Here’s an interesting discussion on forecasting sexual orientation:
We all know the stereotypes: an unusually light, delicate, effeminate air in a little boy’s step, often coupled with solitary bookishness, or a limp wrist, an interest in dolls, makeup, princesses, dresses and a staunch distaste for rough play with other boys; in little girls, there is the outwardly boyish stance, perhaps a penchant for tools, a lumbering gait, a square-jawed readiness for physical tussles with boys, an aversion to all the perfumed, delicate, laced trappings of femininity.
I’m sure that my parents thought, or at least worried, that I was going to be homosexual. I was a bookworm, and didn’t enjoy roughhousing or sports. On the other hand, I never had an interest in girlish things, and was more into pirates and cowboys. In any event, I’ve never had the slightest interest in the same sex, sexually speaking — I’m as heterosexual as they come (so to speak). But I think you have to be in abject denial to think that sexual orientation is a “choice.” The only people for whom that’s the case are bisexuals.
The classic tomboy is a lousy predictor of lesbianism. I know plenty of hetero tomboys (including my wife, who will totally get in a Ump’s face when he makes a bad call at the plate) and several very feminine lesbians. Whatever makes a female’s sexual preference swing one way or the other, it isn’t in the same brain region as the prediliction for spending hours at the makeup counter in Bloomingdales.
That said, boys are different. My cousin babysits a 6 year-old boy who refuses to play with her 7 year-old son, but always plays with the 4-year-old daughter, and her toys, and wears her fairy-princess costumes. Uh, yeah … that little dude is really gay. I’ve never seen a “flaming” pre-teen before, but he qualifies.
Huh. I was the female version of you. I was all books, all the time — hardly anything else interested me. And I hated traditional feminine stuff like frilly dresses, pink crap, squealing over boys, etc. I even stopped watching tv for a time period in the mid-Seventies, which was pretty drastic for those days as there wasn’t much else to do. But think about what mid-70s tv was like… At least in my house where my sister (who was both extremely tomboyish and extremely boy-crazy) dominated our one set, it was Love Boat and Happy Days all the time. The memory still makes me twitch.
Still, I think this article is seriously naive about some things. The writer says near the end maybe it will make a parent think twice about kicking his pre-gay kid out of the house? He won’t have to because the now “science” backed notions parents already held will have made the kid’s life such a living hell that he’ll leave home on his own long before mom and dad can do anything. And is anybody bothered by the idea that gays are now apparently so hungry for social acceptance that (some of them anyway) are now upholding all those stereotypes that supposedly led to so much gay misery in the first place?
Brock: he might not be gay, just fabulous.
well hell – I should have saved my comment in a text file before trying to post… your spam blocker just ate my nice long post. what a crock.
here’s the condensed vrs:
Rand – your closing argument sucks and you know better. It is nothing but argument by intimidation and unsupported assertion.
People generally like ‘Nature’ as the reason for homosexuality over ‘Nuture’ because it absolves them of moral judgement (and the associated guilt for parents). They implicitly understand that judging a gay person morally wrong is illegitimate, because they have no legitimate reason to demand a gay person conform to heterosexual behavior. The existence of a gay person does not infringe upon their rights.
The author did a great job laying out all the arguments, and commend their courage for attempting to address the weakest parts of ‘Nature’ over ‘Nuture’ (the evolutionary argument). It still didn’t make sense, but at least they didn’t try to ignore it.
I have no idea who is or is not gay among the younger kids I was around as a kid. I moved too much to make it possible to keep track. But among the JRHS and HS crowds I remember, and have seen, the previously named stereotypes don’t hold up. So generally I throw them out.
And ultimately, I could not care any less about anyone’s sexuality, gay or straight. If there’s a pissed off God component to being involved with “weird sexuality”, I’m no more going to suffer for it in the after life, than I will suffer for Hitler killing the Jews! I…didn’t…do…it.
.
.
I make many of my Christian friends hoppin’ mad whenever this topic surfaces. You try this with the “it’s a choice” type of people, it’s fun to see them spin.
.
“So you are telling me that although there are thousands of subtle and not so subtle birth defects, it’s completely impossible for someone to have male anatomy, but be hormonally wired female? There are kids born with clubbed feet, spina bifida and cerebral palsy, but no children are born with hormone problems?”
