Homosexuality, Statistics, & Conjecture

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

HELL(O) F(R)IEND(S)

I have been reviewing much of the gay marriage topic in Mundane Babble; however, that thread spun out of control. I would like to intelligently discuss homosexuality and not just marriage—as IMPORTANT—I am sick of the insults and claims of homophobia. I hope the fact that this thread is in a serious forum will prevent the stupid discussions.

The following is possibly pure conjecture; however, I find it interesting.

Item 1.0.0. The homosexual community has grown exponentially in size since the 1950’s.
Item 1.1.0. The U.S. has contributed most to this growth, followed by other democratic countries.
Item 1.1.1. Most of all growth has been achieved within the last generation.
Item 1.2.0. Growth in homosexuality is coincidentally tied to changes in American History. Thus timing is critical.
Item 1.2.1. Changes like the Civil Rights Movement.
Item 1.2.2. Changes like our attitudes towards sexual relations.
Item 1.2.3. Changes like the construct of the American family from father, mother, children to single parents.
Item 2.0.0. The last generation was the first generation of men raised by women (to borrow from Fight Club).

I repeat that the above is nearly pure conjecture; however, I find it interesting that open homosexuality has occurred most over the last 30 to 40 years in American society.

There are a few things to consider:
(1a) Is the increase in homosexuals tied to the Civil Rights movement–the conjecture here insinuates that with equal rights distributed to minorities those who had reason to hide their sexual orientation slowly began to reveal their nature over the course of the last generation until now.

b[/b] Could it be that the removal of these social barriers–the introduction of equal civil rights for all–have over the course of the last generation, served as a beacon that society has deemed the previously unacceptable as something we must not hinder, e.g. sexuality? Previously, there was a general consensus on normal behavior, whereas today, we encourage each other to be different and accept these differences.

b[/b] I am not sure whether or not homosexuals are born gay; however, I think that it is a distinct possibility that some ‘confused’ men felt that since there are no consequences of ‘experimenting’ they could try to experience new sexuality which coincides with the changing attitudes over the course of the last generation.

b[/b] The U.S. once had a nearly unified conservative outlook on sexuality. How much impact did the change of America’s sexual perspective impact the growth of homosexuality? Today, we have sexuality blatantly exposed on billboards, television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and so much more. If this exposure first led us to accept that sexuality is acceptable (and it is) perhaps some began to ponder why less acceptable behavior shouldn’t also receive acceptance. In a sense, we were lulled into more open ideas about sexuality (think the 60’s) which led us down a spiral of sexual behavior which influenced us subliminally but powerfully to lust after same sex partners…

Side Topic: I am attracted to women. I have never found a man attractive. However, could I choose to be gay despite my attraction to women? I read something about how a straight man cannot look at a man’s butt and be attracted; however, even though this is the case could a heterosexual develop an attraction? I don’t mean to sound disrespectful, but I don’t think anyone loves beer the moment they first taste it… you try it a few times and suddenly you prefer beer to all other liquids.

PLEASE NOTE: I am arguing that there is a possibility that the changes in our society have led to a greater acceptance of ‘odd’ behavior that led to an explosion of perversion in sexuality which resulted in greater numbers of homosexuals. I don’t personally think that homosexuality is perverted or that it’s a deviant condition/existence/et al.

I conclude with the standard Seinfeld waiver: “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.” Please discuss…

2

I think you should note, no one love’s american beer the first time.

And frankly I still agree american beer tastes like piss.

now onto your other notes.

could you develop an attraction, unlikely. I’ll point you to the other sites I found researching this topic for the mundane babble thread.

boardmanweb.com/rattery/geneticbasics.htm

viewzone.com/homosexual.html

libchrist.com/other/homosexual/natural.html

3

Thirst,

Good topic! I will reply later.
However, in one post I mentioned that when I was younger I did some painting (mostly humans) and I think that the male form is very interesting. It could be argued that the male form has more variety that the standard formula for a sexy female. Also, I like wieght lifting and can admire a well build guy. None of this is sexual. The human form can be very pretty. So, I can look at a butt and say, “man, nice gluts” and not even get a tingle in the pants.

