Sociology of Being Gay

[Jay.Jay]

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.

Just to clarify, I was not offended by your opinion, nor I am asking that you curb it. I am, however, suggesting that you have presented opinion as fact in this case, and that the opinion is one which would make some people uncomfortable - consider, for example, those who hold strong religious beliefs, and who believe in right and wrong, not just socially acceptable and unacceptable.

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.

Let's extend your hermit analogy. Our theoretical hermit lives completely separate from any contact with other humans, but does have contact with other animals. He (let's assume our hermit is male) does still have material needs (food, shelter, etc.) and certainly can feel pleasure and pain. He hunts for food. For entertainment, he catches and inflicts pain on small animals, because he finds that he enjoys it, killing them when they cease to provide amusement.

Is what the hermit is doing not wrong because he has no social influences to teach him about right or wrong?

Now, I am not trying to argue that many of our views on right and wrong are not both socially influenced and constructed - clearly, they are, as evidence that different societies have developed different views on some issues - but is there no room for something to be wrong as a matter of principle?

 

[puty34]

I read a study done in the 60's that found 90% of gay men had a bad relationship with their fathers. It's hard to ignore those numbers in terms of nurture having some effect.

 

[hummer7979]

Just to clarify, I was not offended by your opinion, nor I am asking that you curb it. I am, however, suggesting that you have presented opinion as fact in this case, and that the opinion is one which would make some people uncomfortable - consider, for example, those who hold strong religious beliefs, and who believe in right and wrong, not just socially acceptable and unacceptable.

I'll try not to do that anymore. It would be easier, however, for me to put a disclaimer in my post rather than muddle my sentences with lots of "I think"s and "it's my opinion that"s and "it would be understandable"s, though I have been doing that a lot.

Let's extend your hermit analogy. Our theoretical hermit lives completely separate from any contact with other humans, but does have contact with other animals. He (let's assume our hermit is male) does still have material needs (food, shelter, etc.) and certainly can feel pleasure and pain. He hunts for food. For entertainment, he catches and inflicts pain on small animals, because he finds that he enjoys it, killing them when they cease to provide amusement.

Is what the hermit is doing not wrong because he has no social influences to teach him about right or wrong?

Now, I am not trying to argue that many of our views on right and wrong are not both socially influenced and constructed - clearly, they are, as evidence that different societies have developed different views on some issues - but is there no room for something to be wrong as a matter of principle?

Every fiber of my being would agree that that's wrong, but why is it wrong? I think it's because we can empathize with things that we perceive as sharing our ability to feel pain. Isn't it also within our typical morals that it's less wrong to needlessly kill bugs rather than squirrels? We extend this "do not unto others what you wish not onto yourself" sort of deal to anything that we can reasonably identify with.

Ultimately, I don't feel that there is a principle because I can't possibly think of how such a principle would form to a hermit. Sure, we may think it's wrong, but that's because we're socialized.

 

[hummer7979]

I can tell you this, those feelings back when I was six were the same feelings I get today when I see a guy that really turns me on. I just, obviously, didn't get an erection when I was six. I don't even know if that's possible.

Anyway, I was attracted to everything about them, their looks, mannerisms, voices, clothes, and I was aware they had a penis, but no, I wasn't picturing it back then. I'm not that fascinated with them (penises) now, it's just a part of the man that I like because since it gives him pleasure, that, in turn, gives me pleasure.

I feel the exact same way.

I wasn't really friends with the first guy I'm talking about here, he was around 16 years of age, I was six. I was playing with the piano after Sunday school once (I had noticed him in the choir many times and had that "feeling" in my stomach) he sat down next to me on the piano bench and started playing a song. Well, my heart was pounding and I felt really happy that he was sitting next to me.

I like to have sex with men. I like to have relationships with them. I like to be around them. I'm strongly attracted to them. I don't know exactly where it comes from, I just know it has always been there.

Anytime I've ever gotten a crush on someone or become infatuated or been "in-love" it was with another man.

me too for the most part.

As for the xy chromosome comment you made. I'm not sure I follow. Maybe some part of my brain is picking up on the male pheromone, but their chromosomes?I can tell you that a transgender or extremely effeminate guy does not turn me on. Never has.

