Ship of Fools: The future of sexuality

Thread: The future of sexuality Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030776

Posted by 3M Matt (# 1675) on :

Fascinating article here by Peter Tatchall:

The end of LBGT?

"Homosexuality as a separate, exclusive orientation and identity will begin to fade (so will its mirror opposite, heterosexuality), as humanity evolves into a sexually enlightened and accepting society."

Wow. Whatever you may think of Tatchall, no one can deny he is a) A major voice in the conversation on sexuality b) insightful on cultural trends and c) forthright in his views.

What he is saying in this short and under-publicised article is, I think, quite revolutionary. He's saying something distinctly new, and out of step with the doctrines of the LGBT movement over the last 30 or 40 years it seems to me.

The LGBT community has always in most public debate, fiercely opposed the idea that sexuality is cultural, and argued for the "born gay" hypothosis.

This in turn implies a quite clear deliniation between gay and straight. That has two effects: Firstly it acts as a platform for the fight for gay rights, but, in a strange way, it also acts to allay the fears of the social conservatives who are paranoid about a "gay takeover" etc. The gay community says "don't worry we aren't coming for you..we won't change YOUR sexuality (or that of your childrens)". If you are "born gay", then by the same token you are "born straight".

Tatchell seems to be taking, therefore, a big step out of the "orthodoxy" of the LGBT camp. The final four paragraphs are, I would suggest, sociological dynamite. While I disagree with him about whether this is a good thing or not, I actually am impressed with Tatchell for so clearly and starkly putting his vision of the future out there for debate and applaud him for it. I wonder what others think?

Is he getting flak from the gay community for this stance? Does it have implications for the church with regards to gay marriage? Is this a divisive issue within the gay community?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I don't think it's a new idea really - radical feminists and some gender theorists have argued for decades that sex, gender and sexuality are not fixed categories, but are (partly) socially constructed. And also that as patriarchal society begins to unwind, many apparently fixed things will start to dissolve and blend.

Hence, some people no longer talk about gay marriage, but just marriage.

However, no doubt Tatchell's imprimatur will give it some publicity.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
This in turn implies a quite clear deliniation between gay and straight.

No it doesn't. Any bisexual person will tell you that it doesn't. Anyone who is anywhere on the Kinsey scale except the two ends will tell you that it doesn't.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Tachell's last line says that true sexual freedom will come when we quit labeling ourselves with restrictions and I believe that -- just as I believe racism won't end until we quit defining ourselves by race labels.

But I think the future of sexuality is this. Most people will be having sex by themselves, in front of their PCs.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
This in turn implies a quite clear deliniation between gay and straight.
No it doesn't. Any bisexual person will tell you that it doesn't. Anyone who is anywhere on the Kinsey scale except the two ends will tell you that it doesn't.

To expand: the "born gay" hypothesis does not say that everyone is either born straight or born gay. It says that a person's sexuality is innate, whatever that sexuality may be. It doesn't imply that what is 'innate' in a person is always exclusive attraction to one gender.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

What Tatchell predicts is already happening in my pastoral experience. These labels no longer apply to men under age 30.

It's the end of brain washing and of people thinking that they have to live up to other people's expectations.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

That seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what Tatchall is saying. What he's saying is that in the future no one is going to care. People won't (and indeed generally don't IME) talk about Gay Marriage. It's just marriage.

He's not saying that sexuality is just cultural. He's saying how we treat it and what we stigmatise, and what's a big issue is cultural. And that the rising generation simply don't care who you screw or how as long as it's safe, sane, and consensual.

People will therefore no longer need to identify as homosexual because if the bigots aren't throwing rocks (not all of which have been metaphorical) there isn't the need to band together over this part of your identity. It will become a factor more like the colour of your eyes - a part of you but one many people won't notice and most of those who do won't worry about. And if there's no stigma aimed either way, people will be freer to explore and not have to worry about identity politics - and most people aren't at the ends of the Kinsey Scale.

I see very little surprising here.

As for implications for the Church regarding gay marriage, the implication this is based on is that the Church has already lost. The only thing its continuing opposition to Gay Marriage is doing is losing even more of the younger generation and further diminishing its already tattered moral authority.

