Pharyngula

Posted by: Frank Oswalt | August 29, 2009 9:25 AM

Yeah those mean scientists with their several methodological concerns. Why won't they ignore the scientific method and see the truth?

Posted by: Sabazinus | August 29, 2009 9:31 AM

Curse you Science! Get off my lawn! *shakes cane*

Posted by: Gordon | August 29, 2009 9:32 AM

The only way I can see someone believing that you have to train yourself not to be attracted to the same sex is if that person is already attracted to their own sex, and an idiot.

As a straight guy it takes zero effort for me to notice an atractive female, but unless a guy is conspicuosly ugly I have no clue how attractive he'd be to gay men or straight women.

Clearly I am not making any kind of choice here! The option to "fancy men" is just not on the table for me, so why should the option to find women attractive be automatically available to my gay counterpart?

Posted by: Scott | August 29, 2009 9:35 AM

I think a lot of Christians really do think they could be converted easily to homosexuality. You hear a lot in anti-gay marriage rhetoric that if gays can get married, everyone else will get divorced because apparently, the lure of gay sex is too strong for any hetero to resist. I have no idea why this idea seems to be so widespread -- I'd be tempted to say they're all closeted, but I doubt that many Christians are secretly homosexuals...

Posted by: DuckPhup | August 29, 2009 9:36 AM

It has occurred to me that the christ-cultists might be screwing themselves. If they were to allow that homosexuality has a genetic component, then they might realize that their tactics of using Jesus and fear of eternal damnation to browbeat and frighten homosexuals into heterosexual relationships... even temporarily... might have the unintended consequence of creating even more homosexuals. That would seem to be rather short-sighted, and self-defeating. Their agenda might be better served by encouraging homosexuals to seek homosexual partners.

Posted by: Rick R | August 29, 2009 9:39 AM

"Their latest result claims a program of Christian counseling..."

Christian counseling? Isn't that act 3 of "The Exorcist"?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 29, 2009 9:45 AM

unless a guy is conspicuosly ugly I have no clue how attractive he'd be to gay men or straight women.

I'm straight but I can recognize why gay men and straight women can find Orlando Bloom or Idris Elba attractive. Guys like those are good-looking.

The only thing I've never understood is why several women, including my wife, found me to be attractive when I was young. Back then I spent most of my time sitting in the corner, licking my eyebrows.

Posted by: Rick R | August 29, 2009 9:47 AM

MAJeff- "Paul Cameron, their favorite "researcher," has compared orgasms resulting from gay sex to heroin in their addictive potential."

Sneaky, that. Comparing gay sex to an addictive drug.

Of course, all those straight people are just having normal, non-addictive, completely non-habit forming orgasms.

Straight sex = decaf?

Posted by: Shaun | August 29, 2009 9:47 AM

We have a 60% strike rate - 3/5 on our program. QED.

Posted by: AdamK | August 29, 2009 9:51 AM

As a straight guy it takes zero effort for me to notice an atractive female, but unless a guy is conspicuosly ugly I have no clue how attractive he'd be to gay men or straight women.

Really? Because as a gay man, I can pretty easily sort women into a rough idea of who would be considered hot and who not*. I'm always a little dubious about straight mens' naivete claims. Doesn't the media/advertizing give you at least a partial clue?

-----------------

*of course there are always mysterious exceptions. Kirsten Dunst? Really?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 29, 2009 9:56 AM

Because as a gay man, I can pretty easily sort women into a rough idea of who would be considered hot and who not*. I'm always a little dubious about straight mens' naivete claims.

Yeah. I went to see Casablanca the other night. Good god, Ingrid Bergman was stunning. Didn't get me hot, didn't make me straight, but I could tell that was a beautiful women. Doesn't make you gay to say that someone like, oh, Freddie Ljungberg is an attractive man.

Posted by: NB Davies | August 29, 2009 10:00 AM

@MaJeff Comment 14

LMAO - That's seriously funny.

Posted by: Thorne | August 29, 2009 10:00 AM

@ #13 'Tis Himself: The only thing I've never understood is why several women, including my wife, found me to be attractive when I was young. Back then I spent most of my time sitting in the corner, licking my eyebrows.
Boy did that make me laugh! I was exactly the same way. I eventually came to the conclusion that I had something to offer that other men didn't have. I now charge by the inch.

@ #14 MAJeff, OM: If you were able to lick your own eyebrows, we may have found the answer.
Ahh, you've been watching my videos!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 29, 2009 10:04 AM

Wait Reagent University is saying they can turn people Gay?

I have a feeling I misread that...

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 29, 2009 10:11 AM

As a straight guy it takes zero effort for me to notice an atractive female, but unless a guy is conspicuosly ugly I have no clue how attractive he'd be to gay men or straight women.

Strange. I'm a pretty staunch heterosexual (whatever the hell that means) but I can easily discern who is attractive and unattractive be they male or female. Don't get me wrong, sometimes I miss the boat by a long shot but that happens with women as well.

Posted by: Bob O'H | August 29, 2009 10:26 AM

If you were able to lick your own eyebrows, we may have found the answer.

Posted by: littlejohn | August 29, 2009 10:27 AM

Yes, I can well remember my 13th birthday, when I made a conscious decision to ignore my satanic attraction to men and become heterosexual. Suddenly, those girls looked swell! Praise Jebus! I assume all of you who aren't infected with teh gay did the same.

Posted by: Opisthokont | August 29, 2009 10:30 AM

It never seems to occur to them that that implies that their own sexual orientation would then be an arbitrary matter of a trained esthetic, and that that would imply that they should be easily flipped into homosexuality themselves (probably with a little Satan).

Several reactions to this.

First, I think that (gasp) PZ has it entirely wrong. This is not a case of a perceived flexibility, but of a perceived -- and uniform -- rigidity. To take an analogy, these are people who think that atheists are consciously lying to themselves: they are convinced that everybody knows in their heart that God exists, and so atheists do not actually disbelieve in God so much as they deny God. This probably informs their frequent assertion that atheists are angry at God. It then makes sense that they see sexuality as similar: everybody is straight, whether they acknowledge it or not, and if they do not, it is because they are rebelling against something.

As a corollary, the worry about homosexuality being somehow infectious makes sense. "Recruiting" homosexuals is no different, to them, from "recruiting" atheists, in that it is a process of convincing (or coercing) people into denying what every fibre of their consciousness knows to be right. The ultimate motivation for this, as for everything these sorts of people disagree with, is Satan, and logic need be applied no further (little though it was applied to get to this point in the first place).

And that brings up my final point: starting a sentence with "It never seems to occur to them that that implies" excludes fundamentalists from square one. If they think that a particular line of thought is Satanic, they will not entertain it; even if they do, to investigate what its merits are in order to refute them, they will do so with paranoid shallowness, lest they themselves become tempted. We see this all the time with creationists, after all. Should any small spark of their consciousness start saying "hey, wait, that might not be the case", it gets hit with a Bible so hard that it runs cowering back into obscurity, hopefully to tell its friends not to bother either.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 29, 2009 10:32 AM

I hadn't heard that. I'm going to look for that quote. If you posted a link, that would be cool.

Here ya go:

“Untrammeled homosexuality can take over and destroy a social system,” says [Paul] Cameron. “If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get- and that is what homosexuality seems to be-then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm.”

So powerful is the allure of gays, Cameron believes, that if society approves of gay people, more and more heterosexuals will be inexorably drawn into homosexuality. “I’m convinced that lesbians are particularly good seducers,” says Cameron. “People in homosexuality are incredibly evangelical,” he adds, sounding evangelical himself. “It’s pure sexuality. It’s almost like pure heroin. It’s such a rush. They are committed in almost a religious way. And they’ll take enormous risks, do anything.”

He says that for married men and women, gay sex would be irresistible. “Marital sex tends toward the boring end,” he points out. “Generally, it doesn’t deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does” So, Cameron believes, within a few generations homosexuality would be come the dominant form of sexual behavior.

Posted by: ice9 | August 29, 2009 10:36 AM

Yeah, those programs are quite successful. Take a bunch of frightened, hell-fearin', ignorant gay Christians, just been threatened by Dad, threatened by Brother, and guilted by tearful Mom (and supported by Sis, though not enough)...sit them down in a church classroom with a bunch of other young men JUST LIKE THEM, and harangue them for a while. Sounds a lot like that nuclear sub cruise recipe: isolation plus pressure plus shared false guilt = romance, except that the ingredients were already conducive to covalent bonding. The one-third that wouldn't talk to them anymore didn't answer the door because they were paired off and high as the bejesus on gaygasms. The other third were lying their asses off.

I've always been amused by the notion of recruitment. It's such a one-sided concept. Every factor at work goes contrary to the scenario imagined by Jesusians. The gay teachers I know are almost uniformly more proper than the straight ones. The recruitment I know of is typically between young straight men teachers and of-age (or close) girls who are tired of the fumbling attentions of their contemporary boyfriends. I know two men who married their former students, after a discreet interval of course. Both are quite religious.

But of course when young men or women identify as gay, especially if their families are not supportive (or would ship them off to a re-education camp), one of the few reliable sources of information and support is school; the openly gay teachers I know are frequently approached in this way. Because the adults typically had a tough time of it with their own realization process, they are quite likely to become mentors. Also they're teachers, which makes them much more inclined to be supportive of young people. This is itself a dangerous situation in appearance, of course, but who recruited whom? That's the Dead Poet's Society scenario.

I teach in a fairly liberal school where openly gay students are common and suffer a surprisingly slight amount of abuse; their abusers are usually religious. Such gay students often go through the same social transformation as scantily clad girls do--leave the house straight, arrive at school gay.
I once heard a colleague refer to high school as an effective means of de-gaying young people--less and less, unless you're unlucky enough to draw one of those schools run by a Kent Hovind-approved principal.

ice9

Posted by: Rick R | August 29, 2009 10:42 AM

“Marital sex tends toward the boring end,” he points out. “Generally, it doesn’t deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does”

Reason #67,423,016 that ALL these people know is projection.

That's OK, Paul. You can leave up your life-size Josh Holloway poster that you bought on ebay.

You just admire his physique. We won't think you're....... y'know.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 29, 2009 10:47 AM

This is itself a dangerous situation in appearance, of course, but who recruited whom? That's the Dead Poet's Society scenario.

Regrettably, whenever I have dreams about the cast of House, the most I manage to do with Robert Sean Leonard is wait in the buffet line at a science-in-the-media conference, asking him, "So, that kid in Dead Poets Society. Was he supposed to be closeted or just really desperate to become an actor?"

Posted by: Gordon | August 29, 2009 10:51 AM

wow, a lot to answer. I must be fairly untypical then!

AdamK "Doesn't the media/advertizing give you at least a partial clue?"

sure I have a partial clue. I *know* Bradd Pitt, Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom are hot like I *know* Paris is the capital of France. But I dont know why... When I deal with a guy who has never stared in a movie or graced the cover of a magazine I doubt I'd score better than chance at rating his attractiveness.

Rick R "Indeed. Look at the movie "Fight Club". You really don't see a difference between Edward Norton and Brad Pitt? The fact that Pitt is a sexy guy is one of the reasons Norton's character chose him to be his alter ego."

Surely part of the point of Fight Club is that there is no difference. We may think that people are drawn to Tyler because of his Brad Pitt looks, but BAM he was Edward all the time. So those waters are fairly muddied. Though there's a dash of "you're as sexy and charming as you think you are" thrown in.

Rev. BigDumbChimp "but I can easily discern who is attractive and unattractive be they male or female. Don't get me wrong, sometimes I miss the boat by a long shot but that happens with women as well."

Missing the boat is more or les where I'm coming from here. I have little to no confidence in my predictions. I've seen it happen with women too. Female friends will speak of this gorgeous vivaceous girl you simply must meet, but when you do it is fairly clear that they have widely missed the mark.

mr_subjunctive "The strangest part of this statement, to me, is the implication that all straight men are in perfect agreement on the hotness of any given female, and that the gay man / straight woman bloc is equally unanimous. This is just not so."

agreed, if that was implied in my post it was absolutely unintended. The fact that tastes vary is another factor muddying the waters and making me doubt my guess...

"Plus: you do so know the difference. Who's a more threatening rival for your wife/gf, Hugh Jackman or Robin Williams? They're both famous, both well-off, both funny, both hairy, neither particularly disfigured, but I'm guessing you know which one's better-looking without having to think about it. You might be conditioned not to think about the difference, but you know the difference."

Ironically I did have to think about it.

Still, I stand by what I thought was the essence of my post... attraction is not a choice. It just happens.

Posted by: RamblinDude | August 29, 2009 10:55 AM

“Untrammeled homosexuality can take over and destroy a social system,” says [Paul] Cameron. “If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get- and that is what homosexuality seems to be-then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm.”

You mean straight Christian men don’t get satisfying orgasms when they have sex with their subservient wives? They find it hard to achieve a satisfying orgasm when they’re incessantly preoccupied with guilt, biblical rules, male-female dominance, avoiding the doggy position and oral-genital contact for fear of eternal hellfire, and an image of a bloody naked Jesus nailed to a cross in the back of their minds?

Huh, go figure.

Posted by: ChrisKG | August 29, 2009 11:03 AM

So, let me get this right, by their logic, if I were gay then it was Satan that made me straight? Am I missing something here? What if every Christian was actually Gay and it was Satan that made them straight? Oh, wait...it's a choice...or was it Satan again...I'm so confused.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 29, 2009 11:04 AM

I was lying about licking my eyebrows. I can just barely lick my eyelashes.

One thing I noticed in the article PZ linked to:

All the subjects were going through programs set up by Exodus International, a Christian ministry that seeks to help those who want to leave homosexuality.