As for the gender traits: masculine, strong, dominant, confident, yes, those are traits which attract me. An extremely masculine lesbian might peak my interest at a glance, but never to the point of (not that they would) having sexual intercourse or anything with them. Once the clothes came off and I saw a vagina, that'd be the end of it.

As for a transgender female who's become a male, I really don't know because they are usually attracted to females. Aren't they?

I think what you've just said is telling me that you're attracted to your idea of a perfect guy rather than to the fact that a person has a penis. You said that you are not attracted to effeminate guys at all, but you might possibly be attracted to a very masculine lesbian while you weren't sure of her sex.

To me, this means that you are attracted to what you have constructed to be masculinity. The fact that you are not attracted to woman is second to this because sex is not always obvious.

I like reading about your experiences because they seem incredibly similar to mine. My feeling is that no matter how masculine a female is, there is a certain femininity that I feel automatically associates with her when I find out she is a woman - a femininity that I don't find attractive. Do you feel this way too?

Why is this? My explanation is that we construct a gender that we are attracted to - masculinity. This is much more specific than just a body with a penis, for as you mentioned, there are effeminate men that you don't find attractive. Then, by meeting lots of guys that have this masculinity, we come to the conclusion that this true masculinity can only be found in bodies that have penises, and that women have a certain inherent femininity.

Therefore, we are not born liking men or women. Rather, we develop attractions to a gender and then come to the conclusion that "only men have this masculinity" or "only women have this femininity," and then our sexual orientation is established. This orientation is reinforced when we meet lots of guys that are masculine and lots of girls who are feminine. But then, every once in a while, we meet a woman who might fit our ideal gender, but because we have become so used to our "only men have this masculinity" or "only women have this femininity" world, we refuse to believe it and it makes us uncomfortable. I imagine this is the same thing that a straight man would feel when he brings back a drag queen and finds out he's a guy. He could be the most feminine person that the guy has ever met, but because he has also established that "men are masculine and not feminine," he is usually more willing to believe that establishment than his first-hand observations. This dissonance makes him uncomfortable.

At least that's what I think happens. I really hope that makes sense. Because the more I try to explain it, the more it seems to make sense to me. Thanks

 

[hummer7979]

I read a study done in the 60's that found 90% of gay men had a bad relationship with their fathers. It's hard to ignore those numbers in terms of nurture having some effect.

I would say I have had a bad relationship with my father, particularly when I was very young. No so much anymore, though that's because we don't talk/interact that often. He doesn't know I'm gay, but I'm nearing the point when his knowing wouldn't affect my physical well-being (i.e. financial support).

I'm always sort of wary about studies about gay people, because being gay is so often poorly defined. Some people think that you aren't gay unless you've had sex with the same sex. Some people think that having had sex with a member of the same sex automatically qualifies you as being gay. That and it is generally difficult to get all subjects to admit that they are gay, and that perhaps people who are, in fact, willing to admit it might answer certain questions differently than closeted people due to different situations. You can't just look at individuals. You've got to look at his personal relationships and how he fits into them. See? Sociology plays a role, and its role is to help you question psychology

 

[hummer7979]

What about the 10% who didn't?

Can you be more specific than "bad", that's such a broad term.

Was it the fathers, the sons, or both who were "bad" at relationships with e/o?

What about lesbians?

Just 4 fun:

Were there any population samples not on marijuana in the 60s?

Were there any researchers not on LSD?

Was their control group the t.v. show "Father Knows Best?"

Marijuana? LSD? 1960's *social-human context*? Looks like someone's catching the sociology bug

 

[Jay.Jay]

I'll try not to do that anymore. It would be easier, however, for me to put a disclaimer in my post rather than muddle my sentences with lots of "I think"s and "it's my opinion that"s and "it would be understandable"s, though I have been doing that a lot.

I understand what you mean, and sometimes a disclaimer is called for or appropriate. I also understand how easy it is, in the middle of writing on a topic, to start to mix fact with opinion - I've certainly done that in the past, and will undoubtedly do so in the future. One of the arguments that you have advanced in this thread concerns new insights that are afforded by considering a different perspective, and you are absolutely right about the value of this approach. You may find that, by watching out for the mixing of opinion and fact (both in your own writing and in the writing of others), you can also gain insight into issues like the assumptions which underlie a given position.

