Catching the Gay
I'd like to take a few moments to talk about homosexuality in general. This isn't your usual piece, so bear with me.
I think we can all assume at this point that homosexuality is not a choice. That sounds fairly logical, right? No one would choose something so deviant, so terrible, and so ultimately dangerous unless there was some gigantic reward system involved. This hearkens back to prison rape. Prison sex is really sex in its most basic cognitive format: control and assertion. Animals will use this method to assert dominance over one another. Sex is not out of love (in this format). It's about breaking down the Ego and controlling the person behind it for your own gain.
That is situational more than anything else, and it ends up being more of a problem than a blessing. Sex is not for procreation, contrary to what others might think: It's a primary conduit into our reality (and our perception of that reality). Creativity springs from the same areas that sex arises from. So do our ideas of altruism and pleasure. We're hardwired pleasure machines, and this plays into what I'm about to say.
I don't believe that homosexuality, in its strictest form, exists. We have sufficient organs (the hypothalamus, etc.) to create pleasure out of any circumstance. This is why people develop fetishes. The hypothalamus develops at the same time that someone is exposed to a stimulus, and that stimulus becomes a sexual fetish. Also, the need to belong to a subculture can propel someone to associate that sort of sex with sex in general, thus creating a pleasure reaction. So when I hear of someone being "exclusively homosexual" or "exclusively heterosexual," I balk a little. In effect, we're all bisexually oriented. There are circumstances beyond our control that cause our brain to work in one way or the next.
Freud, though a little strange with some of his theories, was very kind toward homosexuality because he had a very deterministic philosophy. To him, our subconscious controlled everything we thought and did, so sex was just an expression of the things that happened when we were younger. (Side note: Some things learned from a young age stick more indelibly than others.) When one concerned mother sent her twelve year-old son to be "cured" of homosexuality, Freud sent him back with a note saying "Homosexuality is not indicative of any other disorder. Leonardo da Vinci and Michaelangelo were homosexual, and they were artistic masters." Freud was also a proto-feminist, because he was the first to admit that women could have sexual urges and pleasure (and that, consequently, problems could come from being sexually starved).
The reason this is important is the underlying "gay gene" development. I will make no concessions to this fact: I do not believe homosexuality is genetic. Genetics is a horrifyingly complex science, but it's fairly likely it is not. However, is it biological? Yes. The hypothalamus of a homosexual person is different than a heterosexual person. The fluid-filled pocket in the anterior commissure of the brain is different. Even the inner ear is different. So yes, it is biological.
But, and here's where the rub lies, the brain can change its physical structure when something occurs in its mental structure. Rats that have been tortured will develop natural predispositions to pain and anger that will be fairly permanent. Sexuality may work in the same way (albeit, more pleasurably). The thing that gets in the way of the biological theory is bisexuality. The existence of bisexuals indicates that there must be a gradient or a sliding scale of sexuality instead of the obvious "GAY" and "STRAIGHT" dichotomies we're all used to.
It could very well be biologically caused, and -- like the Finnish scientists showed in 1997 -- the hormonal structure of the mother changes the child's resultant sexuality. That is entirely possible. Or, the other thing to be considered is the progression of a relationship with the child's father. It sounds very easy to say, but it's important to know that a resoundingly poor percentage of men exhibiting homosexual tendencies have good relationships with their fathers. This is a chicken and egg dilemma. Did they not receive enough affection? Did they receive too much affection? What stage does this occur?
We know that homosexual acts are generally benevolent. We know there is nothing the person with homosexual tendencies can do to control the thoughts and urges that accompany the tendencies. We know that, as a matter of civil rights, we should accept them. That's all given, just like with people of different age, sex, creed, national origin, weight, height, and so on. We should accept and not prejudge. But finding out what causes this sexual discrepancy is what will eventually lead us to understanding the basis of sex (and perhaps, with any luck, the treatment of sexual criminals and those with sexual disorders).
