From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Tue Dec 23 2003 - 20:29:24 GMT
Hi Wim, DMB, all,
> Steve wrote 16 Dec 2003 20:09:46 -0500:
> 'I was surprised that you would so whole-heartedly agree with DMBs claim
> that homosexuality is hardwired through DNA ... I find it hard to believe
> that there is a "pussy-loving" gene or a "dick-fancying" gene.
> ...
> I can somewhat understand why DMB would see sexuality as biologically
> latched since he does not use the same definitions of the levels as we, but
> do you really see human sexuality in all its complexity as a purely
> biological pattern?'
>
Wim:
> No, not everything that goes under the name of 'sexuality', nor everything
> that goes under the name of 'homosexuality' can be explained with biological
> patterns of value. Just as at least part of 'sexuality' IS explainable at
> the biological level, so is -I think- at least part of 'homosexuality'.
Steve:
I am glad you agree that human sexuality is tied up in both social and
biological patterns of value.
The politically correct position on homosexuality in the US is that sexual
orientation is biologically determined. It seems that this biological basis
is a deduction from the premise that one's sexual orientation does not seem
to be a choice rather than being a conclusion based on a scientific
discovery. I'd be interested to hear about research though.
Sure there are some people, especially at liberal arts colleges I've heard,
who experiment with their sexuality with the idea of discovering their "true
nature" lying underneath all of their social conditioning (since SOMers tend
to think that their "true nature" is biologically-based and what's really
real, and their social patterns are merely a repression of this biological
nature). Only for some, homosexual behavior or heterosexual behavior is a
conscious decision (sexual behavior has an intellectual component as well),
but very few people consider their sexual orientation a choice.
>It
> is obviously not the result of one gene, but of the complex interplay of
> genes among themselves AND with circumstances in which people (or animals
> for that matter) find themselves. This interplay permits (statistically) a
> range of outcomes and at the outer fringes of this range (as visualized in a
> Bell curve) homosexuality is a normal outcome.
> Genes contributing to that outcome may be genes encoding for a stronger
> sex-drive than usual and a circumstance enabling it may be more exposure to
> people of the same sex than to people of the other sex. Other combinations
> of genes and circumstances may have a comparable outcome.
I agree that the biological latch aspect of sexual preference is real and
probably not a single gene but rather a "complex interplay of genes." What
do you imagine are the purely biological triggers of sexual urges that would
suggest preferences for maleness or femaleness? You mentioned exposure to
more or less people of the same sex, but how, from a strictly DNA-encoded
biological point of view, would we even recognize the imbalance? I
previously mentioned pheromones which I don't think are important for modern
humans, but I could be wrong. It's hard to imagine that we have hard-wired
sexual preferences for certain shapes of people. Even if we do, there is so
much variability in shapes and sizes of people that regardless of the
desired shape, there are both males and females that would fit the bill.
My opinion is that though I have trouble thinking how it would work, I think
that somehow there is a biological latch for a tendency to favor one sex or
the other, but I don't think that there exists a biologically human animal
who would not display homosexual behavior had this human existed as part of
some different set of social patterns. In other words, I don't think that
anyone is completely biologically determined to be either homosexual or
heterosexual.
I'm sure, for example, that many who may have claimed to be "All Man" (like
DMB although he never specifically used those words) have willingly engaged
in homosexual behavior after being sentenced to prison.
I've never desired any physical contact with a male beyond a handshake, pat
on the back, scruffing of my hair when I was a kid, or a friendly hug,
either, but come on, DMB, if you were stranded on a desert island, wouldn't
you prefer the companionship of a Brad Pitt over some really, really, really
ugly fat old hag? I mean if you were forced to pick one of them to have sex
with, are your so sure you'd choose the hag? Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp, Matt
Damon, and, I dunno, maybe all of those young guys that are supposed to be
so hot, look a lot more feminine than a lot of women, right?
As I've said before, though I put a lot of weight on social patterns in
explaining human sexuality (in my understanding of social patterns, they are
latched through unconscious copying of human behavior, and they are the only
way I can explain DMBs fetish for French maid costumes ;-)) doing so does
*not* make sexual orientation a conscious choice. Value choices occur on
all levels, but *conscious* decisions characterize the intellectual level
only.
Thanks,
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 23 2003 - 20:30:16 GMT