[ 03. September 2014, 12:16: Message edited by: Justinian ]

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

Or there is the other commentary - Romans 1:18-32.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1

And it all devolves back to mud huts.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
That seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what Tatchall is saying. What he's saying is that in the future no one is going to care. People won't (and indeed generally don't IME) talk about Gay Marriage. It's just marriage.

He's not saying that sexuality is just cultural. He's saying how we treat it and what we stigmatise, and what's a big issue is cultural.

I agree. That's how I read the article as well.

'Gay bars' are tending to die out because young LGBT people now feel safe, comfortable and accepted in just plain old bars. The separate identity is decreasing because the drivers for being separate are not what they once were. Younger people tend to treat sexuality as a piece of information that's only relevant for the limited purpose of asking someone out on a date.

Posted by 3M Matt (# 1675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
This in turn implies a quite clear deliniation between gay and straight.
No it doesn't. Any bisexual person will tell you that it doesn't. Anyone who is anywhere on the Kinsey scale except the two ends will tell you that it doesn't.
To expand: the "born gay" hypothesis does not say that everyone is either born straight or born gay. It says that a person's sexuality is innate, whatever that sexuality may be. It doesn't imply that what is 'innate' in a person is always exclusive attraction to one gender.

Yes, To be forensically fair, you can add other catagories. "Born Bisexual", "Born Transgender" etc etc. That wasn't the point. The point is you are "Born X"...whatever "X" may happen to be for you.

Tatchell at least, doesn't think people are "Born X", whatever X may be...otherwise his article wouldn't make any sense.

Take this paragraph:

"Human sexuality is much more complex, diverse and blurred than the traditional simplistic binary image of hetero and homo, so loved by straight moralists and - more significantly - by many lesbians and gay men."

Tatchell pretty obviously, is not simply meaning by this "There are bisexual people too you know". That's a point too obvious to be worth making. No, what he's saying is that for each individual their innate sexuality is more blurred than a homo/hetero distinction.

If you like, he's implying that we're all, as a tabula rasa bisexual and pushed or pulled by culture, personality, sheer chance..whatever...towards a particular identity "Straight", "Gay", "bisexual".

His implication is that as society starts to care less about whether people are straight or gay, there will be a shift towards a "bisexual norm". with both exclusive hetero and homosexuality seen as lying at the peripheries of human sexual behaviour, rather than it's core.

That's what he seems to be saying to me, anyway. What else am I to make of this comment?

"The vast majority of people will be open to the possibility of both opposite-sex and same-sex desires"

or this:

"Homosexuality as a separate, exclusive orientation and identity will begin to fade (so will its mirror opposite, heterosexuality)"

Whether he's right is debatable, but that does clearly seem to be what he is saying.

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

He's arguing for pansexuality. Basically "fuck anything homosapiens with a pulse".

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
He's arguing for pansexuality. Basically "fuck anything homosapiens with a pulse".

Nope. He's arguing for sexuality not being a big issue. Basically "It doesn't matter who your neighbour is fucking as long as it's safe, sane, and consensual."

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
Tatchell pretty obviously, is not simply meaning by this "There are bisexual people too you know". That's a point too obvious to be worth making.

Why would you say that? Bisexual and transgender people have to constantly remind people that they exist, right here on this Ship. In fact, I reminded you on this very thread. That's exactly the point you're now responding to and acknowledging.

If he's saying, as you claim, that 'for each individual' he's more blurred, then he's presumptuous, patronising and wrong. I spent quite enough years being told I was supposed to be sexually attracted to women, ie be straight. The plain fact is that I don't need to be told now that while it's okay for me to be attracted to men, I'm really attracted to women as well, ie some level of bisexual. That's just the same assertion as before dressed up with a bit more tolerance.

But I simply don't think that's what he's saying.

[ 03. September 2014, 13:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Or there is the other commentary - Romans 1:18-32.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1

And it all devolves back to mud huts.

If you are trying to start a debate about the rights and wrongs of homosexuality, don't. That belongs in Dead Horses. I will be asking my co-hosts whether the rest of this thread belongs there too.

Gwai,
Purg host

Posted by 3M Matt (# 1675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
[Q]If he's saying, as you claim, that 'for each individual' he's more blurred, then he's presumptuous, patronising and wrong.
[/QB]

Well, actually, that's exactly what I think he is saying. And that was precisely what interested me about this article. Is Tatchell actually putting himself out on a limb from his own brethren as it were? From your reaction, it sounds like he quite possibly is.

