blanchard, R. and Bogaert, A. F. (1996). Homosexuality in men and the number of older brothers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 27 - 31.

has been cited 75 times in other papers, according to a search on ISI.

 

[Jay.Jay]

You're right. I don't know that repression necessarily leads to perversion and so perhaps I went too far with that. I don't think that being gay makes you more likely to be a pedophile. However, I also don't think that pedophiles are born that way, because we aren't born knowing what sex or children or the line between child and adult are.

You might be interested to know that the results on fraternal birth order have even been confirmed in studies of pedophiles.

Also normal human behavior is not defined, unless you're referring to western culture. There has already been mention of Ancient Greek society where pederasty was relatively normal, and even today where comparably "unnatural" behavior happens in New Guinea.

OK, I accept that my use of the word 'normal' has substantial social and cultural baggage. I guess that the point I was trying to make was that pedophilia and homosexuality are far too often seen as strongly associated, and I think that anyone addressing issues in areas such as these needs to be really careful of the potential interpretations and implications of their words.

There is nothing intrinsic about being human that makes anything we do, even having sex with children, wrong. It is when we create stable societies where killing and raping are not sustainable activities that we define them as wrong or condemnable.

I'm sure that many would be really uncomfortable with what you are saying, as this argument boils down to the position that there is no right or wrong, there is only socially acceptable or unacceptable. It is an interesting position to take - certainly worthy of intellectual debate - but you state it as if it were incontrovertible fact, which I don't think is justified.

 

[hummer7979]

You might be interested to know that the results on fraternal birth order have even been confirmed in studies of pedophiles.

I was wondering - was the fraternal birth order study done on people of the same culture? By that I mean, say a random sample in the US or Europe? Do you think you'd get the same results if you did this study in say, New Guinea? I realize that the observations in the study have nothing to do with culture per se, but it would still interest me. If you do this sort of research, perhaps you would consider doing that. Cross-cultural studies make such arguments a lot stronger.

I'm sure that many would be really uncomfortable with what you are saying, as this argument boils down to the position that there is no right or wrong, there is only socially acceptable or unacceptable. It is an interesting position to take - certainly worthy of intellectual debate - but you state it as if it were incontrovertible fact, which I don't think is justified.

If I say something that directly offends a person, I will apologize. However, I feel it is unintellectual to curb my opinions on the possibility that someone might interpret what I say as something insulting, especially since I have no intention to insult anyone.

My point is simpler than how you're interpreting it I think. Consider this. If you were born and lived as a hermit, completely separate from any form of human society, would you have any concept of child, adult, man, woman, sex? My feeling is no, we would not. Therefore, you would also have no concept of murder, rape, homosexuality, race, marriage, religion, etc. And if you don't know what these things are, then you can't establish any of those things as "wrong." It is when you meet a woman or when a person teaches about women that you realize what a woman is.

When I say we are born without morals, I say this because morals govern the way we deal with other people. Therefore, it seems to me that morals must be socially based and not inborn.

 

[hummer7979]

When I was a very young child, I knew what a penis was ( I had one) I didn't know for sure what female genitals looked like, but I also was aware that I didn't care. I wasn't in the least interested in knowing what girls looked like naked.

As a very young boy, I would get a "butterflies in my stomach" effect around some other boys. (The ones I found cute).

This was all long before I knew what sex was, or what I wanted to "do" with another boy. I just knew I was strongly attracted to some of them and never to any girls.

Now, if what you're suggesting were the case, that we develop our sexual desires in later years, i.e. long after our brains developed in the womb, what was going on in my head when I was as young as six?

In other words, it doesn't seem likely that I "developed" those feelings, more likely that my brain was predisposed to have them.

Something must have happened when my brain was developing in the womb, is my suggestion.

What sort of attraction was it, do you think? I imagine it wasn't sexual. Were you attracted to them purely because they were cute? How did you interact with them? Did you just look at them? Were you friends with any of them? If so, were these friendships similar to your other friendships, or was there a different dynamic? If so, how so?

As it turns out, I had the same feelings when I was in pre-school, and thinking back, it's hard to imagine that I wasn't already hard-wired from birth. But think of it this way: When you were six, how did you tell the difference between a boy and a girl? Did you examine their genitalia? More likely, you generalized the way they dress, they way their hair is cut, and the way they behave. So really, when you say you were attracted to boys, you were attracted to your current generalization of boys. My guess would be that when you were six, you would not have been attracted to boys who acted, or dressed, or behaved differently than you or the boys that you had found cute. So does that mean you were born knowing how boys in your culture would look and dress and act and that you would be attracted to such a thing?



As far as the sociology of being gay is concerned, I think I can boil it down to one question:

As a homosexual man, are you attracted to that which you define to be the characteristics of a man (strong, built, masculine, etc, traits that an intersexual could possess) or a human that has the XY chromosome (something a transvestite or a transgendered person could have)?

 

[Jay.Jay]

I was wondering - was the fraternal birth order study done on people of the same culture? By that I mean, say a random sample in the US or Europe? Do you think you'd get the same results if you did this study in say, New Guinea? I realize that the observations in the study have nothing to do with culture per se, but it would still interest me. If you do this sort of research, perhaps you would consider doing that. Cross-cultural studies make such arguments a lot stronger.

Sorry, you've misunderstood. I don't do this kind of research. I would guess (and that's all it would be, because I don't know) that most of the Blanchard research is mono-cultural. However, with the amount that has been written about this topic, I would expect that similar, confirmatory work would have been done in (say) Europe. I would doubt that New Guinea has been studied, but would expect the effect to still be present, as it seems to be biologically, rather than culturally, based. Of course, cultural issues would arise in the conduct of such a study, which would need to be addressed to ensure the integrity of the study.