Be back!

4

have you tried Viagra?

5

Yes, and it’s great!
You could put someone’s eye out that way!

6

scythekain,

You rejected the idea of developing and attraction pretty quickly. Can you give a detailed explanation of way this would be the case? Start from childhood if you will.

7

because I think sexual attraction (even though the child doesn’t really know what it is.) begins around 8 - 10. remember in that submitted story, the young man’s friend told him he knew he was gay by age 10. He was attracted to the boys in the playground and not the girls.

by making such a choice (note this young man doesn’t fit into your “clause” it’s unlikely at that age he’s been in a bad relationship or had the female browbeating that you so had a problem with in your youth.) he’s ousted himself from those unwilling to accept his “lifestyle”. (for lack of a better term.)

so the question becomes, based on this experential evidence that homosexuality is not a choice and most likely occurs due to either recessive genetics →

narth.com/docs/satinbook.html

interesting stuff here. Note I bolded the point that is proven in the rat experiment.

Will it change anyones’ mind on homosexuality that is “hell bent” against it (or lightly against?)

I think the hell bent people are hell bent for a reason and will continue to be adamant against the behavior.

i think the people closer to the middle have a better chance of changing their minds.

as for psycho-analyzing me? the best your going to get is this.

I knew from about age 8 that I found the opposite sex… intriguing. I didn’t understand “why” at the time :wink:

8

I think I may abandon the Mundane Babble thread now that this is around.

b [/b] I think yes, and also no. I don’t think the Gay Civil Rights movement happened at an arbitrary time- I think something changed into society first to increase the homosexual population, which then led to there being enough of them to organize and demand special treatment. However, to the degree that homosexuality gains public acceptence, I believe the numbers of homosexuals will increase that much moreso.

b[/b] I think the encouragement of differences is a safety net- what it does it put anyone who wants to condemn behavior on the defensive- any condemnation must be justified in some special way. Before, the only justification needed was that the masses thought something was reprehensible, and so it was treated that way. There are two assumptions here that pro-gay folks will often make, that lead to a kind of logic trap for the opponent.
1.) Only an objective, absolute moral principal could fairly condemn homosexuality.
2.) There are no such things as objective, absolute moral principals.

I believe that all proposed models of homosexual origins are real and true. I think some people are gay because something weird happened to them in the womb, I think others are gay because something weird happened in the bedroom, and these days, I’m sure some are gay because something weird happened on the internet.

b [/b] I’m not sure, but I would suspect it had a lot of impact. It’s not until someone becomes bored of the regular stuff that they start looking for kinks. At the very least, the current culture was nessecary to make the dialogue possible.

Well, a butt in jeans can look almost identicle from one gender to the next, if you can't see the rest of the person, so it's not inconcievable. However, there are many things that can be attractive, not just physical parts. For example, an [i]act[/i] can be attractive, purely by virtue of the enticing or perverse nature of the act. I speculate that a person could become aroused by the thought of gay sex [i]before[/i] they developed any real attraction for physical bodies of the same gender.
9

1a) there is no increase, there is a percieved increase because there has been a secular and liberal christian move of being accepting of the behavior. If people feel more comfortable in their own skin they’ll be comfortable making their behaviour more visible. Thus the perception that their is an “increase” in such behaviour.

1b) there has been no equal rights granted, if you wanted to and you owned a business in a large majority of the states it’d be ok not to hire someone because they were homosexual. Is something wrong with accepting differences? I don’t believe homogenization is the future.

2a) I’ve answered this question a multitude of times, while homosexuality is more accepted it’s still a “taboo” and someone could lose everything, by “experimenting”.