I think, with respect, you want him to be saying something that he's not...because what he IS saying is actually quite contraversial amongst gay people.

Tatchell has been a figurehead of the LGBT movement for a long time. I wonder if, he continues to say things like this, he might suffer a backlash from his own support base?

I just don't think he's saying anything as benign as "bisexual people exist too you know". The whole tone of the article doesn't fit with that. It's too much of a moot point for him to be writing an article about.

I think often, when someone we *think* we know where they stand on an issue says something that's distinctly out of keeping with the orthodoxy of their own group and our expectations, we tend to make excuses for it and say "oh well, what he may have SAID that, but what he actually meant was..."

You see it all the time with preachers. They say something which manifestly non-orthodox, and then people will tend to dance around it and say "Well, no, what I think he meant to say was.."

I invite you to read what Tatchell wrote carefully. In the mouth of someone other than a figure of the LGBT movement, I think you would be reading this article rather differently?

The point is Tatchell doesn't think this re-drawing of the boundaries of sexuality is a bad thing..he's all for it it seems, and fair play to him for that. He's got integrity to follow through on his own convictions, and I'll always respect that over someone who simply plays the mood music the crowd want to hear...even if I disagree.

[ 03. September 2014, 14:02: Message edited by: 3M Matt ]

Posted by 3M Matt (# 1675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
He's arguing for pansexuality. Basically "fuck anything homosapiens with a pulse".

Thanks for that tone lowering response, but I don't think that IS what he's arguing for.

You *might* think that the way he sees things going could lead to a kind of pansexuality..but that's your (somewhat arguable) conclusion, not what he's saying.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
I think, with respect, you want him to be saying something that he's not...because what he IS saying is actually quite contraversial amongst gay people.

I would have thought it was just as controversial amongst straight people. Telling people who are happily heterosexual that they ought to be more fluid in their sexuality would be every bit as insulting.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

ADDENDUM: In fact, I'd say your interpretation of the article is just driving towards the equal and opposite error. Instead of saying "everyone is heterosexual or homosexual" (which is wrong), you're driving towards "no-one is heterosexual or homosexual" (also wrong).

Tatchall's point, as both Justinian and I see it, is that such labels will cease to have significance. And I think that's true. But that does not mean that no-one will ever have an overwhelming/exclusive preference for one gender. Such a proposition flies in the face of the real-life experience of millions.

It certainly flies in the face of people such as myself who cannot possibly be said to have adopted their sexual preference on the basis of any kind of social or cultural pressure. It took me decades to admit that the preferences I actually felt were at odds with the ones that I felt pressured to have.

But it also flies in the face of all those men who enthusiastically loved women, and all those women who enthusiastically loved men, and who didn't ever feel some doubt or pang or uncertainty that maybe they wanted things to be different.

[ 03. September 2014, 14:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
I think, with respect, you want him to be saying something that he's not...because what he IS saying is actually quite contraversial amongst gay people.
I would have thought it was just as controversial amongst straight people.

Maybe just as controversial, but perhaps a little more accurate because of straight privilege. I know I was already an adult, and in fact engaged, before it occurred to me that I was definitely attracted to women too. Since I was a woman attracted to men, I hadn't had to think about whether I also liked people society didn't assume I would like. On the other hand, I'm not saying my sexuality changed, just that I hadn't thought about it before.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

(X-Post: this is still replying to 3M)

I didn't even read this paragraph closely - one of the ones you claim is 'sociological dynamite':

quote:
Gay identity is largely the product of anti-gay repression. It is a self-defence mechanism against homophobia. Faced with persecution for having same-sex relations, the human right to have those relationships has to be defended – hence gay identity and the LGBTI rights movement.

Before saying almost exactly the same thing in my post referring to gay bars.

I think he's absolutely correct. But he's talking about "gay identity" - defining yourself by reference to your sexuality. That's not remotely the same thing as having a homosexual preference.

[ 03. September 2014, 14:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

I think this line of thinking will have quite an effect on the debate within the Church, which is nothing that I imagine Peter Tatchel to be concerned with.

Why I think this is that most Christians I know who accept homosexuals within the church do so on the basis that a heterosexual lifestyle is not an option for them, and would still support the traditional christian rejection of a freely chosen gay lifestyle instead of a straight lifestyle, given that both options are open.

