|
04 aug 06 "Is being gay genetic? if being gay is genetic, then how would this result in more girls for you? the gays in question are already gay and increasing your girl-pool -- you're merely trying to determine why they're gay. maybe you're implying that gays are less likely to "go straight" if their sexuality is genetically determined. i don't think significant numbers of actively gay men "go straight", even though i've heard of one or too who do so for religious reasons (without lasting success). of course, this is different than a man who feels gay, has had a few experiences that confirm this, hasn't adopted that identity, and is desperate not to adopt that identity, so he squashes it down and goes to the prom with mary-jane instead of enjoying another night in the hay-loft with young roger. as is so often the maddening case, the answer is "yes and no"; being gay is both genetic and socially constructed. the politically correct position on this has flip-flopped a lot, and has produced the need to tread very carefully on this issue. at one point, the stance was "gays are born gay! there's nothing wrontg with them! they don't have a choice!" then, i heard "gays choose to be gay! you have no right to undermine their choice to live how they want to live!" both positions, however annoying they might be (very), are quite correct. there are physiological and psychological components to the "gay lifestyle". "being gay" becomes a little bit confusing, if you examine it more closely. what, exactly, does it mean? you may have heard of the macho "men who have sex with men" in latin america and in the arab world, and who absolutely don't self-identify as "gay." they just want something warm to stick their dongs into, and men will do in a pinch. same thing in prison -- there is mansex going on there, but the penetrator isn't considered in anyway fairy-like. however, the penetrated is, both in the case of prisoners and in the case of "men who have sex with men". so, there are some male-female gender roles being explored here, a pattern that i believe used to be more common among admittedly gay couples than it is today. the necessity of one party being exclusively the "bottom" (penetrated) and one being the "top" (penetrator) produces gender roles -- the penetrated is, obviously, the "female". i don't know how this works in lesbian couples in terms of differing sex activity, but the question was about men. however, i do know that some lesbian couples will gender themselves into "dyke" and "femme". but as i said, this hetero-mimicking isn't so popular now-a-days. on the other hand, you have people who are too timid or haven't yet explored their same gender sexually, but who self-identify as "gay", often adopting some of the stereotyped cultural traits (such as fanatical grooming and effeminate manerisms). so, we have to opposing examples: men who have sex yet arent gay, and men who don't have sex but who are gay. this comes back around to your question: is being gay genetic? because if we consider gay to be a social construct, then certainly the men who have sex with men are not gay, but are merely having sex with men. a lot of people laugh about this, though. perhaps the key element is "is the man in question sexually attracted to other men?" but this again runs us into trouble, because everyone is sexually attracted to everyone else, gender-regardless. take this test and this test, even though it might all be nonsense. be sure to answer honsetly -- don't stallwartly try to make sure you come out as un-gay as possible by contriving your answers. no one will ever know except yourself (which of course may be the concern). the point of those tests is to demonstrate that men are all a little bit "gay", in that their behavior around other men is determined by sexuality. not a big surprise, really -- sex dominates everything we do. so, that's out (people who are sexually attracted to men are gay). however, we can say "people who are 'significantly' more sexually attracted to men than they are to women are "gay", and this is moving towards a better definition. that said, to what gender, animal species, or cut of meat to which we're sexually attracted has a lot to do with inherent physiological traits (brains and hormones set up in a certain way). but, there's also a cultural/psychological component: let's say a man is 51% gay, and happens to live near a gay bar, and just doesn't hang around with many women. he's probably going to be more likely to adopt a gay lifestyle and self-identify as "gay" than that same 51%-er who lives in rural minnesota. ultimately, our brains trump any other component of biologically determined behavior, and we can "be", and behave, however we want to. many homosexuals (and heterosexuals) are capable of becoming aroused by a member of their non-preferred gender, at least on some fleeting occasion. it's become sort of popular these days for women to engage in a little bit of cosmetic bisexuality, perhaps just to get attention from men, but also perhaps because it really doesn't matter where we spit out our sexual energy -- we can get fulfillment anywhere, regardless of our gay-straight percentage (consider, again, prison). now, casual bisexuality between men isn't widely condoned or practiced, and this might either be for social reasons or for genetic reasons (men are "harder-wired" in their sexuality). i tend to think this is true (harder-wired), but not as true as people think. ie, a great deal of it is culture: society approves less of gay men. but, i really don't know. i guess i'd say that there's a genetic inclination to sexual preference, which can be either nixed or celebrated based on some psycho-social factors. but, of course, it's harder to do in some cases than in others, because some people are more gender-exclusive in their capacity for arousal than others. and, of course, it's harder to do in some cases than in others because some social and psychological situations lend themselves to open-mindedness more than others. this brings me to a theory: you know how gay men are generally more cultured, intelligent, talented, etc, as a group than the whole of straight men? i think that "coming out of the closet" (self-identifying as gay and accepting urges to have sex with other men) requires a remarkable self-awareness, courage and independent-mindedness that correlate with other positive qualities of mind. it's quite impressive, i think, when gay men accept themselves, even though it's getting easier to do nowdays (unless the proto-gay lives in the bible belt). Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." bloodguiltness? so, yeah: it starts off genetic to varying degrees, and then is either squelched or fostered culturally. that said, you won't find many people who are 30% gay who run off to be flaming queers, but you'll find a lot who are 70% gay struggle to maintain a heterosexual identity and lifestyle. sad, really. so, gay men can rightly claim both credos i mentioned earlier: "i was born that way, and, furthermore, i choose to be this way". culture rides on top (teehee) of biology. the saddest fact related to this discussion is that we need the term "gay" at all -- that sexual behavior becomes some sort of identity and tribalism-generator. gay men are still men, and they're not any different from any other man -- but society has demanded this socio-cultural split such that lisping and wearing an earing in the right ear becomes a part of some sort of twisted identity-politics. gays who adopt the "flaming gay" image sort of annoy me, even though i suppose they don't have a lot of choice (social intolerance mandates the split). if society says "you don't belong with us because of what you do", then the natural reaction is "ok, fine...i won't hang around with you", and a subculture is created, one that generates more isolation and intolerance on both sides. |
ask a question