2b) hubris. Homosexuality has remained a constant 8 - 10 % of the male population, which happens to coincide with the amount of males in the animal population that practice homosexual behavior. again it’s a percieved increase as such behavior is no longer considered taboo and immoral by at least half of americans.

side topic:

yes you could choose to have sex with women chances are you would ejaculate from oral or anal sex with a man. Chances are you could develop to like it.

The question is, how do you make that jump? currently you (and most hetero’s) have no sexual attraction to the opposite sex.

I myself am also hetero, but the propagation of homosexual stereotyping is absolute hubris.

quoting a great song:

“live and let die”

or if you prefer, to each his (or her) own.

10

Since everyone’s tackling the other issues in this thread, I’ll throw up one more important question/theme:

A while back, there was bitching about the use of the term, “homo-negative.” So here’s my question:

  1. Do we bitch about the use of the term, “racist”?*

  2. If no to 1), why? If we use the “genetically (or biologically) determined” argument, then what about, say, lefties? That is,

  3. If people were PREJUDICED against left-handed people merely b/c the bible or their parents said left-handed people were “evil” or whatever, would we be offended/bitchified if such PREJUDICED people were labelled, say, “handists”?

3.2) If the answer is “yes” to 3), why? Handedness is also genetically or biologically determined. So, following from 1) & 2), why shouldn’t we answer “no” to 3)? Same criterion. Hell, if we look at all the races out there, who else in the world has a 10% population as lefties (that are discriminated against merely b/c of the way they were born)? EACH “RACE” comprises a relatively small proportion of the overall population, in this “enlightened” day and age (e.g., we divvy up “blacks” into a number of different sub-groups, etc.).

3.3) If we answer “no” to 3), let’s move on.

  1. From all of the research I’ve seen, I haven’t found any GUARANTEED explanation for why 10% of us are lefties. In fact, as with most things in life, whatever the genetic/biological influence (genotype), we still need some interaction with the environment to produce our phenotype (expression of genetic make-up); some cultures I believe still force kids to go against “nature” and make lefties become righties (Japan did that till not so long ago–not sure of other cultures, but I’d guess other Asian nations did [do?] too). This is an example of forcing a child to go against his/her biologically/genetically determined trait/being.

  2. Some of the parallels between homosexuality and handedness are, IMO, pretty obvious, regardless of one’s theory of orientation. Hell, the rates in the population are pretty close too.

  3. Given 5), why would we get our sncikers in such a twist when people use the term, “homo-negative”? In fact, I think it’s too weak and think “homophobic” gets the point across better, till we can come up with a term as strong as RACIST (“prejudiced” and “biased” just don’t seem to be as strong as “racist”…also, "homophobic, by definition, wouldn’t apply to many people CONSCIOUSLY–UNconsciously, I believe many people against gays DO have an IRRATIONAL FEAR…then again, the DSM requires that the disorder either interfere with their life significantly or cause great distress to them, so we couldn’t use homophobic in the clinical sense for these people).

  4. If some homo-negative people have already stated they believe people don’t CHOOSE to be gay of their own volition, but are born gay or become gay due to forces beyond their conscious control, we could argue the same thing is true of lefties (or righties cum lefties). Thus, as before, sexual orientation is comparable to handedness. Thus, again, any arguments against calling HOMO-NEGATIVITY/HOMOPHOBIA/“GAY RACISM” for what it is should be applied against discrimination against lefties. See 3) - 4) for that series of arguments.

I’d be curious to see the arguments against this logic. Step right up, folks…If you want to tell me that labelling racists as “racists” is a BAD thing, go right ahead. Impress me…

  • we could throw in “sexist,” but in my experiences, many people who squeeze the “homo-negative” gripes into whine, let it spill over into “women don’t know how good they got it” rants, whereas fewer of those people seem to go so far as to wring it out into racism, thus let’s stick with “racism” as the starting point.
11

PS

How the heck did BUBBLES all of a sudden become the master of starting threads? His last few attempts are getting people responding like crazy (ok, this one hasn’t caught too much fire yet, but it’s sure getting there).