I am also more of this persuasion, if I'm honest. This is not the place to get into dead-horse arguments, but I think I could mount a reasonable case for holding a heterosexual relationship as more in-line with christian ethics, but would not extend that to a condemnation of those to whom that is not open.

I do not know whether there is any official or majority view within the Christian LGBT community.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

I wonder how this would serve children and young people.

A friend of mine (now 60) took till she was 26 to realise she was a lesbian because all her lefty Quaker family and social community were so au fait and cool they never mentioned homosexuals/ lesbians at all. OTOH friends who grew up in very strict evangelical churches were aware of their orientation from a very young age because of all the raving against it from the pulpit.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
I think, with respect, you want him to be saying something that he's not...because what he IS saying is actually quite contraversial amongst gay people.
I would have thought it was just as controversial amongst straight people.
Maybe just as controversial, but perhaps a little more accurate because of straight privilege. I know I was already an adult, and in fact engaged, before it occurred to me that I was definitely attracted to women too. Since I was a woman attracted to men, I hadn't had to think about whether I also liked people society didn't assume I would like. On the other hand, I'm not saying my sexuality changed, just that I hadn't thought about it before.

Yes, I agree. So long as at least some of your attraction is to the opposite gender, there's a lot less reason to push against cultural/social pressure to be attracted to the opposite gender.

I still suspect, though, that at least some people would genuinely find they were still overwhelmingly attracted to the opposite gender even if there was no pressure pushing towards that (just as I found myself overwhelmingly attracted to the same gender despite pressure pushing away from that).

We're never going to get really good data on just where most people fall on these scales until there's no pressure either way. But I'm quite sure I would have noticed if I had any latent heterosexual attraction. For many years, I would have eagerly jumped on any evidence of such attraction and used it as the basis for getting married. Heck, I did jump on any evidence of 'liking' girls, but unfortunately I couldn't ignore the fact that the attraction I felt wasn't sexual. To put it crudely, a girl never made my dick hard.

Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on :

Of course, in many other cultures, both historical and current (e.g ancient Greece, pre-colonial Africa, Oceania) Western labels such as gay and straight do not make any sense anyway. Sexuality is simply viewed in a very different way, not in a modernist Western sense where everything needs to be reduced into discreet categories.

So in that sense, Tatchall is simply moving to post-modernism.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I think this line of thinking will have quite an effect on the debate within the Church, which is nothing that I imagine Peter Tatchel to be concerned with.

Why I think this is that most Christians I know who accept homosexuals within the church do so on the basis that a heterosexual lifestyle is not an option for them, and would still support the traditional christian rejection of a freely chosen gay lifestyle instead of a straight lifestyle, given that both options are open.

Tatchell is very concerned about the church debate because he sees the church as one of the biggest oppressors of LGBTs - it poisons minds with guilt.

As for 'lifestyle', gay and straight lifestyles are largely about shopping, doing the washing up and putting the rubbish out.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
Of course, in many other cultures, both historical and current (e.g ancient Greece, pre-colonial Africa, Oceania) Western labels such as gay and straight do not make any sense anyway. Sexuality is simply viewed in a very different way, not in a modernist Western sense where everything needs to be reduced into discreet categories.

So in that sense, Tatchall is simply moving to post-modernism.

Yes, in fact, I think he is summarizing various post-modern ideas about sex, gender and sexuality which have been around quite a long time. Certainly, in the 80s there was an explosion of material in gender studies, and the idea of 'performing gender' became current, plus of course, many feminist ideas about social construction.

But possibly such ideas are no longer in left-field, but have been absorbed into the mainstream. Hence, 'gay marriage' is an unnecessary term, as is also 'gay lifestyle'.

[ 03. September 2014, 14:57: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I'm not exactly sure how stonespring's thread on sexual choices fits in with Peter Tatchall's ideas, but they seem related. But I'm not sure one can squeeze a square, cerebral peg into a round sexual hole.

(Double entendre just noticed [Snigger]

)

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

Following hostly consultation, this subject is being corralled and sent to Dead Horses. Feel free to continue just as impassionedly there.