Their "53% success rate" was based on a sample of those who wanted no longer to be homosexual. These people were self-selected to succeed in giving up the gay. Or at least they had some motivation to change their sexual orientation or not act on it, even if the motivation came from outside themselves. But even then, most of the "successes" just became celibate rather than straight.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 29, 2009 11:06 AM

if I were gay then it was Satan that made me straight? Am I missing something here? What if every Christian was actually Gay and it was Satan that made them straight? Oh, wait...it's a choice...or was it Satan again...I'm so confused.

It's obviously Satan's choice whether you're straight or gay. :P

Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 29, 2009 11:10 AM

Paul Cameron:

If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one's own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get- and that is what homosexuality seems to be-then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist.

Huh. So, then, I guess gay marriage isn't a problem after all, since gay people are never looking for relationships anyway.

Fuckwit.

Posted by: Rick R | August 29, 2009 11:17 AM

"Shorter Paul Cameron: "I'm lousy in bed."

Jennifer @#56 wins the thread!

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 29, 2009 11:19 AM

From the article:

"When the evidence goes against the view they’re expressing, they apply strong scientific standards. And when the evidence goes with the views they’re expressing, they’re considerably more accepting."

Irony abounds.

Posted by: raven | August 29, 2009 11:25 AM

The fundamentalist community has a strong interest for some bizarre reason in converting homosexuals into heterosexuals.

Prabably not. What holds fundies together is pure, raw hate. It is their social glue. Standard primate in group out group behavior.

So they have to hate someone or something. And a lot of their targets are now considered socially off limits or boring for many of them.
Hating Irish, Italian, and Slav immigrants just isn't working any more.
Hating Catholics is OK but no one cares. Besides there is 70 million of them an
d any serious hate is going to returned in kind.

Hating Jews is OK but they need the Jews to build the 2nd temple for the Rapture.
Hating nonwhites is OK but people care less and less about that these days.
Hating commies is OK but no one can find any. Attempts to resurrect them as the Democractic party are working but just barely.
Hating satanists might work, but no one can find any of them either.

Hating other xians is OK but most other xians don't even notice or if they do, just hate the fundies back.

So really, the current targets are gays, scientists, MDs, atheists, and Moslems. If they weren't hating gays and atheists, they would find some other group to hate

It isn't that they care about gays, which is none of their business anyway. It is that hate is it's own reward and part of their social control system. The cult that hates together, stays together.

Posted by: Gerry | August 29, 2009 11:31 AM

Christians are seriously sick. Anyone who would not refute the statement in the new testament that says that individuals in heaven would get pleasure from seeing the torment of the damned has got to have something extremely wrong with them. Anyone here get any pleasure from seeing anyone tortured?

Posted by: Ivy McAllister | August 29, 2009 11:38 AM

The story that Pete tells about his de-programming experience (at 6:20) is horrible, but wait for the end of it (around 8:00). The hypocrisy is disgusting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sJnpEc2fZA

(The entire show is pretty interesting, if a bit fluffy.)

Posted by: kerry | August 29, 2009 11:49 AM

Great discussion but, I am glad MikeTheInfidel posted the next paragraph of the article that PZ left out. No one commented on, and we have no information about, why Jones felt the APA had applied rigorous standards to dismiss Jones' claim but he felt that the APA had not used the same rigorous standards on its own findings. I don't think we should allow Jones to have any reason to think the standards are applied unequally and I don't think PZ should have left off the small paragraph in the original post. It makes it seem like we are playing the same game they do....

And, I can only lick my nose hair. Women find it disgusting, yet strangely compelling.

Perhaps women would find Robin Williams more attractive as he has perhaps the best sense of humour (an often-cited important attractant for women), certainly better than Hugh's.

Posted by: Zen Druid | August 29, 2009 11:55 AM

@ 'Tis Himself and Thorn:

Great. Now I have to deal with tongue envy.

Posted by: Pyrrhonic | August 29, 2009 12:00 PM

We could attempt to confirm their results that (a) a homosexual orgasm is as addictive as heroin, and that (b) heterosexual men and women can be converted.

I'd like to volunteer myself for a comparative orgasm study to evaluate the first claim. When do we start?

Posted by: Pete | August 29, 2009 12:01 PM

Straight guy: Ex-Christian (about one month). Paul Cameron is some kind of retard. I can't imagine anyone would think a straight guy is going to turn gay for a better orgasm. Say what???? I'm married, and my sex life is not boring. But even if it was, that is not going to make me desire men!!!!! That's batshit insane. I might desire more fun with my wife, I might desire other women, but nothing will make me desire another man touching me anywhere, nor putting . . . I can't even finish the thought.

I think in general it is a mild insult to claim all homophobes are secretly struggling with homosexuality; I used to be a homophobe and did not have those struggles. However, it Cameron's case, I simply can't imagine he would say something like that without having some attraction to men, otherwise he would recognise how bat-shit crazy that sounds. If Paul wanted a better orgasm, would he would turn to a man???

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 29, 2009 12:10 PM

Because as a gay man, I can pretty easily sort women into a rough idea of who would be considered hot and who not*. I'm always a little dubious about straight mens' naivete claims. - Knockgoats

Indeed, as a het man, I'd say it's absolute bullshit to claim such men can't tell whether other men are attractive to het women or gay men. Of course, there are cases when I'd be wrong, but the same is true with respect to whether most other het men (or lesbians or bisexuals) find specific women attractive: tastes in physical appearance vary, but not to such an extent that you can't say "X is attractive" or "X is unattractive".

Posted by: Paul | August 29, 2009 12:22 PM

@Kerry#67: but, in the interest of intellectual integrity, PZ did link to the article so that we could read the entire thing.

Posted by: NickG | August 29, 2009 12:25 PM

Darkwin @66: "i mean, how could you top that: being gay, being an atheist?"

Gay, atheist, and hand out condoms and other contraception in a women's health clinic? Do I get the trifecta?

Nick

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 29, 2009 12:27 PM

Yawn, idjit posting irrelevant videos thinking they are evidence, rather than entertainment.

Posted by: NickG | August 29, 2009 12:32 PM

Enkidu @76: "Gay or straight, innate or a choice, your sexuality should never be my business, nor mine yours."

Meh..... mostly. As long as it involves X individuals who are able to consent and do. If you are sexually attracted to underage children, or animals (or any living thing that is unable to consent) I feel sorry for you, but if you can't keep it in your pants it becomes the business of society.

Nick

Posted by: raven | August 29, 2009 12:39 PM

Do you guys know the real reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? The answer may surprise you?

OK, I'll play. Because those cities were full of fundie xians. And no it doesn't surprise anyone. He is still smiting them in their homeland of the south central USA with tornados and hurricanes. God hates fundie xians but they never catch on.

Posted by: becca | August 29, 2009 12:46 PM

#84

Did you just put homosexuality on the same level as bestiality and pedophilia?

I didn't get that reading at all from the original comment - what I got was a statement that, as long as there is mutual valid consent, it doesn't matter who does what with whom. Pedophilia and bestiality are not ok because there cannot be valid consent.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 29, 2009 12:56 PM

Gay, atheist, and hand out condoms and other contraception in a women's health clinic? Do I get the trifecta?

Do you automatically reach for shredded baby as a condiment?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 29, 2009 12:59 PM

I didn't get that reading at all from the original comment - what I got was a statement that, as long as there is mutual valid consent, it doesn't matter who does what with whom. Pedophilia and bestiality are not ok because there cannot be valid consent.

Ok my bad then

Posted by: chgo_liz | August 29, 2009 1:04 PM

Gerry @ #63:

Christians are seriously sick. Anyone who would not refute the statement in the new testament that says that individuals in heaven would get pleasure from seeing the torment of the damned has got to have something extremely wrong with them. Anyone here get any pleasure from seeing anyone tortured?

I don't think a lot of Republicans read this blog.

Posted by: spondee | August 29, 2009 1:16 PM

Now I'm just horny.

Posted by: inkling | August 29, 2009 1:21 PM

Opisthokont @ #35

This is why I love this blog.
The quality of the commentary by the readers is often so high that it actually elevates the insight and depth of the original article, and doesn't just dance around happily or hatefully at it's feet.

"This probably informs their frequent assertion that atheists are angry at God."

Yeah, right? I find that so maddening. I want to ask them "I don't know, why are you so angry at Thor?" It makes total sense that this same idea of an underlying and self-evident uniform reality that you either embrace or rebel against would also inform their concepts of sexuality.

"....to investigate what its merits are in order to refute them, they will do so with paranoid shallowness, lest they themselves become tempted."

"paranoid shallowness". Exactly. That was me on so many subjects (scientific, moral, political and historical)

"it gets hit with a Bible so hard that it runs cowering back into obscurity, hopefully to tell its friends not to bother either."

just lol. :)

Posted by: AdamK | August 29, 2009 1:28 PM

Do you guys know the real reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? The answer may surprise you?

For the same reason Gandalf destroyed the last of the Balrogs.

Because it never fucking happened, moron.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | August 29, 2009 1:35 PM

This reminds me of a very religious gay man I used to work with. His church hooked him up with a lesbian, so they could "rehabilitate" each other. Or something.
It was tragically sad.

I was lying about licking my eyebrows. I can just barely lick my eyelashes.

I'm so lonely.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 29, 2009 1:42 PM

It seems that married gay sex with would be the best of both worlds, then.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 29, 2009 1:47 PM

#80
I'm sorry, but the "evidence" presented in those videos seems a bit nuts, for the lack of a better term.

pfft. If they think that gay sex is somehow more pleasurable and addictive then straight sex then they are doing it wrong. Geeze, my bf in high school was hella addicted to straight sex but he'd never touch a guy. If they feel that way, they most not have been getting any from their partner.

But hey now that were going around changing folk’s sexual orientation, perhaps I can convince those frat boys at the gym to hook up with each other so that I can finally use the bench presses. (and get a free show from them :D)

Posted by: george.w | August 29, 2009 2:01 PM

It's difficult to avoid the question of why homosexuality bothers them so much. Most likely explanation that occurs to me is that they have these... urges, and fear that with just a little persuasion they could be flipped.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 29, 2009 2:22 PM

I suspect I know what Paul Cameron fantasizes about when he's doing the dirty with the missus.

Posted by: tmaxPA | August 29, 2009 2:23 PM

The funniest part was the last paragraph:

“In our experience from discussing with the subjects, an awful lot of them just want to move on,” Jones said. “We had to really persuade people to stay in for this final assessment.”

Posted by: Standard Curve | August 29, 2009 2:26 PM

The article provides a link to the study, but the link is dead.

http://www.ivpress.com/media/%20pdfs/ex-gay-apa.pdf

The "Page not found" page tells us a little more about where they had to publish.

InterVarsity Press / PO Box 1400 / Downers Grove, IL 60515 / 630.734.4000 / email@ivpress.com
Copyright © 1995-2009 by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA

So why are they hiding their paper? Perhaps it can't stand the light of day?

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 29, 2009 2:31 PM

Oh addendum to last post, that's the general reasons for general homohate, the specific cases extra "het" up about the gays. They're all at least bi. Every damn one of them. But to be fair, I strongly suspect that the number of bi people of one flavor or another would be a majority of the population with full honest reporting.

Another reason for the hate is it's the last line of defense on something very dear to their hearts, control over Christian wives and daughters in patriarchal roles. They've been trying to keep that bigoted crap beating along at least in their own communities and it's really hard to sell the natural roles idea when the gay couple down the street seems to be doing fine. At least with the other egalitarian couples, you can pretend they revert to proper roles when alone, but it's rather difficult to imagine said roles with a gay couple, especially when you're using them as an excuse why you as a man can't do any of the dreadful unthanked tasks such as most forms of housework.

If they can see happy gay couples, the "you have to" argument for perpetuating patriarchy collapses big time.

Which I believe is what they mean when they whine about the "end of traditional marriage". They mean the end of wife as "natural" house slave model.

Posted by: aratina cage | August 29, 2009 2:42 PM

I agree Cerberus, it's all an extension of patriarchy at its roots, which goes back far before Christianity or Judaism, and that is why we see the same hatred of gays in non-Christian cultures whether they be Buddhist, Confucianist, atheist, etc.

Posted by: NickG | August 29, 2009 2:52 PM

Rev. BigDumbChimp: @84 “Did you just put homosexuality on the same level as bestiality and pedophilia?”

Yes. Along with heterosexuality, sadomasochism, and furries. That is, what and whom adults are attracted to is hard-wired and relatively unchangeable whether its boys, girls, leather-clad hunks or people in freaky animal suits.

Wow, that's second time in 24 hours I've been called or implied to be homophobic (the last was a college student who thought I was homophobic because I wouldn't allow them to scream obscenities and urinate in the hallway at work.) Gee, I must have some serious internalized homophobia... or at least that's what my husband thinks now after these two stories.

'Tis Himself: @ 89 “Do you automatically reach for shredded baby as a condiment?”

Nah. Shredded baby has always been a fav on a salad, but if you want a great condiment or topping for your burger try the first press of the fat from a free range organic baby mixed with a little lemon tahini. Mmmmm!

Posted by: Jeff | August 29, 2009 2:58 PM

Another reason for the hate is it's the last line of defense on something very dear to their hearts, control over Christian wives and daughters in patriarchal roles.

I agree with Cerberus; I think this is a very large part of it. Happy, well-adjusted gay couples challenge their hegemony. Also, what right do gay people have to be happy, doing something the Bible implies and their authority figures state flat out will bring them misery? How dare they challenge my cozy world view by forcing me to see that my pastor doesn't know what the f*ck he's talking about!

Fundamentalism is a form of addiction, and with addicts, the number one rule is - you aren't allowed to tell them anything they don't want to hear.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 29, 2009 3:04 PM

Whoops correction, the numbers on the scale I was ranting about were the three between 3 and 6 or more technically, two unique numbers, 4 and 5 which are respectively slightly more gay than straight and gay with straight tendencies.