Next thing I’m going to see, REAL WOMEN will start saying how much they wet themselves over Bubbles’ posts… :astonished:

Fair is foul, baby…Double, double, toil and trouble; fire burn all thanks to BUBBLES… :wink: :wink:

12

The usual [size=75]homo-curious[/size] suspects appear once more - :smiley: - If I was a quack-psychologist (too) I’d say you’re all secretly hiding in the closet… :wink:

Anyway - I was reading Time magazine and there was a bit that said male homosexuals, have women’s noses. ie: they react to male pheremones as a woman would:

I can imagine how it could happen. Think bog-standard hetero teenager. Grew up knowing gay=nothing intrinsically wrong with it, yani - has no fear (is it cool to be gay…?). Likes to dance. Gets into the gay club scene, purely for the music and outrageous costumes. Starts imitating style and mannerisms - develops his club-persona. This creeps into ‘real’ life. Sees a lot of (homo)sexual interaction, feels obscurely, left out. Get’s really off his face one night, wakes up with a sailor. Goes bi, - the hand that pulls your cock is just a hand… right…? Then goes the whole hog (by the simple default that he’s not in the right social circles to find a girlfriend). I think you can probably learn to be Gay, simply through the “certain behavior=press the joy buzzer”, wether it would stick as a life-long persuasion though, I don’t now.

PS: Those bloody Racist’s - they don’t know how good they’ve got it…

13

good post psyque, I’d be interested to see the other side’s response.

This would correlate with what I posted:

so if we know it quacks like a duck, and is attracted to ducks, then it’s a duck.

the information is there just as it is with “handedness”.

14

psyque

 Psyque, psyque. The logic here is so clear you could have tripped over it.  It's called [i]context[/i]. In most contexts, calling a racist a racist isn't a bad thing at all.  However, it [i]is[/i] a bad thing if you do it while pretending to be an unbiased participant in a discussion about the merits/flaws of racism. If you actually go out of your way to engage a discussion about whether or not- I dunno- Eskimos smell funny, then arguing against every point with "Well sure, but that's a racist sentiment, and therefore you're wrong" is stupid. What kinds of people did you [i]expect[/i] to meet? Instead, if you find the issue a closed case- (Obviously Eskimos don't smell any worse than anybody else, and anybody who thinks so is an irrational racist) then the right thing to do is to avoid the topic altogether- or, enter the topic only to flame the opposition, without pretending to be there for [i]actual[/i] debate.
 The only reason why homosexuals or the terms "homo-negative" or "prejudiced against homosexuality" is any different at all is that the debate is still very much alive in the culture, and thus, one is much more likely to run into a discussion about it. I personally think that anybody who chalks up any anti-homosexuality sentiment as 'irrational predjudice' takes themselves out of an active discussion too early, but I could be wrong.

To put it in perspective, have you ever had a discussion about animal rights with someone who insists on labeling every point they disagree with as ‘speciesist’? There you go.

15

Ah, Uccisore, you tried to slam my pristine hole with YOUR context, which in fact allowed you to pull out of the issue altogether. Messy messy begets drippy drippy. That is, go back to the context I am asking about: that is, generally speaking, if someone is homo-negative or homo-phobic, what’s wrong with calling them on it? I mean, you’ve already mentioned that you think homosexuality is WRONG, thus you have a negative attitude against homosexuals, hence you are homo-negative. Forget engaging in a debate; you said previously that you think same-sex sexual behaviour is bad or wrong (I forget the exact words), thus you are homo-negative (forget about context). Is that so bad to state? Isn’t it being PC NOT to admit it? Maybe I’m missing something here.

Feel free to clarify, but please stick to my original questions without trying to turn the issue inside out…

16

psyque

  Apply the same rule. There's nothing wrong with calling someone 'homo-negative' if that's what they are, just as there's nothing wrong with calling someone a 'pervert' if that's what they are. The only thing that could make something like this wrong, is context, and your goals in communication.  That's what word usage is all about. 