/hosting

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

FWIW, I think 3M Matt is right - and orfeo is wrong - in identifying the main thrust of this article. The author is not merely acknowledging that there are some bisexual people (that there is a B in LGBTI). He is saying that the nature of human sexuality is such that labels like S(traight) and LGBTI do not really mean much, but simply designate narrow extremes on a wide sexual spectrum. The author does note (as does orfeo) that the reduction of "homophobia" means that the need to identify as LG in order to contribute to a culture war is rapidly fading. But he is a lot more radical than that. He is not just saying that there is no longer a need to publicly display these labels, he is saying that they are an artificial construct arising in response to S tyranny in the first place. These labels will not simply be packed away because the war has been won, they will dissolve entirely because they were never real but precisely as badges for that war. With the end of S tyranny, LGBTI will also go the way of the dodo. The author states:

quote:
Gay identity is largely the product of anti-gay repression. It is a self-defence mechanism against homophobia. ... The need to maintain sexual differences, boundaries and identities disappears (or reduces radically) with the demise of straight supremacism.

Furthermore, the author hammers home a point that many gays (and I think orfeo in particular) will be very uncomfortable with. Namely, he insists that the influence of socialisation and culture on one's sexuality is very strong, and hence that both S and LG people are sexually malleable along B lines. As the author notes:

quote:
If sexual orientation was completely biologically pre-programmed, these men would have never been able to switch to homosexuality and then to heterosexuality with such apparent ease. ... Indeed, although sexuality may be substantially affected by biological predispositions - such as genes and hormonal influences in the womb - other causal factors appear to include cultural norms, expectations and opportunities. These tend to channel erotic impulses in certain directions and not others. ... Human sexuality is much more complex, diverse and blurred than the traditional simplistic binary image of hetero and homo, so loved by straight moralists and - more significantly - by many lesbians and gay men.

Thus the idea that one is "born to be LG" is refuted by the author just as much (perhaps more so, see last sentence) than that one is "born to be S". There may be a biological predisposition, with different strength in different people, but largely sexuality is an acquired and learned habit.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I would have thought it was just as controversial amongst straight people. Telling people who are happily heterosexual that they ought to be more fluid in their sexuality would be every bit as insulting.

The author is not saying that people ought to be more fluid, he is saying that they are more fluid than often assumed. Rather ironically, that people are fluid concerning their sexuality is nowadays much more of a threat to typical LG positions than to "homophobic" S positions. That's because the latter say that people ought to be S, whereas the former often claim that they just are unchangeably LG.

Posted by 3M Matt (# 1675) on :

IngoB, spot on with everything you say.

We can debate whether Tatchall is RIGHT (as in Factually right - all sexuality will change over the next 100 years as a result of the LGBT revolution)

We can also debate whether that is morally RIGHT..
(but pleast..I'd really rather not)

But neither of those things interest me much here...what interests me is that a flagship campaigner of the LGBT movement is saying those things.

I wonder if there is an element of denial here about the depth and radical nature of what Tatchall is saying.

I reiterate: He's someone I disagree with much of the time, but I genuinely think this is an insightful and profound piece of writing his made here, and an extremely radical thing for someone from the heart of the LGBT community to say...and for that I applaud him.

I think he's quite likely right in his prediction..we just differ on whether it's a good thing or not.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
He's arguing for pansexuality. Basically "fuck anything homosapiens with a pulse".

A) there are plenty of pansexual people out there, and their sexuality is innate so not something to be argued for or against, and B) that's not what pansexuality is about. It's simply not recognising a gender binary, so 'bisexual' is felt to be an inaccurate label. Some bisexual people (such as myself) would reject the gender binary and still call themselves bisexual, some other bisexual people do believe in a gender binary. So the line between pansexuality and bisexuality is blurry.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
he is saying that they are an artificial construct arising in response to S tyranny in the first place. These labels will not simply be packed away because the war has been won, they will dissolve entirely because they were never real but precisely as badges for that war.

The research he references is flawed. Kinsey needs to be heavily footnoted when referenced, the bias is more than obvious. As to the 1965 study, because a behaviour can be modified, this does not mean the behaviour is not innate.
The manifestation of homosexual desire in societies which are less accepting should be proof enough of this.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

As a gay person deeply interested in gay rights... I had no idea whatsoever who Peter Tatchall was and so have just had to look him up on wikipedia. Also when people look into their crystal balls and start predicting the future, I generally take that with a grain of salt.