Posted by: not a gator | August 29, 2009 3:09 PM

Damn! I forgot a really important point:

In the 1950's, psychologists started realizing that their conversion methods were not working. Critics pointed out that even the "better" methods were only able to show a % who agreed not to engage in homosexual behavior (rarely, if ever, did anyone "switch"--they simply became celibate), out of the subset who actually completed the program, at the time the program ended. What the boosters would fail to add--but the critics were eager to point out--was that in one-year follow ups, the ultimate success rate was zero.

No "conversion" program study is valid without 1-year followup. This has been known since the 1950's, and they are simply liars if they pretend otherwise.

Also: stunningly similar to the "crash" diet.

Posted by: not a gator | August 29, 2009 3:18 PM

shaun:

We have a 60% strike rate - 3/5 on our program. QED.

If true, that means only 1/5 at time of completion agreed to be celibate (or, harr harr, said they were now straight--some people will agree to anything to please someone).

If so, that's EVEN WORSE than the 1950's numbers!

Hahahahahahaha!!!

The old "guilty grip" just doesn't work so well any more when there are so few social consequences to being gay.

Btw, Christian gay "conversion", when it isn't the chillingly sadistic aversion therapy techniques (electric shocks to the 'nads & other nasty crap), is basically the old faith healer/woo-ster line: it won't work if you don't have faith/belieeeeve/pray hard enough. So if you aren't cured, it isn't that the technique doesn't work, it's that you failed. Nice.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 29, 2009 3:20 PM

124-

Yeah, It's pretty obvious for any non-bisexual that you can't turn on what isn't there, though I imagine there may be some heterosexuals who just haven't thought about it on any level.

It's been extra obvious to me with zero sexuality to begin with. Based on the incredulous replies I get from the general public about that, I imagine suddenly having a sexuality would be rather jarringly obvious.

Posted by: not a gator | August 29, 2009 3:22 PM

@19

Really? Because as a gay man, I can pretty easily sort women into a rough idea of who would be considered hot and who not*. I'm always a little dubious about straight mens' naivete claims. Doesn't the media/advertizing give you at least a partial clue?

*-Dunst was considered hot in her late teens, IIRC.

Okay sister, so because your shallow self watches 80 hrs of TV a week and is tuned into "the look" of the moment, you expect everyone else to do the same?

Maybe fashion or entertainment or whatever IS your life, but I suspect for most str8 guys it's whatever profession or hobby *they're* into. And that *hobby may be downloading pictures of hot (*cough* photoshopped) babes on the internet.

Child, please.

Posted by: deang | August 29, 2009 3:25 PM

PZ says, that implies that their own sexual orientation would then be an arbitrary matter of a trained esthetic.

I think fundies do think that their own sexual orientation is a matter of choice. Otherwise, they wouldn't be so afraid of gays "recruiting" them.

Posted by: not a gator | August 29, 2009 3:31 PM

@20 Becca

This is where the RCC and the fundagelicals converge, because the RCC pretty much comes out and says, yup, you're born that way, and you need to stay celibate. They even tell lay people to avoid same-sex friendships! Hello, did I sign up to join a monastery? Uh, no.

As an adolescent I struggled with this but realized in the end that the Church was being inhuman. Close, loving relationships are part of a healthy life (whether sexual or not). Inhuman, or hypocritical: I know which one you are, Ratzi.

I guess some RCC's have a relationship with god or some bollocks to guide them one way or another, but I didn't, so I felt *really* alone.

Posted by: not a gator | August 29, 2009 3:37 PM

Who's a more threatening rival for your wife/gf, Hugh Jackman or Robin Williams?

Robin Williams. Hello, personality.

Unless my wife suddenly confessed that she'd watched all those Hugh Jackman movies she was indifferent to (not a comics or action fan) because SHE had the raging crush on Hugh Jackman, rather than her best friend.

Posted by: not a gator | August 29, 2009 3:46 PM

They find it hard to achieve a satisfying orgasm when they’re incessantly preoccupied with guilt, biblical rules, male-female dominance, avoiding the doggy position and oral-genital contact for fear of eternal hellfire

According to the American sex survey in the late 1990's, evangelicals DO engage in oral genital contact.

Anal genital lagged the rest of the population, but I think with the explosion of internet porn and their strange fascination with it (along with disregard for women's wishes), I bet that situation has reversed by now. (The Taliban were obsessed with anal specifically BECAUSE the women hated it. Not saying all women hate anal--some love it. But a significant portion of women do not want to go there.)

I can't remember what book the results were published in, but if you dig around an academic library it shouldn't be too hard to find. It basically talks about heterosexuals because their funding was cut by some right-wing senators and they didn't have sufficient sample size to say anything statistically significant about gays or other sexual minorities.

They also made some claims about the probable spread of STDs (based on their research) which I found a little... implausible.

Posted by: natural cynic | August 29, 2009 3:48 PM

Gay, atheist, and hand out condoms and other contraception in a women's health clinic? Do I get the trifecta?

Nope, 1st, 1st & 3rd
In the third race Abortion Doctor won and Pro-Roe SC Justice placed.

Posted by: not a gator | August 29, 2009 3:53 PM

@58

Platypus:

Ted Haggard's anti-homosexual pulpit rants are of course the archetype for this hypocrisy. The guy certainly pegs the needle on MY gaydar. (Have you seen some of the "devotional art" that was inside his church?)

I gasped.

So... take Mapplethorpes ... add wings and halos ... goes from immoral waste of NEA money to Gawdly devotion, eh? (Btw, I am being facetious--John Singer Sargent made a painting similar to this, but it was better, I guess in terms of being high brow or emotional rather than commercial.(JSS's commercial images were wealthy independent women who were very interested in promoting the arts, such as Elizabeth Stewart Gardner.))

Wow.

A neo-Marxist would have a field day with that image ... think of all the racial/sexual/class implications!!!

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 29, 2009 4:01 PM

@ Stewart Cowan
Sure they are entitled to protection. The problem is that many of these "ex-gays" feels that gays shouldn't be entitled and that they must "cure" them in a conversion process which often is forceful. And that is the reason for the low opinion on them. If they want to change that, they need to stop giving gays a low opinion.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 29, 2009 4:04 PM

Consequently, formerly gay persons are reviled simply because they dare to exist!

Much like currently gay persons suffer propaganda campaigns to have their civil rights stripped away, get beaten in the street, etc.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 29, 2009 4:16 PM

I think fundies do think that their own sexual orientation is a matter of choice.

But so many of them take offense when asked "when did you choose to be heterosexual?"

Posted by: ChrisE | August 29, 2009 4:24 PM

PFOX is just a front group for right-wing evangelicals and christian.org is hardly a news source.

In my opinion, everybody should be protected against unwarranted discrimination. But discrimination against ex-gay fundies is not unwarranted. They are discriminated against because they attack gays. I don't think you have to understand science to get that (since you probably do not understand it ...).

There are better articles about the rulings:
http://www.washblade.com/2009/8-28/news/localnews/15082.cfm

It should be clear that ex-gay is not a sexual orientation.

Posted by: J Todd DeShong | August 29, 2009 4:28 PM

On a serious note, as a gay man, it is very heartening to read so many comments of support from heterosexuals. Especially since so many heteros seem to be happy to withhold basic rights from us. I do not want to get married nor do I want to adopt, but if other gays do, I do not see why they should not be allowed to. And especially regarding the marriage vs. civil unions, when will we as a humanity learn that "seperate but equal" is dichotomous and is in no way "equal"?
So again, thanks to you heteros! I guess you're not all bad, eventhough you dress funny and your house is not decorated nearly as well as mine!!
JTD

Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 29, 2009 4:37 PM

I always know where to come to get slandered, libelled and hear words I never heard in the Bible...

So sorry. . . we'll try to restrain ourselves to talking about flesh like the flesh of asses and issue like the issue of horses. And heaps of foreskins. And calling all non-Jews "dogs". And concubines getting raped to death and then carved into pieces. And eternal torture in a lake of fire.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 29, 2009 4:43 PM

Stewart-

Wait, you were serious?

Wow.

At best interpretation for the ex-gay types, the judge's decision didn't state that ex-gay was an orientation, but rather that any self-identified orientation would be protected whether it was chosen or not.

And yeah, sexuality isn't a choice otherwise, why do you lust after women? Why do you allow such evils to corrupt your heart rather than just choose the path of asexuality. Now to me, it's just how I was born, but if it's all lifestyle choices and the likes, you better get chopping. Wouldn't want some tranny in a same-sex relationship beating you out would you?

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 29, 2009 4:48 PM

And the only thing that has been making gay people unhappy has been you shmucks trying to persecute them. And with greater and greater acceptance, they are allowed to be happier and happier.

What we're saying, is that'll be a lovely world once you all get over it or go away.

Posted by: Stewart Cowan | August 29, 2009 4:52 PM

J Todd DeShong - I'm afraid 'heteros' have been conditioned to protect 'gays'.

Read: The Overhauling of Straight America pdf:

"(2) Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers. In any campaign to win over the public, gays
must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined be reflex to assume the
role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly
nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seem as a public menace that justifies
resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our “gay pride”
publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image."

I'm afraid you've been had.

Posted by: raven | August 29, 2009 4:57 PM

Stewart the death cult kook:

Blake's comment just goes to prove the point that homosexuals are uncomfortable in their lifestyle when confronted with the truth.

Stewart's trolling just proves that fundie xians are fascist idiots who are uncomfortable with the ideas of democracy and .freedom. What business is it of yours who people associate with and why do you care? Only zombies with no brain and no life have to have some disreputable minister to tell them who to hate.

Stewart the cultist kook:

Who you sleep with is your choice. There's not a gun pointed at your head,

Oh and your persecution schtick is sick. Did anyone point a gun at your head and force you to comment on this blog? You are just here to vomit some hate and fill up your empty life.. Typical fundie xian.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 29, 2009 5:02 PM

"(2) Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers. In any campaign to win over the public, gays
must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined be reflex to assume the
role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly
nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seem as a public menace that justifies
resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our “gay pride”
publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image."

I'm afraid you've been had.

Protect the family is hardly an athoritative unbaised source.

This is one of those exaggeration that fundies come up with. They think gays are out to get every straight person.
In reality most gay people live a unremarkable indistinguishable life from straight folks. Those gay prides parade is only mean to developed group identity much like religious folks gather at church. Fundies want to wash away the idea that they are victims in order to justify suppressing them.

So he hasn't been had.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 29, 2009 5:19 PM

Stewart-

So how you explain that the main event for gays is the aforementioned Pride if it's so critical for us to pretend to be victims. Also, exactly how many straight Christians in this country have been killed for being straight, because there are quite a few people being killed for being deviant and before you suggest I'm being hyperbolic, Angie Zapata's killer proudly boasted that he was glad to have killed her because "gay things must die". Direct and proud quote.

Or just read your own damn quote wherein you suggest that gays by existing pose enough of a threat (by existing) that they need to be dealt with and oppressed. That the only moral action is oppression. You do realize you just supported whole-heartedly 1) oppression and 2) in a way that proves the victim status your quoted article decries.

Idiot.

Posted by: Awesome McCool | August 29, 2009 5:30 PM

This is just a personal bias, obviously, but whenever I see a pic a pic of Albert Mohler, I think pedophile. It's the combination of the creepy, half-lidded eyes and leering smile. The fact that he devotes 1/3rd (approximately) of his radio shows to teen sexuality really doesn't help much, either.

Posted by: Stewart Cowan | August 29, 2009 5:54 PM

'Tis Himself #164

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." -The Boxer

Indeed. Often the case for many/most people. What do *you* hear? Christians are bad because they don't agree with sodomy?

Posted by: Steve_C | August 29, 2009 6:00 PM

Christians are ignorant because they think sodomy is reason people are gay.

Posted by: Stewart Cowan | August 29, 2009 6:03 PM

Gyeong Hwa Pak - why blame the messenger?

Blake Stacey - "frothing conspiracy-theory territory?" They *admit* it.

Cerberus - I don't believe in a society where every behaviour is acceptable. Is it 'oppression' to stop people having sex with goats?

Knockgoats - thank you for so eloquently proving my point.

As the quality of debate here is very low and the name-calling worse than childish, I will leave. I am in the process of writing ablog entry about the aforementioned court ruling.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 29, 2009 6:12 PM

Gyeong Hwa Pak - why blame the messenger?

The messenger should know better than to follow the order of a sexist vain jealous temper tantrum inept god blindly and think he is doing right. Beside, these messagaes are usually their own. Unless they are schizo.

Cerberus - I don't believe in a society where every behavior is acceptable. Is it 'oppression' to stop people having sex with goats?

A goat cannot consent to sex. Nor can a child, if you try to bring that up. But feel free to do a goat if you are up to trying to prove yourself. Two adult men or woman can do what ever they want as long as both party agrees and it doesn't harm others.

As the quality of debate here is very low and the name-calling worse than childish, I will leave. I am in the process of writing ablog entry about the aforementioned court ruling.

You've missed the argument. But hey if an atheist were to bombard you about your ignorance I doubt you'd do any different. I've visited your site. You do just the same hypocrite.

Wank yourself much?

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 29, 2009 6:23 PM

Gyeong-

Oh don't worry, I'm sure he did. After all consent is a foreign concept to him. It was either a goat or it was *ahem* "that damn lying slut trying to smear my good name. She's obviously lying, did you see what she was wearing, thinking she was better than me, well I showed her, she ain't gonna ruin my life, not if I have anything to do about it."

But I suppose there is the vain hope that he's just a bitter virgin instead, but somehow I doubt not.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 29, 2009 6:33 PM

Sorry for answering for you, Tis Himself.

No apology necessary. Your answer in #174 was spot on.