Every fiber of my being would agree that that's wrong, but why is it wrong? I think it's because we can empathize with things that we perceive as sharing our ability to feel pain. Isn't it also within our typical morals that it's less wrong to needlessly kill bugs rather than squirrels? We extend this "do not unto others what you wish not onto yourself" sort of deal to anything that we can reasonably identify with.

Ultimately, I don't feel that there is a principle because I can't possibly think of how such a principle would form to a hermit. Sure, we may think it's wrong, but that's because we're socialized.

I think that you offer a very strong explanation as to why we judge the behaviour that I described is wrong - empathy for the pain of the animal. Why does a hypothetical hermit (probably not the one I described who was enjoying torturing animals, but another in similar circumstances) need a societal influence to come to the conclusion that he should not engage in such behaviour (and thus, in effect, deciding that it is wrong)? He has probably experienced pain for himself, he will see the animal's responses indicating suffering - why does he need the societal influence in order to identify with, and thus develop empathy for, the animal?

We agree that we believe that such behaviour is wrong, and because we are socialised, we can't know whether that belief would be the same in the absence of a societal influence. But, that's not the same thing as your statement that we think it's wrong because we are socialised. How do you know that the belief comes from the socialisation and not some principle? If the hermit is capable of deciding that he should not engage in some behaviour in the absence of a societal influence, would that point towards there being some principle?

 

[hummer7979]

I understand what you mean, and sometimes a disclaimer is called for or appropriate. I also understand how easy it is, in the middle of writing on a topic, to start to mix fact with opinion - I've certainly done that in the past, and will undoubtedly do so in the future. One of the arguments that you have advanced in this thread concerns new insights that are afforded by considering a different perspective, and you are absolutely right about the value of this approach. You may find that, by watching out for the mixing of opinion and fact (both in your own writing and in the writing of others), you can also gain insight into issues like the assumptions which underlie a given position.

Well, in any case, I don't think any of what I say is fact, rather I perceive them to generally be sequiturs, that is, ideas and logical consequences derived from more basic ideas and things considered fact. Those perceptions, of course, are disputable.

I think that you offer a very strong explanation as to why we judge the behaviour that I described is wrong - empathy for the pain of the animal. Why does a hypothetical hermit (probably not the one I described who was enjoying torturing animals, but another in similar circumstances) need a societal influence to come to the conclusion that he should not engage in such behaviour (and thus, in effect, deciding that it is wrong)? He has probably experienced pain for himself, he will see the animal's responses indicating suffering - why does he need the societal influence in order to identify with, and thus develop empathy for, the animal?

We agree that we believe that such behaviour is wrong, and because we are socialised, we can't know whether that belief would be the same in the absence of a societal influence. But, that's not the same thing as your statement that we think it's wrong because we are socialised. How do you know that the belief comes from the socialisation and not some principle? If the hermit is capable of deciding that he should not engage in some behaviour in the absence of a societal influence, would that point towards there being some principle?

I suppose it's possible to socialize with animals on a basic level, like with a dog for example. A dog can respond a certain way when it's in a happy or sad situation, reflecting how the human might feel in the same situations (like satisfying hunger or experiencing pain). But then one could argue that socializing with dogs is still socializing because it gives the hermit the opportunity to interact and project his emotions/experiences onto another being. Perhaps if I amend my earlier statement so that morals govern the way we define right or wrong regarding interactions with others in our society (filled with people and/or certain animals).

 

[hummer7979]

Not exactly. I'm not just attracted to masculinity. I'm also attracted the male body. No female body, however "masculine" her personality is, has ever attracted me at all.

The two need to be together for me to form a meaningful relationship. I probably could have sex with an effiminate guy under the right circumstances, but not with a masculine female.

Let me clarify when I said that I'm not attracted to effiminate guys, that's not to say I wouldn't find their bodies attractive. I just wouldn't find their personalities attractive (in the context that we're discussing here) Don't get (I know you're out there) bent out of shape thinking that I wouldn't be close friends with an effiminate guy. I've had many such friends.

We're not discussing friendship, here. Sexual intimacy and passion are different feelings.

When you see a hot guy, you might think "is he my type?" meaning the male sex is an indicator that he might possess your desired form of masculinity. I think the body itself is just aesthetics. Really what's hot about it is the masculinity that you can imagine it has. And yes, we're not discussing friendship.