So some guy made a prediction about the future? Big whoop. I guess either he's right, in which case it's not particularly worth arguing about because he's right. Or he's wrong, in which case his opinion isn't worth discussing because he's wrong. That's the trouble with opinions about the future - unless they concern an event that is contingent (eg global warming, running out of oil) that we can take active action to prevent or cause, they're not really worth talking about.

I would express my own partial agreement with the views he espouses: I think that in future people won't bother to say "I'm straight" or "I'm gay" or even think about it themselves overly hard because no one will care. They will just fall in love with whoever they happen to fall in love with, without having to be at all defensive about it or justify their choice of mate to themselves or anyone else.

When you suggest his views are a threat to the gay position I tend to think you're a bit out of date. His views threaten one of the various arguments that was heavily relied on by LG advocates a decade or two ago. But the LG position has since won. It doesn't need arguments any more, or insofar as it does ever need any arguments I am increasingly convinced myself that the only argument ever needed is: "Being nasty to gay people hurts them. Don't do it."

[ 03. September 2014, 21:00: Message edited by: Starlight ]

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Tatchell, and others in the po-mo camp, need to be extremely careful with this.

Conservatives have jumped on Queer Theory with glee, and used it to back their gay cure agenda. They'd love nothing better than to eliminate "gay identity," not in the cause of liberation, but as a first step to eliminating homosexuality itself.

To see how easily this can be subverted, witness all those self-loathing "same-sex attracted" evangelicals who get wheeled out. The iron law of unintended consequences is never far away.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:

I would express my own partial agreement with the views he espouses: I think that in future people won't bother to say "I'm straight" or "I'm gay" or even think about it themselves overly hard because no one will care. They will just fall in love with whoever they happen to fall in love with, without having to be at all defensive about it or justify their choice of mate to themselves or anyone else.

Well, not exactly. Preference won't disapear just because no one cares. No more than the colour of my skin changes is I am someplace where no one cares. So people will still be interested in identification even should they place no right or wrong value.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
FWIW, I think 3M Matt is right - and orfeo is wrong - in identifying the main thrust of this article. The author is not merely acknowledging that there are some bisexual people (that there is a B in LGBTI). He is saying that the nature of human sexuality is such that labels like S(traight) and LGBTI do not really mean much, but simply designate narrow extremes on a wide sexual spectrum. The author does note (as does orfeo) that the reduction of "homophobia" means that the need to identify as LG in order to contribute to a culture war is rapidly fading. But he is a lot more radical than that. He is not just saying that there is no longer a need to publicly display these labels, he is saying that they are an artificial construct arising in response to S tyranny in the first place. These labels will not simply be packed away because the war has been won, they will dissolve entirely because they were never real but precisely as badges for that war. With the end of S tyranny, LGBTI will also go the way of the dodo. The author states:

quote:
Gay identity is largely the product of anti-gay repression. It is a self-defence mechanism against homophobia. ... The need to maintain sexual differences, boundaries and identities disappears (or reduces radically) with the demise of straight supremacism.
Furthermore, the author hammers home a point that many gays (and I think orfeo in particular) will be very uncomfortable with. Namely, he insists that the influence of socialisation and culture on one's sexuality is very strong, and hence that both S and LG people are sexually malleable along B lines. As the author notes:

quote:
If sexual orientation was completely biologically pre-programmed, these men would have never been able to switch to homosexuality and then to heterosexuality with such apparent ease. ... Indeed, although sexuality may be substantially affected by biological predispositions - such as genes and hormonal influences in the womb - other causal factors appear to include cultural norms, expectations and opportunities. These tend to channel erotic impulses in certain directions and not others. ... Human sexuality is much more complex, diverse and blurred than the traditional simplistic binary image of hetero and homo, so loved by straight moralists and - more significantly - by many lesbians and gay men.
Thus the idea that one is "born to be LG" is refuted by the author just as much (perhaps more so, see last sentence) than that one is "born to be S". There may be a biological predisposition, with different strength in different people, but largely sexuality is an acquired and learned habit.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I would have thought it was just as controversial amongst straight people. Telling people who are happily heterosexual that they ought to be more fluid in their sexuality would be every bit as insulting.
The author is not saying that people ought to be more fluid, he is saying that they are more fluid than often assumed. Rather ironically, that people are fluid concerning their sexuality is nowadays much more of a threat to typical LG positions than to "homophobic" S positions. That's because the latter say that people ought to be S, whereas the former often claim that they just are unchangeably LG.