Stewart, please explain to us what's wrong with sodomy. No, first tell us what you understand sodomy to be and then why it's wrong. I should warn you that "Gawd thinks it's icky" is not an argument that'll fly too far with this audience.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 29, 2009 6:35 PM

Cerberus

Well, if he does do goats, I'd advise him to take percautions. They have horns and hooves.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 29, 2009 6:42 PM

Well I suspect it was worse than goats considering he essentially just admitted that he sees prosecution for rape as indistinguishable from oppression and called it as such.

So I guess that's the real question, what horrific crime is in his past that he considers a rape conviction as morally equivalent to oppression?

Posted by: SimonG | August 29, 2009 6:57 PM

Conflating homosexuality with paedophilia is doubly offensive. Not only does it miss the point about consent, and try to control people's behaviour.

Even worse, it seems to be saying that beastiality is forbidden; peadophilia is forbidden and homosexuality is forbidden. So the issue of consent is irrelevent and the only reason not to rape children is because it is against the rules. Given how scared they are about being tempted by Teh Gay, just what does it say about their other appetites? Suffer the little children, indeed.

Posted by: AdamK | August 29, 2009 7:08 PM

Rick-

Where does teh buttseks factor into it all?

Haven't you seen "Brokeback Mountain", that magnificent ode to straight peoples' butched-up fantasies of what acceptible gay people are like? Written and directed by straight people from a story by a straight person starring straight actors?

Butched-up buttseks is quick, sudden, with no foreplay, no fumbling, no lube, and yet miraculously no discomfort. Why, it's hardly sodomy at all. Who could object to that?

Posted by: lordshipmayhem | August 29, 2009 7:25 PM

MAJeff, OM , #10:

Paul Cameron, their favorite "researcher," has compared orgasms resulting from gay sex to heroin in their addictive potential.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 29, 2009 7:30 PM

Guys, you chased away that hatemonger.

PFOX, Exodus International, and the like are hate organizations. It's just that simple.

Posted by: Gerry | August 29, 2009 8:15 PM

Stewart Cowans @ 171

Christians are bad because they want to impose their fake morals on everyone. You cannot seem to accept that it is none of your business what people do as long as it is between consensual adults. If you wish to live by those supposed morals then by all means do so!! Especially your pastors and leaders!! But leave everybody else alone!!!

Posted by: Pareidolius | August 29, 2009 8:34 PM

Stewart honey, you are as queer as they come, what with being into all that steaming hot strawman-on-strawman action. You love those big fallacies too. Can't seem to get enough of 'em, and you certainly love to show yours off. We're such an unappreciative audience though, better get back to fundie land where you and your hetero he-man buds can see who's fallacies are the biggest and most fallacious. I can hear you guys now: "You know you like that argument from authority! Believe it! Believe the whole thing!"

I need a cold shower now.

Posted by: Sean | August 29, 2009 8:47 PM

Re: Family Research Council

So powerful is the allure of gays, Cameron believes, that if society approves of gay people, more and more heterosexuals will be inexorably drawn into homosexuality.

I agree with Cameron that the allure of gays is powerful indeed... but only if you're gay.

As a gay guy, I obsess about gay sex. My straight buddies obsess about straight sex. Any time you have a "straight" man obsessing about gay sex, its time to issue him a gay card and teach him how to use dress properly.

-Sean

Posted by: not a gator | August 29, 2009 9:31 PM

@122 quoth:

treating Exodus International (which I believe is cited as a hate-group last I checked) as a credible source

Now that's a laugh line if I ever saw one. Their poster boy was caught in a gay bar in Dupont Circle (DC) by a gay activist literally months after launching a huge ad campaign claiming that he was an ex-gay thanks to Exodus.

His excuse? "I dropped in here to use the gloryhole restroom."

Skank.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 29, 2009 9:37 PM

Yikes, that was creepy.

I thought it was hilarious, especially the strawman on strawman action.

Posted by: not a gator | August 29, 2009 9:45 PM

@Stewart

I always know where to come to get slandered, libelled and hear words I never heard in the Bible...

C'mon bitch, you know you like it.

Denial ain't a river in Egypt, you know.

Posted by: Hyperon | August 29, 2009 9:52 PM

It's obviously immoral to try and "convert" homosexuals, and probably generally it will be doomed to failure. Nevertheless, I think people in this thread are overstating the degree of "innateness" of human sexuality. Most of my life (including now) I'm hetero, although I've been through bisexual periods (mostly when I didn't meet a lot of girls -- for instance, I went to a boys-only school). A think what goes on in prison basically establishes that people who are usually heterosexual can have homosexual tendencies.

Posted by: not a gator | August 29, 2009 9:56 PM

@165 Gweong

In reality most gay people live a unremarkable indistinguishable life from straight folks. Those gay prides parade is only mean to developed group identity much like religious folks gather at church.

Another interesting fact is that the gay pride parades have changed dramatically in the last ten years (roughly speaking, becoming "family/child oriented" and also going more local), mostly, I would argue, as a result of greater legal freedom and social acceptance for sexual minorities.

GLBT people no longer have to live in the ghetto, and many choose not to. Nor do those who live in the heterosexual world have to hide as much. The result is less anger and fear and less NEED for strong group bonding. (Some have lamented the breakdown of the "community". But I do prefer integration!)

Fundies are interesting because they manufacture fear and loathing about the secular world, which creates that close bonding ("fellowship") which they then promote as a good. But it's not really that good if it makes you act like an inhuman monster to anyone outside your tiny ingroup. Actually, it kinda makes you insane.

Posted by: Hyperon | August 29, 2009 10:10 PM

I'm somewhat skeptical of claims that homosexuality is "hard-wired" into between roughly 5% and 10% of people. From an evolutionary perspective it's difficult to see how this could come about. (All the theories of "gay genes" that I've seen don't seem even slightly plausible.) I suspect it might in fact be that the majority of homosexuals are influenced in large part by culture, with only a minority being hard-wired. Also have there been any cultures apart from the contemporary West in which homosexuality were observed to be so frequent?

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 29, 2009 10:26 PM

Hyperon:

I'm somewhat skeptical of claims that homosexuality is "hard-wired" into between roughly 5% and 10% of people. From an evolutionary perspective it's difficult to see how this could come about. (All the theories of "gay genes" that I've seen don't seem even slightly plausible.)

I'm certainly no expert in evolutionary theory, and won't even attempt to argue about the genes. But I do know a enough to understand how the basics of evolution works. Perhaps you could elaborate on the reasons you think evolutionary processes would militate against hard wiring a preference for homosexual sex into roughly 10% of the human population?

I suspect it might in fact be that the majority of homosexuals are influenced in large part by culture, with only a minority being hard-wired.

My personal suspicions are that we are generally sexually dysfunctional and repressed because of our culture, and only very recently have begun to throw off those chains. My personal suspicions are that more people would experiment with homosexual sex, and would discover more about their own natures, were there not such a strong stigma attached to homosexuality, and were it not so tightly entwined with one's identity and self in our culture.

But those are just my personal suspicions. Data might demonstrate otherwise. In any case, I have a hard time believing that a good amount of gay people today are so because our culture somehow influenced them to believe it was a positive thing.

Also have there been any cultures apart from the contemporary West in which homosexuality were observed to be so frequent?

Sure. In ancient Greece and Rome, homosexuality was very common. It did not carry the same stigma it does in Christendom. In fact, in some ancient cultures, it was considered the more pleasurable form of sex, while heterosexual sex was considered necessary for reproduction. (There's a certain logic to it. Males understand the male body better than females, and females understand the female body better than males.)

In many Native American tribes, there was/is likewise no stigma attached to being what our culture dubs "homosexual" or "transgendered." In fact, just the opposite. Many Native American cultures considered it special or prestigious, and promoted their LGBT people to high offices like priesthoods. Who better to counsel men and women in their relationships than a person who is, in many ways, in touch with both the male and female subjective experience?

So, certainly, culture has some effect on people. But again, my suspicions are that our culture only causes people to suppress their innate desires.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 29, 2009 10:40 PM

I'm somewhat skeptical of claims that homosexuality is "hard-wired" into between roughly 5% and 10% of people. From an evolutionary perspective it's difficult to see how this could come about.

Not that hard.

Posted by: Hyperon | August 29, 2009 10:50 PM

ChrisE,

Hyperon, I guess you're not gay. I think to say it is not hard-wired and we'd just follow a trend is pretty offensive.

Liveliest Crib,

Perhaps you could elaborate on the reasons you think evolutionary processes would militate against hard wiring a preference for homosexual sex into roughly 10% of the human population?

Sure. In ancient Greece and Rome, homosexuality was very common. It did not carry the same stigma it does in Christendom. In fact, in some ancient cultures, it was considered the more pleasurable form of sex, while heterosexual sex was considered necessary for reproduction.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 29, 2009 10:59 PM

I'm somewhat skeptical of claims that homosexuality is "hard-wired" into between roughly 5% and 10% of people. From an evolutionary perspective it's difficult to see how this could come about.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 29, 2009 11:09 PM

It's been observed in nature a few times as well.

In 400 or more vertebrate species, last time I checked.

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 29, 2009 11:14 PM

Hyperon:

10%, even 5%, seems far too much. My understanding is that even neutral phenotypes can't be expected to be found present in greater than 1% frequency. Homosexuality isn't neutral, but as fatal as anything to genetic fitness. How could such genes survive given that they minimize chances of reproduction?

Well, I don't think it's quite that simple. That is, the mere fact that a homosexual person would have less of a tendency to engage in sexual acts that would result in reproduction necessarily means that it would be impossible for up to 10% of the population to be homosexual. But again, I'm not an expert.

Plus, it might help to elaborate on what we mean by "hard wiring" when we are having such a nature/nurture discussion. I rather like P.Z. Myers' take on the matter:

Similarly, I don't think any predisposition towards a particular sex is simply defined, and any hardwiring is very broadly based and relatively easily redirected. We have brains that impel us to have sex (but not irresistibly), and our brains also focus that interest in a general way towards a particular sex (but again, not irresistibly). I tend to think of nature as dictating that we will have a preference by providing a neural substrate that supports the selection of a preference…but that that preference, whatever it may be, is shaped by experience and training and culture.

We might not disagree on very much when it comes down to it. Perhaps when you said that sexual orientation is not "innate," it might have been better to use the term "fixed." And when I use the term "hard wired," I should make clear that I don't think necessarily that one particular gene or set of genes necessarily renders someone strictly homosexual. It's just not that simple.

In any case, my point was that one's sexual orientation has enough basis in one's biology that it cannot be considered a "lifestyle choice."

Posted by: Hyperon | August 29, 2009 11:20 PM

In any case, my point was that one's sexual orientation has enough basis in one's biology that it cannot be considered a "lifestyle choice."

Posted by: ChrisE | August 29, 2009 11:27 PM

Sorry, I meant Hyperon.

Posted by: Hyperon | August 29, 2009 11:32 PM

Your first point, Blake, is silly. I don't think that the British Empire had significantly more gay men then we have now. I had unending opportunity to look at (for others) attractive girls. They were just not attractive to me.

As far as I know, prison inmates stop showing homosexual behaviors once they get out. So they seek homosexual sex because of the lack of choice.

What evidence do you have? Does the brain restructure suddenly because one looks to often at boys? Because he wasn't intimidated enough?

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 29, 2009 11:50 PM

Hyperon-

Regardless of what you may feel is "plausible", there is only what is. For instance, on a case of biology, let us examine animals.

Of the sexually dimorphic species, almost every type that has visible mating habits has shown homo or bisexual activities. In some animals, bisexuality is the vast norm and regular same-sex sexual behavior is part of what keeps the pack together. This has been seen especially seen in bonobos. These cases have been catalogued and even exhibited most famously in Oslo.

Now, what this does more than any other dataset is show how homosexuality cannot be simply a product of any human cultural artifact and furthermore is strongly likely to have some form of direct biological basis. Now, this basis could vary, hormones, neural patterns, a suite of genes. Furthermore, it would not be the sole gene that recurs counterintuitively. There are a number of diseases that are fatal before viability, thus untransmittable that are nonetheless repeatedly found in human species. And it'll be a bit harder to weed it out, especially if bisexuality is as linked as expected.

There are also arguments that having a small pure homosexual group is a net advantage for a sexual population in both slowing overpopulation and insuring that orphaned children can be taken care of. The most example of this would be the exceedingly famous penguin couple who were trying to raise an egg together.

Now, glad you mentioned cross-cultural studies as well, because they do not in fact support your ludicrous 57% of populations have absent homosexuality. Every culture on the planet has had homosexuality. Every last one. The earliest depictions of sex in every culture included bisexuality and homosexuality. Every culture has had "unique" friendships pop up in literature or bonding rituals involving homosexual sex. Every culture has had them popping up, no matter how repressed, no matter how ignorant the population has been kept. It's everywhere, because it's everywhere. There's no populations except possibly some islands with less than 10 people on it that have no homosexuals and that one inbred population will probably pop one out in another generation or two. Every rubric, every historian, every literature scholar, every anthropologist has seen, it's everywhere if you can figure out where to look.

And if you want common and supported by society, how about feudal Japan? I don't remember exactly which era it was, but for one era, to be a warrior in a number of houses you had to forsake women and partake of pleasure only with other warriors so that their essence would strengthen you. A couple of American aborigine tribes had people who were seen as berdache who were men born of feminine spirit (either transsexual women or gay men) and seen to be deeply spiritual. The famous middle eastern harems didn't just have eunuchs because they wouldn't sleep with the women, they were also so feminized so they too could be enjoyed at leisure. Some of the chinese cultural myths depict transgendered or homosexual protagonists or side-characters. The War of the Three Kingdoms has several gay side characters such as Zhang He. And I'm pretty sure some of the explorer travels of south america noted "disgusting foreign habits" such as homosexuality, but then that was a popular smear among any at that time for considered savage races. However, it's also true that homosexuality has long existed in European royalty during the dark and middle ages, with many noted as not only having affairs with men and women, but children and goats (ah that ol time religion). So as I said before, history proves you wrong, again and again.