Their research seems to explicitly remove any control group?
I also find it interesting that little boys preferring the company of little girls is considered a sign they are gay… or tomboys for the visa/versa.
It seem we have some scientific consensus that brains are gender biased… they work differently in men and woman. I believe I’ve read that some gay men have female tendency brains. I don’t know about female brains being masculine, but wouldn’t doubt it to be so in at least some cases.
Others are physically and mental male or female but confused about it.
Dean sang, “you can’t go to jail for what yer thinkin” which is entirely appropriate. It’s actions that can get you arrested.
We need to have respect for all people and their preferences until their actions become harmful.
I think it is harmful for the government to enforce their judgement for children above the parents. Most parents are quite caring for their children, regardless of their state. The government is a sledge hammer.
perhaps a penchant for tools
That’s not a predictor for lesbianism – that’s a predictor for female conservatism. Girls who like tools tend to be self-reliant. Female libs want Mommy and Daddy State to give them everything and to make everybody behave.
“Born that way” and “choice” aren’t the only explanations, and they may both be false. Decades of psychological study found that much homosexuality could be attributed to subconscious adaptation to a number of different negative life experiences.
The most traumatic such experience – interestingly found among some gay males and a lot of lesbians (I’d once met someone who counsels the latter), is sexual abuse by an adult male during childhood. As male and female psychology aren’t the same, apparently the self-defense mechanisms aren’t the same either; the abused boy tries to reconcile the experience as normal to protect his psyche, the abused girl is alienated by men.
A bisexual female friend and a passage from Malcolm X’s autobiography claim that (not necessary sexually) abusive relationships with men during adulthood can subconsciously drive a woman to lesbianism.
Male homosexuality has been studied more extensively than lesbianism. The largest plurality of gay males seem to come from a background with an absentee father and a controlling mother.
I have to get ready for work, and don’t have time to offer a decent conclusion. Remember these things:
– There are always statistical outliers (some lib gals like tools, for instance).
– There’s a significant portion of homosexuality whose cause cannot be identified.
– Human psychology is complex, and the influences are numerous; there is no simple formula for any adaptive psychological orientation.
– Nobody believes pedophiles were born that way. If Michael Jackson’s apparent pedophilia can be attributed to a psychological adaptation to trauma, why can’t a less radical change in sexual orientation possibly happen?
– It’s a false assumption to classify everyone as having one sexual orientation. Anne Heche (see her Wiki) says her gay dad molested her; evidently he had at least two sexual orientations. MJ liked adult women and (allegedly) prepubescent boys. Some guys get married, father children, and also go for other dudes – and they’re not all politicians.
I think a hefty piece of the “choice” perception comes from watching 16-20 year old males. They aren’t “bi-” sexual so much as “any-” sexual. There’s a reason for all the sheep, goat and sister jokes.
The whole ‘searching for true love’ aspect is minimized in the hunt for instant gratification of any sort whatsoever.
Nobody believes pedophiles were born that way.
I think that it’s quite conceivable that they are. That doesn’t mean that they should be allowed to molest children, though.
your closing argument sucks and you know better.
Well, that’s certainly a compelling argument.
It is nothing but argument by intimidation and unsupported assertion.
Who am I “intimidating,” and in what manner?
People generally like ‘Nature’ as the reason for homosexuality over ‘Nuture’ because it absolves them of moral judgement (and the associated guilt for parents). They implicitly understand that judging a gay person morally wrong is illegitimate, because they have no legitimate reason to demand a gay person conform to heterosexual behavior. The existence of a gay person does not infringe upon their rights.
I don’t “like” nature as the reason — it simply makes the most sense to me, and seems born out by a lot of empirical data (e.g., the “female” structure of the brains of male homosexuals, which seems unlikely to have been caused by molestation).
The author did a great job laying out all the arguments, and commend their courage for attempting to address the weakest parts of ‘Nature’ over ‘Nuture’ (the evolutionary argument).
What is the “evolutionary argument”?
Just a reminder: in the eyes of the Catholic Church. the homosexual orientation is considered to be disordered, but not in itself sinful. Sin requires an act of will. Only the willful, physical act of homosexual intercourse (or fantasy of same) is immoral.