  Still only a matter of the same rules, it would depend on how it's used. If 'homo-negative' is simply a label, "Uccisore is homonegative", then what could be wrong with it- unless the other person takes offense and ask you to stop? However, if it comes with implied argument, "Your points are homo-negative (and thus incorrect or unworthy of consideration)" that's where it becomes a problem. I don't know how you use 'homo-negative', but you've definately used the term 'prejudiced' in the second sense, and it's led to difficulties. 
  Also, now that we're not in Mundane Babble, you suppose you could leave out the juvenile stuff if you're going to talk to me?
17

Uccisore,

Homo-negative is what it is. You are or you aren’t it. It’s simple. I understand your concern about the term being used as a barricade against discussion, but that term and even “prejudiced” are what they are. And someone who thinks a certain group is “bad” or “wrong” simply b/c of what they do, when that something has not been shown to be “bad” or “wrong” by any criterion other than religious or parental dictate, is prejudiced/biased (or, in this case, homo-negative and/or homo-phobic). It’s that simple. The numbers add up, so to speak.

As for your request that I not be “juvenile,” where did THAT come from? My original question? Nothing “juvenile” there.

A bit of humour and play on words? God forbid we should have some of THAT around here…what is this, the HEAVILY MODERATED Social Sciences Forum? Yo, Tab, pack up your bags. Sherriff Uccisore is riding into town to rid it of varmants who use irreverance now and again (oops…I’m doing it again… :unamused:).

Or was it a pre-emptive request, presuming that I would necessarily be juvenile when dealing with you in this forum? If so, that’s not very nice, is it? It could almost be seen as a type of baiting, no? And some people would consider baiting to be rather juvenile.

In any event, my original question was pretty straightforward and required a straightforward response. Simple. Responding with a “psyque, psyque” is not very contra-juvenile, is it? Some might think it’s almost derogatory or dismissive–heck, some might even call it “juvenile.” If so, I’d add a “hypocritical” to the mix…

18

This idea about blatent sexuality having an impact is interesting to me.

Firstly I would like to bring up the general hypothesis of the critical period. There are certain critical periods in the development of an organism when they are far more sensitive to particular kinds of stimulation than at any other point in their life cycle.

An example of this is found in language acquisition.

Now we have probably all heard of various historical experiments with babies to see if there is a natural language. Those experiments were designed to answer this question: If a baby does not ever get exposed to any language then what language would they speak? The answer is that children who do not get exposed to any language will not ever speak any language.

On the other hand, any healthy child who does get exposed to any particular spoken language during the critical period can learn how to speak that language. That is to say that if we took any baby from anywhere on the globe and moved them into any location and raised them there, then they could learn the langue that is spoken there. This is a universal human ability.

The critical period of language development occurs during the first few years of life. Our ability to acquire language during that critical period is quite high. Years later while our other cognitive abilities have grown significantly, our ability to acquire langue is severely diminished. A process that is simple, natural and seemingly automatic in early childhood is difficult, tedious and painstaking a few years later.

Further research shows that the degree of proficiency that a person can acquire in a language is also dependant on learning a langue during the critical period. Those who attempt to learn a language at a time outside of the critical period will only gain a limited degree of proficiency in that language.

I am going to propose that sexual orientation goes through a similar period of critical development.

During the critical development period for sexual orientation one is keenly sensitive to the sensation of sexual arousal. Stimulation from the environment during this critical period has a larger degree of impact on the functioning of the organism than the exact same stimulation would cause at any other time during the organism’s life.

This is similar to how language stimulation from the environment during the critical period of language development has more impact of the functioning of the organism than the exact same stimulation would cause at any other time during the person’s life.

The degree to which the stimulation causes a change in the operation of an organism is dependant upon the degree of sensitivity the organism has to that stimulation.