Oh and fuck you on prison statistics. A) We're closeted and it is of my firm conviction examining self-identification patterns on sexuality that the number of bisexuals is WAY WAY under-reported. B) It's RAPE. Rape isn't about sex, it's about power. It's primal in that respect and if you are feeling powerless, you're nervous about masculinity (as most criminals are), and live on a very tenuous knife-edge of power then rape increases. Same reason rape increases in war zones or why torturers who may identify as straight have no problem threatening or performing rape against their detainees. If it was about consensual sex, you'd see similar patterns to outside with a slight increase because latent bisexuality would come out more in a starved environment.

But rather instead, prison rape is pretty much about proving that you're a man and not a woman by turning some other weaker man "into a woman" thus scaring off those who would do it to you and earning respect. It's pretty well documented.

But yeah, kinda biological, though you're welcome to try and explain how I'm environmentally an asexual despite having zero hang-ups about sex, raised in a heterosexual environment and culture, and despite actively surrounding myself in a high-sexuality environment for a good number of years.

Of course, you'd have to be less of an idiot first, so you've got that working against you.

Seriously, most evolution is neutral, selection is hardly going to eliminate homosexuals, especially if sexuality is as surmised by kinsey a spectrum like skin color or height. Even under the gene model, it'll show up, because frankly much less transmittable less-likely to be advantageous genes recur again and again.

But most importantly, the evidence has already come in. It's innate, it's unflappable, it's distributed in a spectrum. It's that way for every sexually dimorphic species. That's the data. You may balk at why, but that's like asking the why of the platypus. The reason is just dumber than you want.

Variation happens, deal.

P.S. You're a Kinsey 1 at least. Sexuality isn't some constant hum as any person gay, bi, or straight can tell you. Sometimes you find some people attractive, sometimes the vast majority drowns it out, sometimes you just get a craving. What you describe is bisexuality, most likely of the Kinsey 1 variety. Welcome to coming out.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 29, 2009 11:59 PM

223-

It wouldn't be impossible, especially as there exist bisexuals like Hyperon. In fact, let's assume a simple example. There are two switches in the brain for sexuality, gay and straight, even though pure gay would have lowered reproduction, gay and straight on would still potentially pass gay on. Off in fact will still occur as well.

Now it's not that easy, but that makes it even less of a thing. Many cultures were closeted, rape has always been common and sexuality is a vast spectrum as demonstrated by people like Hyperon describing a type of bisexuality and calling himself straight because he's not 50/50. Add natural variation and the fact that what's the switches is probably something as twitchy as hormones, hormone receptors, and hormone levels at key points in development and it's even more open to the type of variation that would produce 10% of a population willing to refer to itself as gay or queer.

It's also proven to produce about 1% completely off no matter the population as some fascinating sheep studies have demonstrated.

No what the switches are is still a mystery, but it is stupid to apply such a narrow interpretation as Hyperon's. It's the sexologist equivalent of saying "cells are complex, goddit".

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 30, 2009 12:10 AM

Hyperon 229-

It doesn't.

As proof, I present myself. I have engaged in "acquired" lesbianism for nearly five years, I have not gained one iota of sexuality in response. Furthermore, I spent over two years before that in intensive submersion in sexuality including a stint as part of a community of porn writers while I was trying to figure out what the hell I was sexually and I looked at every single fetish out there that was legal and I have doubts about some of that, but anyways, nothing.

Also, I've known people who tried to abstain and those who flooded themselves, none became more or less gay than they already did though I am sure some seemed more or less gay simply by how open they came to be about their actual sexuality.

Now, I understand, as a bisexual you are unsure of where exactly you are in that vast middle spectrum and you're experiental sexuality seems to shift between years. This is normal for bisexuals, because dips and peaks in sexual interest and focus gain new meanings when you're attracted to multiple genders (a straight or gay person wouldn't be say separating out a sudden taste for redheads or an increased appetite with more or less same-sex or opposite-sex lovin').

Also, the one good thing to come out of the rancid other sexuality scale that measures your experiental sexuality and includes stuff like how culturally gay you are doesn't show any corroboration with any of that bullshit and either how much sex of a certain type you have or who and in what proportion you're attracted to. In short, more booty calls doesn't make you more gay, nor does more gay porn or every fag working in hollywood would be straight as a carrot stick and every straight person working in a gay bookstore would be 100% camp by the next year. No study has shown a correlation and it has zero correlation with actual lived experiences of people with one or zero gender attractions.

So sorry to blow your brain fart out of the water, but the gay is in your brain, deal with it.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 30, 2009 12:21 AM

Oh and you know why openness might cause statistics to spike, Hyperon?

Maybe because open people don't have to fucking lie!

There were just as many faggots running around back in ye olden times, they just had to live miserable lives in the closet escaping to the arms of those they really loved whenever they were able. Those who passed or got away with it, got away with it and register as straight when we look back, whereas those who got caught or couldn't pass serve as the marker that here there be gays. There also wasn't survey technology.

There is also an education gap. With an underground community, you may expect you're the only one and if you're a little straight, you'd just slip into that role, whereas nowadays, if you're feeling gay, there are vast communities to go to and less murder to fear if caught.

That might prompt more openness and make it especially seem bigger.

Of course, there's also the fact that the Kinsey numbers haven't much changed in the last 50 years to suggest that not as much as we think has.

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 30, 2009 12:27 AM

Cerebrus

It wouldn't be impossible, . . .

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 30, 2009 12:32 AM

239-
Don't worry, I was just adding some semi-experty backup as it's practically been my informal second master's (well a bit of my actual master's as well now that I think about it), since you asked.

Posted by: Roameo | August 30, 2009 12:50 AM

Posted by: Pyrrhonic:

We could attempt to confirm their results that (a) a homosexual orgasm is as addictive as heroin, and that (b) heterosexual men and women can be converted.

I'd like to volunteer myself for a comparative orgasm study to evaluate the first claim. When do we start?

I'd also like to put my hand up for that study. I mean, I'm straight and all, just doing it in the name of ... uh... science.

Back to the issue of debating sexuality with fundies, I find you end up in the same hole as with any ethical debate with these nutjobs. When you have no basis to your morality beyond "god said so" you really cant comprehend anything more complex than blind obedience to the rules. Hence the inability to distinguish between paedophilia, bestiality and sodomy, they all get painted with the same brush of evil (... actually no, as long as theyre married in a church paedophilia will often get a free pass.) Inconvenient details such as "consent" are totally ignored as they werent high on the priorities of some bronze age goatherds. Its really, really frustrating when you try to develop your own humanistic code of ethics, using whatever methodology you approve of (I'm quite partial to consequentialism myself) and you try to integrate this with someone who takes the gospel as, literally, gospel.
Not that all xtians are like the fundies. The vast majority will try to develop a rational code of ethics, loosely based on what theyve been taught. But theyre not the ones demonising and persecuting the queer community.

Posted by: BlueMonday | August 30, 2009 1:23 AM

Just thought I'd share a piece of anti-gay fundie insanity from my teen years: my mother sat me down and--with all sincerity and concern--informed me that she believed that my recent same-sex dabblings were the direct result of demonic forces that she and my father had brought into the house via oral sex.

I've turned out to be mostly straight (if the right lady came along, I'd give her a chance), but my sister came out several years after my experience, and it only served as concrete proof to my mother that is was a demon in the house that caused the gayness.

Posted by: Katkinkate | August 30, 2009 3:06 AM

Posted by: kerry @ 67 "...Perhaps women would find Robin Williams more attractive as he has perhaps the best sense of humour (an often-cited important attractant for women), certainly better than Hugh's."

But Hugh's got muscle!

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 4:44 AM

@Hyperion 255

Also have there been any cultures apart from the contemporary West in which homosexuality were observed to be so frequent?

Short answer: yes.

Longer answer: where frequency = frequency in contemporary West. And what is that?

Male homosexual 3% of males
Male homosexual+bisexual 5% of males (this is self-identified, and hence too low; the proportion of men who have sex with men (MSMs) is higher than this; you can find many examples outside contemporary West non-prisoners where male bisexuality was much higher than this)
Female bisexual 20% of females (some studies show higher or lower according to which behaviors/feelings/identity were identified as belonging to this cohort)
Female homosexual 1-2% of females
Intersex Transsexual (FTM and MTF) Asexual UNKNOWN

As you can see, these numbers are not absurdly high. The male homosexual figure was probably closer to 5% before the AIDS crisis.

The 10% was touted by the press after the publication of the Kinsey Report, but it is not Kinsey's figure, nor is it supported by his research. The use leads to a great deal of confusion.

You also asked about genes/plausibility:

Research has shown that the fertility rate of homosexual women is the same as the fertility rate of heterosexual women.

I am not aware of research on comparative reproductive success of gay and straight males. However, I can anecdotally point you to a great number of gay males who fathered children, and they fathered more children when there were baby booms.

There are no genes implicated in female homosexuality at this time. There is evidence that female homosexuals are more likely to have been exposed to more androgens during fetal development. It has also been determined that a heterosexual woman's daughter has a 1% chance of being homosexual, but a homosexual woman's daughter has a 33% chance of being homosexual.

Female bisexuality is pervasive and may be a consequence of genes which allow females to form close social bonds. Bonobos do it..

Male homosexuality is associated with a gene, but not every carrier of this gene is homosexual. It has been suggested by some evolutionary biologists that the mother is the gene carrier and that having a gay son will improve the reproductive success of her other children.

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 4:57 AM

@222

Cultures not reporting homosexuality is a weak point to me. I would like to see how they obtained evidence for that. Furthermore it could just be a tabu (and I cannot just imagine that ...).

Agreed. In some cultures, only the receptive male is called homosexual. Add in some taboo (backed by violence), and voila, no "gays". (This is why WHO and CDC use the term MSM. Calling a behavior something else does not turn it into something else. Pomo fans take note.)

American culture is in the minority among all cultures at all times for identifying the male top as homosexual. One could even say our culture is obsessed with this figure. OTOH, American culture seems to think that femme Lesbians are not actually gay. Even if they are.

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 5:28 AM

@243

Hence the inability to distinguish between paedophilia, bestiality and sodomy, they all get painted with the same brush of evil (... actually no, as long as theyre married in a church paedophilia will often get a free pass.)

As for bestiality, I can point to a few cases of fundies who freely admit to (=brag about) having f*cked a horse or whatever, making sure everybody knew it was a filly. I have yet to see the fundy camp to cure bestiality.

This supports the claim made earlier in this thread that what really gets the fundy's goat is the genderfuck.

"Equal partners? N-n-nooooo..."

Posted by: DingoJack | August 30, 2009 6:37 AM

Whew! - just a few comments before I forget them:
As usual another really interesting conversation!
'Gay sex is like heroin', obviously Mr Cameron has much better orgasms when hanging out with Ted Haggard than his boring-as-batshit wife (just a clue for you Paul - IT'S SMOKIN' da CRACK!)
Cerberus (#235) - "...including a stint as part of a community of porn writers...". Wow! I guess it must be a really boring job, but it sure beats telling people at parties "I'm between jobs at the moment", may I steal a part of your bio? :)
'Robin Williams vs Hugh Jackman' - hmm a guy famous for playing Peter Allen, a notoriously camp performer, or a guy famous for playing a man who dressed as an elderly Scots women? Tough choice.
Sounds like the puzzler that faced Sir Gwain*. Definitely a tough choice. - DJ
--------------
*Sir Gwain was forced to marry a hideous, but very talented/learned/witty old crone. That night, when they were alone in the bed chamber, she transformed into a beautiful maiden, and she told him she was cursed to remain in either 'ugly day/beautiful night' or 'beautiful day/ugly night' form, if he could not answer the question: "What is it that a women most wants?" within three days. The next three days, Sir Gwain asked everyone, even Merlin, without success. Finally, when they were alone, on that final night, he admitted he had asked many, but no-one could give him a definitive answer, and she asked which variation she should take, and he successfully answered the question "what does a women most want?", he said 'Which ever you want".

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 30, 2009 7:51 AM

252-

You're right, I was intellectually lazy and used the right-wing scare term for child molesters rather than denoting pedophilia to its rightful spot as a paraphilia that usually also results from childhood trauma that traps one in a childlike state where they think they can or should relate only to children. Michael Jackson was pretty obviously a pedophile, but it's unsure whether he was also a child molester. So yeah, shouldn't have conflated mea culpa, especially as straight up pedophiles usually do focus on one sex because they are deliberately seeking some emotional state they see as embodied by a specific type of child.

However, child rapists as you say tend to have very different patterns for their adult relationships and child relationships, with a number having very different patterns for post-puberty victims and pre-puberty or beginning of puberty victims. The catholic church molestations show this pretty well with a near total focus on post-puberty girls in that stage.

It's also not a perfect separation. As any adult rape analysis shows, sexuality can get intertwined with this act of power, because of fucked up memes about what sex is and how often it is used to "punish" women one finds attractive but unavailable or no longer available.

And the amount of rapes performed by family members shows the aspects of power rather well as these incest rapes are usually designed to prop up other forms of dominance of the household usually in serving a patriarchal ideal over the family or in cases of older relatives trying to recapture that patriarchal ideal. The goal is not inherently the sexual interaction, but a sexual interaction where the victim cannot leave or question the attackers authority.

Now, this attitude or aspects of it are unfortunately common in that we dismiss women's autonomy in culture in general instead of focusing on the humanity of partners and the importance of seeking their pleasure or at least noting it. Many men can be tempted to a rape interaction out of no malice but rather just following the patterns of power from the social concepts of men and women. Conversely, this makes adultish women more prime targets because they are more "weak" in the constructed sense.