If the homosexual orientation is the result of genetics, it will eventually be engineered out. If it is behavioral in nature, it will eventually be driven back into the closet. (The Christians of the Global South who will be running the show from here on out do not share our decadent Western fondness for perversion.) Either way, homosexuality as a modus operandi has no viable future.
Rand,
But I think you have to be in abject denial to think that sexual orientation is a “choice.”
This is your argument by intimidation statement. It intimidates anyone that thinks sexual orientation is a “choice” by attempting to force them to either agree with you, or accept your insult that they are in an inferior irrational mental state (abject denial). It is an attempt to cutt off potential disagreement threatening an insult for those who disagree.
A similar example would be a statement like: “You’d have to be a pedophile to like Michael Jackson’s music.”
The evolutionary argument paraphrased is that a genetic cause for homosexuality would not propagate through the species as it stops reproduction.
If it were a recessive hereditary trait, it would be predictable with some success.
And the ‘different brains’ hypothesis has trouble explaining some of the correlations brought up in the article. Does the mismatched brains-to-body phenomenon encourage sexual abuse by others or is this just an unlucky correlation?
And the ‘different brains’ hypothesis has trouble explaining some of the correlations brought up in the article. Does the mismatched brains-to-body phenomenon encourage sexual abuse by others or is this just an unlucky correlation
You could tell a story in which pedophilia is an expression of contempt and domination of the weak. Prehomosexual boys would present as weaker than other boys and perhaps might be especial objects of contempt among adult men who fairly consistently across cultures tend to despise effeminate males.
This tendency to see THE GAY everywhere is giving me such an 80s flashback. Okay, full disclosure: sometime in the 80s or maybe it was the early 90s (which were still culturally the 80s) a friend and I were watching some sitcom on TV, name forgotten, and there was a character there, a boy of about 8 – 12 years of age (so hard to tell in Hollywood — he could have been 43 for all we knew) who was one of those “eccentric” kids Hollywood comedy writers are always coming up with. He had his hair styled like the way my grandpa wore it in the 1920s (parted in the middle and slicked down), and had a carefully fussy outfit that included braces made out of film strips. My friend and I looked at each other and said “That child is the GAY CHILD.”
A similar example would be a statement like: “You’d have to be a pedophile to like Michael Jackson’s music.”
[rolling eyes]
One of these things is not like the other.
The evolutionary argument paraphrased is that a genetic cause for homosexuality would not propagate through the species as it stops reproduction.
With all due respect, that is an argument that could only be made by someone who doesn’t understand genetics and/or evolution.
If all persistent genes must lead to reproductive success, how do you explain the fact that sickle-cell anemia persists in blacks, when it often kills them before they reproduce?
Homosexuality is widely observed in the animal kingdom, in about the same percentages as it is in humans. Growing up, I had a gay Peking duck (no joke — part of my youth was spent on a farm, so I’m more in tune with animals than most). I’ve seen gay seagulls. Evidently, Canadian geese have threesomes in which the males go at it, and the female joins in at the last minute.
These are not beings who are “choosing” a “lifestyle.” When it comes to sexuality, I think the wiring is the dominant factor in any sexual species. It’s a conclusion drawn from observation, not a belief “supported” by selected arguments.
@MfK
I live on a farm now, and agree with your conclusion completely. There’s just no reasoning with farm animals.
“The Animal Homosexuality Myth”
http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html
There’s just no reasoning with farm animals.
Heck, some of them will even go interspecies (i.e. horse and donkey producing a mule).
objects of contempt among adult men who fairly consistently across cultures tend to despise effeminate males.
Through most of history the men were hunting packs or later farmers and warriors and fishermen. Using Bone-age and Stone-age technology to do that sort of work would be backbreaking labor by today’s standards. Wimps among them made everyone else’s life harder, having to pull up the slack.
“Morality” of sexual preference? wtf? Perhaps the worst thing western religion has ever done is to legitimize the discussion of morality without mention of any form of harm. Who is harmed by the homosexual preference? Without harm there is no moral argument.
Rand, the sickle-cell gene persists because (1) it’s recessive — you need two copies to die from it, and (2) it provides protection against malaria, which is far more deadly in sub-Saharan Africa.