I futher propose that children experience the sensation of sexual arousal before they can name that sensation. A child can experience sexual arousal but may not be able to recognize it as such. Later during puberty the individual will develop a more effective ability to name the sensation. The frequent occurrence of the sensation during this period assists in the development of this ability.

Following the critical development period sexual orientation is mainly fixed. I suspect that the critical development period takes place before puberty so that any processed designed to change orientation after puberty would be ineffective.

I finally suggest that the abundance of sexually charged images used in advertising contributes to the wider variation we see in what sexually arouses people.

19

Interesting thesis, xanderman.

I might comment more later, but for now, let me say that children feel sexual pleasure far earlier than you propose–we’re talking from infancy.
Of course, they don’t recognize it as sexual pleasure, but they do experience the arousal/pleasure.

Also, we need to remember that in humans, we have less of a “critical” period for many things than a SENSITIVE period.

More later, probably…

20

Spot on about language, my little one’s (2 years old) busy learning Turkish at a great rate - he’s just starting to form short sentences: “Artun oturdu” (Artun sat down) “Artun parka gidiyim mı…?” (Shall Artun go to the park). The English is coming on too, though at a slower rate (less exposure - there’s only me who speaks it) But my students (18-20) struggle mightily to aquire even a smidgeon of the language in a year.

With the sexual orientation angle I’m not so sure, I agree infants/children can feel sexual arousal before they fully comprehend its nature (I can remember it from a fairly early age myself - usually a semi-waking dream I used to have - very diffuse but with hindsight, pleasurable).

With language the exposure is very easily comprehended, but with sexuality - Does the child (lets say it’s a ‘he’) absorb information on orientation from the example of his father/mother…? Yani - identifies with his father - then ‘twigs’ on a sub-conscious level “Hmm - fathers like mothers…”…? I mean, unless he actually stumbles in on his mum and dad ‘on the job’ to be vulgar, how is the child to tell the difference between the relationships between father/mother and father/father’s male friends or mother/mother’s friends - in England (and maybe US) the difference in actual physical contact is very marked, but in other cultures not so - Turkey, everyone kisses everyone, everyone hugs everyone, men walk arm in arm with their friends down the street. Shocking to a tight-arse Brit like me… :unamused: But actual male/female contact is much less evident/frowned upon - even in the home - I can shock my baby-sitter by simply pecking my wife on the lips for example. And Films of an overt sexual nature are pretty much none-existant on national TV.

I think it’s also a case that a lot of people have simply come out of the closet, and embraced their foibles openly, now that it has become more acceptable to be different from the norm. Plus I suppose as advertizing adapts to new demographics - there will be more ads tailored with a greater specificy to the various sexual types → more influeneced children… By that reasoning - we may all be gay-shoe-fetish-cross-dressers in time. :smiley:

Psyque - what are the stats on homosexuality…? ie: what’s the instance per 100 people (or 1000 whatever…?) And more importantly - has it increased or decreased since the advent of liberalized sexual imagery in advertizing… For the advertising is weighted heavily in favour of heterosexuality… You’d think the instances would have decreased…

I think it’s always going to be a mixture of variables - like depression - there is a genetic predisposition as far as I remember, but this only makes the carrier more likely to respond depressively to a triggering event, no…? Must be the same with orientation. I find it strange from an evolutionary point of view, that the question of sexual orientation arises at all - I mean, a trait for exclusive-homosexuality is a dead-end, as far as individually furthering your genetic line goes.

I remember the Red-indians used to stake out their homosexual warriors in the front-line - and they’d fight to the death…Homosexuals make great beserkers…? More likely to go that extra mile for their lovers in arms…? Perhaps if you take the selfish-gene pack species angle, the tribe could absorb a few homosexuals, but I can’t see an overt overall benefit. I know it’s a fallicious thought but there must be some usefulness to homosexuality - because the predisposers have been conserved.

A final question - what if the child in question is for some reason isolated and ‘misses the window’ for orientating… Heterosexuality as ‘default setting’ or just a reduced, free-floating, un-focussed libido…?