The sexual sociopath headspace is that of the serial rapist of which I have had the dubious honor of well knowing one in my life. Where rape is frequent because it is the ignoring of consent and the feeling of power over a person that is hotter than everything. This is not the same as a sexual sadist as while they may be attracted to a feeling of power, it is more akin to the feeling of power you get when you just gave a partner a really good orgasm. Anyways, the sexual sociopath/serial rapist is attracted to the breakdown of another person. For a better in-depth look into that psychology the main character of the left behind books exhibits it pretty well.

But prison rape studies, especially feminist ones have noted that the rapes don't correlate with any outside sexuality though certainly some are closet cases, nor completely even with any idea of pleasure. Interviews with rapists and rape victims paint a more clear picture of ideas of masculinity and power which are hyper-important currencies in the prison population.

Feminist analysis of prison interviews of child molesters reveals a similar story of attraction to the control and power of the event often supported by intense misogynistic views of women in general and feeling a need to prove masculinity in some aspect. As such while it is not 100%, there are differences when they seek or when they sought older victims versus when they turned to younger victims with many molesters of boys for instance preying on few older boys or men.

This is also a bit of sloppiness of course, as it pretty much really is only working in one direction with identified straight men who may or may not rape older women being more lax with who they target as children (though usually sticking with female victims in general). This would be consistent with the idea of rape as power as well as the conservative view of gender and gender performance. A more full analysis of this and the prison rapes can be seen in most feminist works on the problem as well as a number of books in the sociology section on detention and power or gender and power.

In many ways the patterns of rape in general and the stated motivations esp. for corrective rape demonstrate its utility as a crime of sex is second to its utility as a crime of power. Rape is a crime of power performed sexually, not a crime of sexuality run rampant and uncontrollable though that's the common defense.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 30, 2009 8:02 AM

253 not a gator-

Yep. It's about the roles. It's why when they do admit something gay or talk about prison they always assert how they would be the giver rather than the taker, because sex to them is about dominance and avoiding getting fucked by fucking in return. This notably bypasses consent and a focus on partner's pleasure (which one would think in acts of penetration would be most paramount).

And sorry about the earlier intellectual shortcut of using pedophiles instead of child rapists. I got into arguing idiot homophobes mode and started using their terminology at the expense of accuracy, mea culpa.

Also on genderfuck, this is also why genderfuck people really anger them most of all. Ok, that dyke bitch just needs to be raped by a man, and if that faggot butches up he'll be straight, my world isn't falling apart. Oh god, what is it, is it trying to switch sexes completely, what does that mean about the precious roles, kill it with fire, kill it with fire.

This would be humorous if only that wasn't usually quite literal and unfortunately common (well not with fire, but in general, lots of dead trans and gender-non-conformist queers for that reason).

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 30, 2009 8:10 AM

I suspect it might in fact be that the majority of homosexuals are influenced in large part by culture,

Sure, I can see someone waking up some morning and thinking to themselves: "I want to be part of a hated, despised, discriminated against minority. That'll be great fun."

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 8:22 AM

@257

Thanks for the clarification.

I hope this isn't cherrypicking, but I wanted to just quibble with this paragraph:

And the amount of rapes performed by family members shows the aspects of power rather well as these incest rapes are usually designed to prop up other forms of dominance of the household usually in serving a patriarchal ideal over the family or in cases of older relatives trying to recapture that patriarchal ideal. The goal is not inherently the sexual interaction, but a sexual interaction where the victim cannot leave or question the attackers authority.

I might agree with you in the case of, say, the Austrian case where the man abused his "defiant" daughter, ultimately kidnapping and imprisoning her for years. I know of another, similar case; however, it involved active physical abuse by both the male and female parent (culminating in murder).

In such cases, it would seem to be a horrific conclusion to a family pattern of child abuse (& perhaps spousal abuse as well).

However, with the stepfathers I would argue that simple sexual attraction--combined with no empathy or remorse--is the primary reason for the offense. The accompanying emotional abuse is carried out to keep the victim silent. (Whatever emotional suffering the victim may endure directly from the molestation or rape is of course collateral damage--Mr. Rapist has no concept of how the victim feels and may even maintain a fantasy that the victim enjoyed it intensely and even seduced HIM.)

Pointing out here that in some religions (*cough* Islam) the emotional abuse consists of religious-book-thumping to ensure compliance as marrying children is completely lawful. No need to hide the behavior at all.

Do these folks target the vulnerable? Well, sure... in some sense the single mother is vulnerable, and they may go after a particularly mentally and physically vulnerable specimen. Then he notices the kiddos. Others may target the mother specifically to get at the daughters. (This happened to someone I know. She pegged on fast, but despite the short duration of the relationship had to raise hell to keep him away from her children.) I guess I would agree that it's a pretty sorry man who thinks raping 13 year olds is a great idea.

However, I think you can't discount the fact that a young, pretty girl--who doesn't yet have a boyfriend/sexual experience--gets these creeps' dicks up, and everything they do and say after the fact is rationalization.

I mean, did those priests rape young boys because they wanted to affirm patriarchal family structure? Priests raping seminarians might have been a form of institutionalized hazing, but the child rape? The fact they were altar boys was about access. Shanley according to multiple reports was in NAMBLA in the 70's and had sex with teenagers and grown men, but when posted to a church in Newton he molested younger and younger boys. It's probably because the really young boys were easier to intimidate into shutting up. (Evidence is that he did enjoy having power/messing up young naive kids, but he was perfectly happy to fuck up 15 yr old gay kids when he had complete freedom in the 70's, running his own "urban" ministry. I don't know of any case where he diddled kids when he was not attached to a parish. Also, in the 70's the kids were gay or questioning. At the parish, the victims were mostly heterosexual. Apparently he had urges and he found a way to satisfy them. So his type may be the 15 yr old ingenue, but the little 8 yr old is who he has access to & who will be afraid to say anything.)

Is it going to far to say that there are a few men out there who are sociopaths and will fuck/rape anyone whom they have access to/can get away with? (Anyone in household/church that they have power over.) The act is pleasurable and since they are sociopaths, the other person is like a doll to them. The power trip and the sexual pleasure are intertwined.

Actually, the guy in Austria was not a sociopath. He knew what he was doing was wrong and that his daughter suffered, but he rationalized his behavior. It is not uncommon for serial rapists to create elaborate fantasies which entirely eliminate the enormity of their actions and cast them instead as some sort of hero.

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 8:43 AM

re: gender performance, "flexibility"

Let me offer this to you:

If you were born in Greece in antiquity, you would think it not at all odd for a married man to claim to be turned on by women and by boys, boys who did not yet exhibit facial hair.

You would think it not at all odd that pubescent boys would enter into mentoring/sexual relationships with grown men. (Intercourse was probably performed intercrurally, ie, btwn the thighs.) In fact, this would be the dominant mode of Hellenic culture.

You would not think it odd, or necessitating feminist theories about gender performance, that Plato should write in his work on eros that women have it over men because men are only beautiful while they are boys, while women remain beautiful like girls into adulthood.

(Okay, so I'm stumping a bit because I feel like feminist theory is far too specific to a certain culture at a certain place and time and falls to pieces when information about other cultures comes into play.)

One last thing: pubescent boys have not completed the process of virilization. I don't know the exact research, but I've read in books about transgender that humans distinguish males and females by looking for signs of virilization, I guess you could call it secondary sex characteristics. A male who has completed virilization and then attempts to change his appearance to a female must go through multiple expensive surgeries simply to pass. A female need only start testosterone injections to go through a "second puberty" and thus develop characteristics such as thicker larynx, receded hairline, musculature, etc. The main obstacle for FTMs who take hormones are stature, which cannot be changed, and excessively gracile bone structure, although of course some bio males exhibit this as well. (It won't make you a tough guy, though.) Neither of these will really impact passing once hormones & habits are well established. Many times if an FTM comes out to someone as trans, the person will think they are planning to go MTF! The FTM looks (and smells) male. (I had a crush on a friend and she transitioned. One day he no longer looked female to me and the crush vanished. Still think he's a cool dude, but no more drooling.) The only way you will know is by examining the genitals.

So, it's really not that preposterous for a mainly heterosexual man to at least be able to get it on with a pre-pubescent boy.

Heck, if the child is young enough, who can even tell the difference (absent hair/clothing styles) if the genitals are covered?

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 30, 2009 8:45 AM

263- True, power is power, though there do seem to be certain side-effects of incest and step-incest rapes that are about maintaining dominance over the mother and the like, but speculating about the origin could be a chicken and egg thing.

I suppose it's more fair to say that those who are more invested in patriarchal norms are going to be more likely to rape children of any form and the rape itself may or may not increase that investment and may or may not cement themselves with it (is it the rape, the emotional abuse of rape, or straight up emotional abuse that's the most silencing factor, tricky).

I would argue that step-incest rapes aren't likely about attraction in the sense you or I would use it, because it's about fetishizing the "virginal" and strongly discounting any aspect of consent, in fact seeing consent as a barrier or a sign of "unhealthy" worldliness.

It's more combining the usual sexual sociopathy with an intense virgin/whore complex.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 30, 2009 8:58 AM

265-

Well, that could be a point if feminism was indeed monocultural and western (which was a fair critique of first and second wave to be sure), but these days, feminist critiques exist in every culture and have been uncovered in the histories. For instance, the greeks had feminist critiques done by Aristophanes most famously, but also Aristotle on occasion and Pythagoras much more frequently. Sappho also included limited commentary. The works of women though of course not as well preserved so their critiques are mostly lost, but I'd be surprised to see them absent considering references were noted by male authors such as Aristophanes to female sexual congress and feminist meeting groups and events.

They wouldn't have fully resembled arguments today, cause culture and all that, but they'd be very similar in spirit and have similar goals. Oddly enough, ancient greece is one of the cultures where the most proto-feminist works have survived into the modern day.

On FTM, it's also how we're conditioned to privilege male signifiers above female ones so an MTF has to work harder to hide the male signifiers whereas and FTM will be largely passing at the onset of facial hair. You're also right about the hormones in general, once they do they're magic, you're pretty much done. How much they change is really fundamental and there's really very little left after the procedure (except of course the obvious).

Posted by: aratina cage | August 30, 2009 9:03 AM

[G-Buzz:] How on earth did [Floyd Rubber] talk three senior [Baptist] pastors into giving him a triple penetration?

Posted by: Mark | August 30, 2009 9:11 AM

As a confirmed gay person in a decades long relationship (and a staunch non-theist) I can easily tell you that Christians who obsess about changing us are themselves *terrified* of their own same-sex attractions. They know it's a foundational part of themselves and they can't accept that fact.

This has become surprisingly evident by the directors of these groups 'reverting' to their previous gay selves after decades of pretending not to be gay. They have fallen in love with each other, left their conversion groups, found themselves in gay bars, etc. It's been in the news for as long as those groups have existed. It's a 100% charade and has always been.

The number of 'abstinent/celibate' gays proves that all they've done in these groups is to make the gay person guilty of their natural inclination.

Sexual attraction is determined by BRAIN structures. Some people are straight. Some are gay. Life is a spectrum and those Christians can't accept this biological fact. It is implicit in this spectrum that a hefty genetic coding is involved, with a large 'acceptance' factor being involved. If you accept your inclination you will be happy. If you don't you will be f*cked up. Those conversion groups are determined to make sure that every single person who enters those groups stays f*cked up. STAYS THAT WAY. This is how they justify their own supremely irresponsible behavior and beliefs.

To wit: if you pretend to ignore your attraction you end up becoming confused, bizarre and sexually arrested. Look at all those Catholic priests who have been trying to use God/Jesus as an out to following their bliss. You can see the exact year their sexual development was arrested by the age of the boys they're obsessed with.

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 9:16 AM

On FTM, it's also how we're conditioned to privilege male signifiers above female ones so an MTF has to work harder to hide the male signifiers whereas and FTM will be largely passing at the onset of facial hair.

I'm just not going with you on the cultural argument here because I'm convinced it's highly biological. So, less conditioning, more inherited this cognitive quirk in our genes.

I mean, I don't think MTFs have much trouble hiding male signifiers such as briefcases, trophy wives (er, excepting the lesbians), and giant bank accounts (surgery will eat that up, sister).

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 9:21 AM

Aaaaarrrrgh, why did I not hit preview?

Intersex Transsexual (FTM and MTF) Asexual UNKNOWN

Let me try that again:

Intersex ~1% of pop.
Transsexual (FTM and MTF) <1% of pop.
FTM ~0.1% of females

one stray bracket...

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 9:38 AM

Okay, so you got me there, Hyperon:

I trust you have solid statistics from a cross-cultural study that backs this up?

No, I have a study of African-American women.

But... I don't think white women in the US are any different. My mother is bi (basically gay but in denial & out of touch with reality) and she had six children. HER mother was most likely gay and had three. And HER mother may have also been a little, well, you know, and had six children.

Anyway, perhaps it hasn't occurred to you, but there are males as well as females. If a gene is almost fatal in males, but pretty neutral in females, we wouldn't expect it to spread to 5% of the population.

Of course it's occurred to me--I think I stated above that I don't know of any studies. However, it would be difficult outside of, say, a controlled lab rat population, to accurately gauge male reproductive success anyway. I mean in humans. The rats would be a model. (They do this all the time with fruit flies.) A man could father 3000 children. Or be a complete cuckold. Whatever.

Others have explained to you that evo-bio theory is that this gene is passed down the maternal line and provides a boost to female relatives, which already addresses your argument.

And since you have taken such a ridiculous view ("fatal"), it's enough to point out that gay men CAN and DO have biological children ALL THE TIME.

Lessee, my great-uncle Marvin's partner Kingsley had two biological children from his broken-up prior heterosexual marriage...

And no, getting married in the 1950's and having kids (and clearly Kingsley wanted the kids--how does a man get custody in that era unless the mother basically tells the judge she's outta there?) does not mean you're bi. It means you're under tremendous social pressure.