Long story short: Sex is good and bad.
I think we can all assume at this point that homosexuality is not a choice. That sounds fairly logical, right? No one would choose something so deviant, so terrible, and so ultimately dangerous unless there was some gigantic reward system involved. This hearkens back to prison rape. Prison sex is really sex in its most basic cognitive format: control and assertion. Animals will use this method to assert dominance over one another. Sex is not out of love (in this format). It's about breaking down the Ego and controlling the person behind it for your own gain.
That is situational more than anything else, and it ends up being more of a problem than a blessing. Sex is not for procreation, contrary to what others might think: It's a primary conduit into our reality (and our perception of that reality). Creativity springs from the same areas that sex arises from. So do our ideas of altruism and pleasure. We're hardwired pleasure machines, and this plays into what I'm about to say.
I don't believe that homosexuality, in its strictest form, exists. We have sufficient organs (the hypothalamus, etc.) to create pleasure out of any circumstance. This is why people develop fetishes. The hypothalamus develops at the same time that someone is exposed to a stimulus, and that stimulus becomes a sexual fetish. Also, the need to belong to a subculture can propel someone to associate that sort of sex with sex in general, thus creating a pleasure reaction. So when I hear of someone being "exclusively homosexual" or "exclusively heterosexual," I balk a little. In effect, we're all bisexually oriented. There are circumstances beyond our control that cause our brain to work in one way or the next.
Freud, though a little strange with some of his theories, was very kind toward homosexuality because he had a very deterministic philosophy. To him, our subconscious controlled everything we thought and did, so sex was just an expression of the things that happened when we were younger. (Side note: Some things learned from a young age stick more indelibly than others.) When one concerned mother sent her twelve year-old son to be "cured" of homosexuality, Freud sent him back with a note saying "Homosexuality is not indicative of any other disorder. Leonardo da Vinci and Michaelangelo were homosexual, and they were artistic masters." Freud was also a proto-feminist, because he was the first to admit that women could have sexual urges and pleasure (and that, consequently, problems could come from being sexually starved).
The reason this is important is the underlying "gay gene" development. I will make no concessions to this fact: I do not believe homosexuality is genetic. Genetics is a horrifyingly complex science, but it's fairly likely it is not. However, is it biological? Yes. The hypothalamus of a homosexual person is different than a heterosexual person. The fluid-filled pocket in the anterior commissure of the brain is different. Even the inner ear is different. So yes, it is biological.
But, and here's where the rub lies, the brain can change its physical structure when something occurs in its mental structure. Rats that have been tortured will develop natural predispositions to pain and anger that will be fairly permanent. Sexuality may work in the same way (albeit, more pleasurably). The thing that gets in the way of the biological theory is bisexuality. The existence of bisexuals indicates that there must be a gradient or a sliding scale of sexuality instead of the obvious "GAY" and "STRAIGHT" dichotomies we're all used to.
It could very well be biologically caused, and -- like the Finnish scientists showed in 1997 -- the hormonal structure of the mother changes the child's resultant sexuality. That is entirely possible. Or, the other thing to be considered is the progression of a relationship with the child's father. It sounds very easy to say, but it's important to know that a resoundingly poor percentage of men exhibiting homosexual tendencies have good relationships with their fathers. This is a chicken and egg dilemma. Did they not receive enough affection? Did they receive too much affection? What stage does this occur?
We know that homosexual acts are generally benevolent. We know there is nothing the person with homosexual tendencies can do to control the thoughts and urges that accompany the tendencies. We know that, as a matter of civil rights, we should accept them. That's all given, just like with people of different age, sex, creed, national origin, weight, height, and so on. We should accept and not prejudge. But finding out what causes this sexual discrepancy is what will eventually lead us to understanding the basis of sex (and perhaps, with any luck, the treatment of sexual criminals and those with sexual disorders).
Long story short: Sex is good and bad.