A better argument for why natural selection need not select against (and may even select for) genes for homsexuality is the “Grandmother Effect,” in essence the same reason that natural selection turns off female reproduction long before death. For all we know, homsexuality conveys substantial benefits to the close relatives of the homosexual individual, all of whom, of course, carry nearly all of the same genes.
Rand, the sickle-cell gene persists because (1) it’s recessive — you need two copies to die from it, and (2) it provides protection against malaria, which is far more deadly in sub-Saharan Africa.
Yes, I know that, Carl.
For all we know, homsexuality conveys substantial benefits to the close relatives of the homosexual individual, all of whom, of course, carry nearly all of the same genes.
Yes, but beyond that, people who think that there’s an evolutionary argument against a genetic basis for homosexuality apparently believe that those making an argument for are claiming that it is caused by a single gene, when of course it could be a complex of genes which individually are beneficial and only result in homosexuality in combination.
OK, I’ll bite, having never heard this term before. What is,
.
.
The Christians of the Global South
.
.
I can’t wait for the answer.
**Morality” of sexual preference? wtf? Perhaps the worst thing western religion has ever done is to legitimize the discussion of morality without mention of any form of harm. Who is harmed by the homosexual preference? Without harm there is no moral argument.**
Seeing morality as more than just harm is pretty much a human universal. Its not Western religion that’s the exception, its modern Western subcultures that are.
“The Christians of the Global South”
A band name? Brazilians? A new name for “getting a Brazilian”?
Adam, what are you talking about?
The only people who think there’s a “moral” issue to sexual preference are bigots. They’re the same people who used to go on about the “morality” of inter-racial relationships.
Carl beat me to it. Sickle cell was a bad example if you were trying to make a point.
For all we know, homsexuality conveys substantial benefits to the close relatives of the homosexual individual, all of whom, of course, carry nearly all of the same genes.
The article argued this as well, and it appeared to make sense at first glance. The problems I have with it though are:
1) that it requires the same amount of resources and effort from the parents to bring homosexual and heterosexual offspring to self-sustainable age. The sunk cost is the same, why create one who wont naturally procreate?
2) homosexuals aren’t hardwired to be more self sacrificial for their neices and nephews benfit than any other human. The argument assumes they’ll provide some survivability benefit for their siblings children that is greater than the benefit they could have produced by having their own offspring. I don’t make any claims of omniscience, but I haven’t seen anything that would indicate that gay persons are biologically driven to be slaves for their relatives rather than ends in themselves (and it would be a shame if they were). On the contrary, as I’m sure many of us have sadly been witness to, homosexuality is often a driver for social ostracism from the family unit.
In short: it costs more than its worth, and gay people aren’t slaves.
As for farm animals… I also grew up on a farm, and saw more than enough guy on guy animal action (llamas, sheep, dogs…) while I was growing up. But I never saw any of those animals to be exlusively homosexual. They were just horny enough to be sexually apathetic, and the ladies were having none of it.
sorry for multiple posts. the spamfilter hates me.
Also, there are lots of genetic traits that we consider diseases today, that have similar protective benefits similar to the sickle cell anemia you mentioned. Diabetes, Favism (and other anemia disorders), Hemochromatosis, the list goes on… all confer survival benefits in certain conditions. Quite fascinating. Unforunately they can be quite deterimental for longevity in conditions in which they aren’t of benefit.
Well, the inclination towards homosexuality (and perhaps many other traits) is probably not a choice but the decision to act on is a choice. Whether or not someone who tends toward a homosexual inclination should act on it and become gay I cannot say and is not really my business. Considering that that lifestyle seems to be relatively unhealthy, perhaps it should not be encouraged. To put it another way, I am not sure it is a good idea to tell a young person who might be struggling with this that it is OK to be gay. I am no expert in such matters, however and could be wrong.
Can male homosexuality be a good thing if men aren’t physically capable of enjoying the same level of sexual satisfaction with the same sex as with the opposite?
Men are structured so that c0itus is what delivers the greatest level of gratification. The closest approximate carries an unusually high risk for hepatitis C, and is physically destructive to certain tissues.
Trent, you don’t know any religious folks who don’t discuss homosexuality in the context of alleged harm? You could start here:
http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf
The arguments are secular ones, so I’m not sure they count.