Marvin nearly married a woman in the 1950's, but called the marriage off when she revealed that she didn't want children. I guess she figured fag=fun, carefree life and he was thinking woman=baby-machine.

I guess when he met Kingsley he got the kids he'd always wanted.

Being gay does not eliminate the urge to procreate. And it is really not that hard to do...

Oh yeah--where do you get the idea that the "gay gene" has anything to do with female homosexuality????

Nobody is making that claim.

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 9:44 AM

Smoggy:

Jesus: Well, I do Smoggy. It's no secret that I was a gentle sort of a lad. I was never the marrying sort, and I much preferred to hang out with burly fisherman. When the scriptures talk about the disciple whom I loved... well, Smoggy... I loved him!

This just seemed totally appropriate.

(Pardon me if you've seen this one. 3 minutes.)

Posted by: Monado | August 30, 2009 9:51 AM

In South Africa, "corrective rape" of lesbians includes gang rape and murder:

As well as being one of South Africa's best-known female footballers, Simelane was a voracious equality rights campaigner and one of the first women to live openly as a lesbian in Kwa Thema.

As Susan Brownmiller pointed out, like lynching, a brutal crime of intimidation:

"Every day I am told that they are going to kill me, that they are going to rape me and after they rape me I'll become a girl," said Zakhe Sowello from Soweto, Johannesburg. "When you are raped you have a lot of evidence on your body. But when we try and report these crimes nothing happens, and then you see the boys who raped you walking free on the street."

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 9:58 AM

@Cerberus

I suppose it's more fair to say that those who are more invested in patriarchal norms are going to be more likely to rape children of any form and the rape itself may or may not increase that investment and may or may not cement themselves with it (is it the rape, the emotional abuse of rape, or straight up emotional abuse that's the most silencing factor, tricky).

Okay, I disagree. I mean, I guess I agree if you mean traditional patriarchy which includes notions of children as slaves wholly owned by parents with no will of their own. But if you mean patriarchy as a male power structure, I think it's more of a thing where patriarchy may protect the perp when he gets caught. And I think I'm right because as women have gained more power in society, sentences for child rapists have increased. You had the creation of sex offender registries. Etc.

I think fundies who offend try to appeal to the ideology of archaic patriarchy to rationalize and defend their actions. Sometimes they are able to pull people into their point of view because of their own childhood conditioning. (What mischief the bible has wrought.)

Say you're pastor just-got-caught-transporting-girls-across-state-lines. Like you say, chicken and egg. Was he drunk on power and tried to do more and more taboo acts, to show his power over his sheeple? Or was fundyism and abusing needing sheeple a means to an end for a man who really wanted to fuck young girls?

Or Mohammed? (Some question historicity, of course, but go with it.) Before the visions he is married to a successful business woman. After she dies, he takes on younger and younger wives, leaning on men to give over their daughters against their wishes. Is it the taboo? The opening up of the illicit as licit because you are now godlike in this community?

Sai Baba molested little boys. Mohammed raped a young girl. It's not all cold power alone or they wouldn't show characteristics of sexual orientation. You could do something else crazy (like commit murder) to awe/control followers. (And some cult leaders have.) But they wouldn't have dared to do these crimes without the support of so many sheeple. Perhaps they would not have allowed their fantasies to run wild, knowing the punishment for anti-social acts.

Here's a non-cultist: Charlie Chaplin. Piles of adulation, goes for young girl. Could it be the approval of so many feeds the ego and hence the greedy ego thinks it can satisfy any appetite? WOULD THIS EXPLAIN ELVIS? YES, YES IT WOULD. ;^)

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 10:03 AM

@284

I'm aware that it's probably not one gene. However in evolutionary discussions, it's standard to talk about a "gene for X", even though we're aware of the necessary complications.

So you have still missed the point? Are you trying to say that the etiology for male and female homosexuality are one and the same?

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 10:07 AM

@282

Cerberus

These days FTM and MTF are also approaching the same percentage, though, a lot of barriers on trans in general is the tight regulation of GID related treatments often relying on crap like the Harry Benjamin test.

My feeling is that you're right about that. As the science improves and the social situation improves and the medical situation improves more of these things will become clear and settle themselves out.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 30, 2009 10:07 AM

Here's one interesting question to homosexual men.

i guess interesting is in the eye of the beholder.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 30, 2009 10:09 AM

Oh, I just saw this:

Others have explained to you that evo-bio theory is that this gene is passed down the maternal line and provides a boost to female relatives, which already addresses your argument.

I honestly searched for the relevant terms before I posted that and didn't find any mention of it (still can't). Then I posted without having read the entire thread and mentioned David M.'s name while doing so. I'm sure he'd see this as the purest evil. Oh, well - he's not around.

:P

Posted by: Hyperon | August 30, 2009 10:18 AM

You want a cross-cultural survey, how about a cross-species survey. We are compared to other primates less out about homosexuality and bisexuality than the other apes and most of the other mammals. It's routine and it's usually dominant (esp. bisexuality) and a great way for a "negative" selection marker to survive is to be paired with other genes.

With our cultural history of rape and closets, there is little selective pressure and even if we all come out, homosexual breeding practices now show homosexuality likely to be even less selected against in the future. You find homosexuality unlikely to be 10% of a population?

And what we are examining looks to have the suite elements of a melanin or height vectors if it's even a gene at all and not some developmental endocrinology mess.

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 10:20 AM

Hyperon:

Well, that's intrinsically uncertain, but human sexuality is strange in the animal kingdom in a number of important respects.

Explain.

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 10:23 AM

What the hell are you talking about? I was talking about hunter-gatherer societies in the African savanna, about 50,000 or more years ago. It has nothing to do with contemporary Africa.

How do you know they're covered in hair? Current theory is that dark skin coevolved with loss of hair. (Vit D/UV damage payoff.) Viz. chimps have light skin under fur, dark skin where exposed.

And besides, hair isn't stopping Bonobos from getting their bisexual freak on.

Posted by: Hyperon | August 30, 2009 10:24 AM

Explain.

Posted by: ChrisE | August 30, 2009 10:32 AM

if homosexuality has a strongly negative effect on fitness, as I think it probably does

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 30, 2009 10:35 AM

Here's one interesting question to homosexual men. How many of you can see yourselves being homosexuals in a culture in which all men are hairy pigs with enormous Rasputin beards?

Interesting isn't the word I'd use to describe that question. Dumb, patronizing and assholish might be better descriptors.

Posted by: gaypaganunitarianagnostic | August 30, 2009 10:37 AM

My ex lover is ex gay, ex atheist, and ex married. I knew that he was bi, early on. In the small town where he was working the only people he knew were 'Big Baptists,'A clear case of 'cult conversion.'
I've probably had sex with more bi guys that 100% gay. I've had men leave me for women, and a couple left women for me.

Posted by: aratina cage | August 30, 2009 10:41 AM

How many of you can see yourselves being homosexuals in a culture in which all men are hairy pigs with enormous Rasputin beards?

Posted by: Rick R | August 30, 2009 10:43 AM

"Here's one interesting question to homosexual men. How many of you can see yourselves being homosexuals in a culture in which all men are hairy pigs with enormous Rasputin beards?"

Sign me up!

(Seriously, you really think people all have the same tastes?)

Posted by: Hyperon | August 30, 2009 10:47 AM

Christ on a cracker, Hyperon. Haven't you ever heard of bears?

Posted by: Hyperon | August 30, 2009 10:49 AM

But then I'm probably just arguing with a homophobic idiot who seems desperate to escape the fact that he's very very bisexual and so hoping that sexuality is all cultural and escapable.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 30, 2009 10:51 AM

310 Moron-

yes, because every gay man on the planet just drops dead at the onset of puberty and bisexuals like YOU don't exist. Do you even listen to yourself or just the endless litany in your head that goes "I'm not really gay, I'm not really gay"?

Outright homosexuality is not fatal and I've known more than my share of outright, 100% rock-solid gay as the morning is bright people and a large number produced rugrats. And the number would only be higher back when closets were the norm. Gayness isn't fatal, nor does it make you sterile and with a lot of bi floating around in the population, it's not at all surprising to see that much "outright gay" even if there were genuine strong fatal selection against "outright".

You are bi, deal with it and stop trying to cling to fantasies of lying gays.

Posted by: aratina cage | August 30, 2009 10:54 AM

Hyperon, I'm not offended. I am laughing at your daft unconscious projection, though.

Posted by: Hyperon | August 30, 2009 10:58 AM

. Gayness isn't fatal, nor does it make you sterile and with a lot of bi floating around in the population, it's not at all surprising to see that much "outright gay" even if there were genuine strong fatal selection against "outright".

Posted by: Hyperon | August 30, 2009 11:01 AM

Yes, you are. How is gay men today are stereotypically clean therefore smelly people couldn't have been attractive back then? How did mankind survive that apocalypse? Even the princesses had only yearly baths back then.

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 11:03 AM

@310 Hyperon

How do we have so many special needs children? All of these have far far more selection and are probably offensive examples.

Nowhere near as much as 5%, unless you interpret "special needs" in a very broad way. And no, it's empirical, not offensive.

Yes, you're right Hyperon. I think I saw the other day that all of ASD is 150 out of 10000 which includes high-functioning.

Though, I don't think that it's an order of magnitude smaller than 5%.

But I think the point Cerberus was trying to make is that shit happens.

Human reproduction is prone to messups. Probably many gay men are "spontaneous" cases. (Remember, our view is that even if there is a 'gene', it is simply influencing the timing of the intrauterine hormone bath, which can possibly result in homosexuality as the outcome.)

Posted by: Hyperon | August 30, 2009 11:07 AM

I'm not interested in your "explanation", Cerberus, because it seems nonexistent. It's as if your sole interest in this thread is scoring points against me rather than getting at the truth of anything. How DOES bisexuality boost genetic fitness? Also, if selection against homosexuality is "really weak", that would seem to imply that it's not true ("outright") homosexuality. This seems to contradict your earlier claim that approximately 5% of people are exclusively attracted to their own sex.

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 11:08 AM

Hyperion,

You are starting to get treated like a creotard because you are talking like one. This whole "Rasputin beard" argument is a classic argument from personal incredulity, which is the fave creo argument after argument from authority.

Posted by: BlueMonday | August 30, 2009 11:12 AM

Hyperon,
You are aware that something can be biologically based (and impossible to change) without being strictly genetic, right? Others have mentioned the hormonal connection. It has been observed that the more male children are born to a woman, the more likely the younger of them will be gay.* It is possible that the mother's hormones during pregnancy affect sexual expression in the offspring. That is biological, but not strictly genetic. In fact, it is possible (if we're only speculating about it) that the male child's genes have nothing to do with it, though "gay genes" have been identified already and sexuality is complex enough that I would highly doubt that it has a singular influencing factor.

It is significant that in studies of the biology of sexuality, it turns out that male and female sexuality do not directly line up. A study* I read about years ago scanned brains in response to pheromones. Het males used the scent portion of the brain to process male pheromones, sex portion to process female. Gay men, the opposite. Straight women, as you would expect. Lesbians used the scent receptors for the whole shebang. (All of this, obviously, is massively oversimplified, but it's to illustrate a point. For one thing, I can't remember how or if bisexuals or asexuals were represented.)

There was an article a few months back in the NYT Magazine about female sexuality. It had some interesting information in it as well. It appears that the idea that male/female sexuality are mirrors of one another misses the mark. Female sexuality appears to be far more complex than it's been given credit for. The reason I mention it here is that it is an eye-opener to ways in which we may misunderstand what is going on in the expression of sexuality without even realizing that we're off.

*If you really want, I'll look these up, but the purpose of this post is to open your mind beyond biological=strictly genetic.

Posted by: Carlie | August 30, 2009 11:12 AM

How DOES bisexuality boost genetic fitness?

Good lord, Hyperon. It doesn't have to. You're being completely Panglossian. Having green eyes doesn't boost fitness either, but a lot of people have that trait. Because bearing children has always been an important value in society, as long as most people engaged in activity that resulted in more children in their families, be it by having them themselves or supporting siblings, it doesn't really matter who they prefer to boink.

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 11:18 AM

Hyperon wonders why we aren't as perplexed as he is:

How DOES bisexuality boost genetic fitness?

First question is, is that even plausible?

Well, we look around at animals in the wild (ie, not party to human culture) and we see dolphins and Bonobos going at it in every combination. Huh.

But wait, all that shows is that it isn't "fatal" -- just neutral.

Maybe it's just the way we are.

But anyway, you're jumping the gun by asking "how" before answering the question "if"--and if anyone knows of studies showing bisexuality boosts reproductive studies, please don't be shy.

(Maybe it enhances status--ability for close bonding with wide range of individuals--and thus you can improve status of your offspring, leading to their greater reproductive success.)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 30, 2009 11:19 AM

Interesting isn't the word I'd use to describe that question. Dumb, patronizing and assholish might be better descriptors.

Patronizing? Assholish? What? You're nuts.

I'm nuts because you're an asshole? That's an interesting conclusion.

Beauty is quite relative. Most straight Western men nowadays prefer slim women with large breasts. 17th Century Dutch painter Peter Paul Rubens preferred chubby women with small breasts, hence the term "rubenesque." For a long time in China women with small feet were considered attractive, so a particularly cruel mutilation called foot binding was practiced on many women.

For you to ask gay men if they'd be "homosexuals in a culture in which all men are hairy pigs with enormous Rasputin beards" is a stupid (sorry that should be STUPID!) question, as well as very condescending.

Would you be heterosexual if all women had small breasts and were chubby? How about if all women had huge breasts and massive buttocks? How about if all women were bald (either naturally or shaved their heads)?

if I'm wrong I'm wrong. If I'm ignorant, I'm ignorant. No need for anyone to be offended.

If you weren't offensive then nobody would be offended.

Posted by: Hyperon | August 30, 2009 11:20 AM

Good lord, Hyperon. It doesn't have to. You're being completely Panglossian. Having green eyes doesn't boost fitness either, but a lot of people have that trait.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 30, 2009 11:21 AM

329-

Yeah, but I need to use it sometime.

Hey, whoa there, you can't possibly exist because of Rasputin's Beard. It's very empirical.

Posted by: Hyperon | August 30, 2009 11:26 AM

Notice that I don't even have an opinion here. I've caused offense, and I'm being reviled, for merely asking a few questions and raising a few admittedly speculative hypotheses. If you people have your way, this will be a taboo -- a no-go area.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 30, 2009 11:30 AM

Notice that I don't even have an opinion here. I've caused offense, and I'm being reviled, for merely asking a few questions and raising a few admittedly speculative hypotheses. If you people have your way, this will be a taboo -- a no-go area.

Oh, get off your cross.

Posted by: ChrisE | August 30, 2009 11:32 AM

No, Hyperon, not merely asking questions and hypothesizing is what's offending. You're not a victim.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 30, 2009 11:34 AM

345-

But it's true, it's true. He was just having a nice conversation and thought experiment about what if africans were the most ape-like and unintelligent of homo sapiens and then ignoring all evidence to the contrary, dismissing those pointing out that the racist origins of IQ tests and the stronger correlations with class on education as idiots who didn't want to face things and suddenly people started to make fun of me and that was the worstest thing ever.

I'm now going to pout until mommy picks me up, you can't stop me, you knowledge-hating fools and the earth is so too 6,000 years old, you atheists are just too scared of debate.

Posted by: BlueMonday | August 30, 2009 11:37 AM

Hyperon,
What's the selective advantage of women living well into menopause? They can't keep reproducing at that point, and in most species, they die once reproductive viability is gone. Could it be a bi-product of evolution? Yes. Could it be useful to have them around because humans are born premature and take so damned long to mature? Yes. If you want to know if there is a possible advantage to the species for homosexuality existing, I'll give you this: children need more than one person to care for them (especially if there is more than one child in a family, and especially when day-to-day life was riskier). If we have grannies around to help out, it doesn't seem implausible that there is an adaptive advantage to bonding with someone of the same sex in a way that would ensure solidarity in a family setting. If the men won't stick around, find a lady to help you with the babies, and vice versa. So, there you have one possible advantage for the existence of homosexuality, and that's what you've asked for. You haven't asked that it be proven, just that you find a plausible one. Open your mind up to the real world a bit more and you'll find it's not that difficult to assimilate knowledge into something useful. How about you read up on the subject a bit more before spouting off personal opinions as if they're fact. (And no, tacking a question mark on the end doesn't make your statements actual questions.)

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 11:43 AM

Thank you everyone for making this thread so humorous today. ^_^

Especially you, Hyperon.

Posted by: Carlie | August 30, 2009 11:49 AM

Fair enough, Hyperon. The discussion was indeed leaning towards how it could be a benefit. It's a completely nonsensical question to ask if people would be homosexual or heterosexual based on what people look like, though. It's completely dependent on what society conditions you to like, slightly modified by personal preference. For example, you may think fat women are ugly, but spend several hours on adipositivity and you may find fat women, if not attractive, at least less objectionable. Spend a few years around nothing but fat women, and you may indeed start to find them attractive. Being attracted to men or women as a category, however, isn't nearly as easily changeable (or the Exodus project would have close to a 100% success rate).

Posted by: BlueMonday | August 30, 2009 12:01 PM

Cerberus and not a gator,
I've really appreciated your posts on this topic. Just wanted to say thanks. You too, 'Tis Himself, though you've done less posting.

Posted by: aratina cage | August 30, 2009 12:07 PM

Though Rasputin's Beard has got to be the most awesome pseudo-intellectual attempt at a proof against gayness ever.

Posted by: tes | August 30, 2009 12:10 PM

The advantages of homosexuality?
What about this:
Power, for instance, increases testosterone levels and makes the powerful more horny. Any bi/homo tendencies would have a higher chance of expressing themselves.
Gayness as an upperclass phenomenon may or may not just be a myth.
If you are the emperor's loverboy, your chances of marrying well would probably improve. Ditto your kids' and your other relatives. Your sons and brothers and father etc. would probably have more concubines and sleep around a lot more. Higher social standing would mean better longtime survival overall.
In the Ottoman empire, people would sometimes voluntarily castrate some of their brightest sons in the hope of getting them into the harem. The benefits to the families would be substantial. I would think castration would be even more counter-fertile than homosexuality, but it, too, is a quite common cultural practice.

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 12:16 PM

I don't know what you mean by "hard-wired", Hyperon, but MOST people find that their sexual orientation doesn't go away, even when they change partners or decide to pray really hard or go live in another country. That includes bisexuals (although they report that their feeling of their homo/hetero attractions wax and wane).

And yeah, we're saying it's pretty much "baked in the cake" by birth. Really, by end of the 2nd trimester.

Taboo? Hardly. Tell that to the researchers who have been in this field since LeVay blew it open in the mid 1990's.

Evidence? Seriously? Can you not see it is all around you? Did you miss (early in the thread) that not one method to "convert" homosexuals (men or women) has any meaningful success rate?

Sure, monosexuals can be forced into homosexual or heterosexual behavior, or coerced, or pressured ... or maybe they are somewhat bi and they are engaging in circumstantial behavior.

Maybe that was YOUR experience. A contingent experience of homosexuality, utilizing a latent bisexuality which is now not expressed because you have access to women.

Can you see that this experience has no bearing on the behavior of gay men? Rasputin beards? Come on. Let's look at a similar example to your life: coed high school.

Plenty of gays have heterosexual experiences in high school.

Posted by: Hyperon | August 30, 2009 12:24 PM

Any anthropological evidence to back this up? From what I've seen a lot of hunter-gatherer groups have historically spent a good bit of time and energy (males and females) on primping, grooming, painting, braiding,...* It's also a lifestyle suited to being in good physical shape. And I'm not sure about the facial hair, either - Native American men, for example, don't seem to have much. Moreover, this should be obvious, but sharp tools can be made out of any number of materials, and have been.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 30, 2009 12:35 PM

366-

[Hyperon mode] So what you're saying is that they had glass beards that blocked all Madonna records hence preventing homosexuality?[/Hyperon]

Posted by: Sara | August 30, 2009 12:49 PM

What the hell are you talking about? I was talking about hunter-gatherer societies in the African savanna, about 50,000 or more years ago. It has nothing to do with contemporary Africa.

LOL, African savanna! Do you mean the African savanna that was remarkably like the 1950. US suburbs? If so, you most likely are correct.

Oh, the many failures of bad evolutionary psychology.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 30, 2009 12:55 PM

Most hunter-gatherer societies around today or over the last hundred or so years have had access to metals. They aren't very good examples. Stone age tribes from 50,000 years ago would be in a different situation. You're right that fish skeletons, etc. could in principle be used for shaving, but it seems like too much effort.

Are you aware of what hunting and meat preparation entail, by any chance?

And yes, I might have completely overestimated the growth of facial hair in our African ancestors.

and body hair as well, most likely.

And even if I haven't, it might all be completely immaterial.

Of course it's fucking immaterial. Your suggestion with regard to homosexuality was ludicrous. I was just pointing out that it was also anthropologically highly questionable.

Posted by: tes | August 30, 2009 1:20 PM

"I would think castration would be even more counter-fertile than homosexuality, but it, too, is a quite common cultural practice.

yeah, but...

weak argument. in polygynous society, castration gets rid of excess males. you explained a case (and there are others) where this may be practiced voluntarily for a certain gain (even genetic), but I could bring up cases where castration was practiced on captives--slaves. "

Quite true.

My point is merely that of all the weird and wonderful things people do to get up and ahead in the world - with the resulting positive effect on their extended families in tow - homosexuality would be one of the most natural, logical and benign.

My suspicion is also that any leadership/testosterone connection over time would result in a higher percentage of male gays than female gays, which seems to be the case from what I've heard.

It also fits with what little I've read about homosexuality in ancient Greece and Japan etc. I'm not an expert, but one could perhaps start with what we know about how the thing works when it works?

This might also seem to indicate that humanity as a whole have been largely patriarcal for some time. Sorry about that.

Posted by: Hyperon | August 30, 2009 1:45 PM

The degree to which people (men and women) find hairiness sexually attractive is immensely variable across individuals and cultures. And I see other people have mentioned it, but are you seriously not familiar with this?:

Posted by: aratina cage | August 30, 2009 1:55 PM

I'm utterly bored by the shaved bits pr0n of the 21st century.Bring back hairiness !!

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 30, 2009 2:11 PM

378-

My suspicion is that he's trying to set up a masculinity/femininity attraction parameter and then argue that since gay men can be attracted to femmes or anything under bear and gay women can be attracted to butches or anything above high-heel lipstick lesbians that many gay men are lying about their attractions for the free punch.

What this misses among other things is that many straight women have quicks against beards and many straight men want something other than porn star submissive.

What this means though in converse is brilliant satire gold.

And speaking as someone who's doing gay denmark (albeit mostly the dyke scene), the no beard attraction thing is not all that true here. More bears just means more bear-lovers. Or gay vikings.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 30, 2009 2:12 PM

aratina cage @ 377,

:-)
Those were the days...
The comments on that page are a wee bit disturbing haha

Posted by: Rorschach | August 30, 2009 2:17 PM

Aren't you supposed to be asleep, dear?

Just brushed my teeth dear.
I see you in the morning !

Posted by: ChrisE | August 30, 2009 2:43 PM

Hyperon, you're too transparent to be taken serious. I don't think for a second that you wanted a discussion.

I think you showed us that you equate male homosexuality with effeminateness. I would even say that you expressed the belief that it is a cultural disease and not natural, at least in its extent.

I wouldn't be offended if you could point to empirical data that suggest that. But because of how this argument is usually used, you cannot just "discuss" it because it is so more convincing to your premises that you don't justify, but simply require. Because it cannot be different.

Posted by: Connor | August 30, 2009 3:08 PM

"How many of you can see yourselves being homosexuals in a culture in which all men are hairy pigs with enormous Rasputin beards?"

Are you trying to pull me? Oh, sorry, the twink bar is just down the road...

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 4:25 PM

The evolutionary origins of homosexuality is an interesting topic, but nowhere near interesting enough for me to go through this rigmarole. Thanks, offense-takers, for successfully stifling a potentially illuminating discussion.

= after behaving badly, I will now take my toys and go home ;
don't feel sorry for me ;
i won't ;
really ;
you'll see ;
and then ;
you'll ;
be ;
so
r
r
y
.

Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 4:36 PM

@369

We're not talking about native Americans, so piss off.

Whoosh, there go the goalposts!

My bad, I forgot we were talking about imaginary hairy Africans who never comb their Rasputin beards.

Hon, it's it fair enough to accept that "society" (a set of social circumstances outside your control) influenced you to express a homosexual element, without then extrapolating that ALL homosexual behavior is likewise contingent?

You thrust really seems to boil down to "this set of circumstances A caused result B, so every time I see B, I know it was caused by A". But that's a logical fallacy.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 30, 2009 5:12 PM

Moreover, this should be obvious, but sharp tools can be made out of any number of materials, and have been. - SC, OM

See: Early tool makers were engineers. this is about early (at least 72,000 years ago, possibly as much as 165,000) use of fire to treat stone in southern Africa, with the result that:

The heat treatment makes the stones more brittle, making it easier to chop off clean flakes. This produces a fine cutting edge - like a modern day razor blade - good for cutting animal skins or making clothing. [my emphasis]

...or, indeed, shaving.

(Never saw the point of it myself, mind you. With the exception of shaving it off once for a fancy-dress party and once for a wager, I've been full-bearded since 18. In my youth I was asked a few times why I had grown a beard. Answer, either: "I didn't - it grew all by itself"; or - if the enquirer was a clean-shaven man - "Why do you spend ten minutes scraping your face with a sharp piece of metal every morning?".)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 30, 2009 6:30 PM

Knockgoats #393

Never saw the point of it myself, mind you. With the exception of shaving it off once for a fancy-dress party and once for a wager, I've been full-bearded since 18.

When I was in the Navy ever so many years ago, I discovered that beards were allowed.* I grew a beard the first time I went out to sea and haven't been clean-shaven since.

*Alas, that was changed about 20 years ago.

Posted by: Stanton | August 30, 2009 9:50 PM

The perfect gay conversion method...

Posted by: SC, OM | August 30, 2009 10:04 PM

Most of those commenters are so offended by bush, can we conclude that they would have stayed celibate in the Pleistocene?

Damnit, no time even to come up with a lame joke about bush encroachment on savannas.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 30, 2009 11:11 PM

Great band name, too!

"What did you do on the weekend?"

"Went to see Celibates of the Pleistocene"

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 30, 2009 11:39 PM

Pacal, I'm impressed that you made enough sense of it to smack it down.

Posted by: Anri | August 31, 2009 12:19 AM

RE #404
(Post not found? Heh)

I meant 'biology or behavior'.

Posted by: Qwerty | September 1, 2009 1:40 PM

The key word in this is "reported" as in "23% reported a successful conversion to heterosexual attractions" which doesn't tell you if they lied for Jesus, if they are also attracted to the same sex, or some variation of these two.

Not very scientific.

My favorite ex-gay group is Homosexuals Anonymous. Talk about closet queens. Their step program has 14 steps. And the odd thing when you think of it is that when they meet they are also looking at what they are trying to avoid. It would be like members of AA meeting at the local bar or members of OA (overseaters) meeting at an all-you-can-eat buffet. It makes me laugh to think of it, and yet, it's sad that so many people try to change instead of accepting themselves as gay or lesbian.

Posted by: tmplikeachilles | September 8, 2009 5:39 AM

Hey, don't knock being a gay Christian. At least it means you like it when Jesus watches you masturbate.