I don't think I'm saying half what you appear to think I'm saying.

I don't believe in a simplistic binary image.

And I entirely agree that "although sexuality may be substantially affected by biological predispositions - such as genes and hormonal influences in the womb - other causal factors appear to include cultural norms, expectations and opportunities. These tend to channel erotic impulses in certain directions and not others."

The only place I part company is that I don't leap to the conclusion you have, which is not in the text, that there are NO entirely straight or entirely gay people.

Because that involves a proposition that I, as an individual, am attracted solely to men because of cultural norms, expectations and opportunities. A proposition I know to be rubbish.

The problem isn't with the notion that there's actually a wide and varied spectrum and that not nearly as many people are at the extreme ends as is usually supposed. The problem is with exaggerating this and claiming that NO-ONE is at the ends. This simply isn't what Tatchall says anywhere.

The biggest problem is equating sexuality with current behaviour. Which it appears the article may do at one point. As I've stated many times on the Ship, I did not act on my sexual attraction to men for nearly 2 decades. But any proposition that I was not, therefore, homosexual during that period is nonsense. I felt the attraction to men acutely throughout that period.

[ 03. September 2014, 23:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Frankly, I don't think some of you aware that there are gay and lesbian people who treat anyone who shows any same-sex attraction as purely homosexual: "you must be gay, you're just not admitting it because of social pressure".

That is what Tatchall is speaking against in terms of binary viewpoints. And he's entirely correct. But nowhere does he turn around and say to those people "you must NOT be gay".

Frankly, it's ironic that an article that's all about not shoving people into boxes is leading some of you to try to shove me into a box. The entire point of the article is that we'll be a hell of a lot better off when people stop trying to shove other people into boxes and telling them who they are and are not attracted to. If I'm sexually attracted to a woman, I'll be the first to know, not you.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Frankly, I don't think some of you aware that there are gay and lesbian people who treat anyone who shows any same-sex attraction as purely homosexual: "you must be gay, you're just not admitting it because of social pressure".

This. LGBT circles aren't some mythical bastion of tolerance; there's a joke that in practice it's more like "l G!!! ... t?" with bisexuals not existing at all. Bisexual erasure is a well known phenomenon in the gay community (as it is in mainstream culture, of course). And that is what Tatchall is opposing here.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

I've always suspected that goal of radical groups of gays and feminists is to make men effeminate. Reading this I'm even more convinced of that. It's straight from the devil himself.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

What is so awful about being 'effeminate' - whatever that means? Even if I accepted your notion of a radical agenda - which I don't - what harm would this effeminacy cause? What's so dreadful about a man that has qualities you would label as feminine?

You're reminding me of the pamphlet from the 1980s that said our Sex Discrimination Act was a Communist plot to weaken the nation so that they could invade.

[ 04. September 2014, 03:11: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

The idea is that by taking away their masculinity they're easier to subvert.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The idea is that by taking away their masculinity they're easier to subvert.

What qualities of "masculinity" would be taken away? What feminine qualities would be added? And in what way would that be bad? If feminine qualities are bad, why are they good for women?

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The idea is that by taking away their masculinity they're easier to subvert.

I'm just trying to imagine RuPaul and the Lady Chablis being "easy to subvert."

It reminds me of "Drag Queens of Gor":

quote:
Gor #61, Drag Queens of Gor - The final, thrilling conclusion of the trilogy begun by Hairdressers of Gor. In it, the even the mighty Tarl Cabot finds himself helpless to stand against a virtual army of junior cosmetologists dressed in well printed silk robes as they bitch-slap, pinch and embarrass him nearly to death. Too, he decrees finally that the Priest-Kings should heretofore forbid all Gorean slavers to raid anywhere near the Castro District on Earth to avoid any further such embarrassing mistakes.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The entire point of the article is that we'll be a hell of a lot better off when people stop trying to shove other people into boxes and telling them who they are and are not attracted to. If I'm sexually attracted to a woman, I'll be the first to know, not you.

Gloria in excelsis deo
Here I agree with Orfeo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I've always suspected that goal of radical groups of gays and feminists is to make men effeminate. Reading this I'm even more convinced of that. It's straight from the devil himself.

Go on them, tell Gareth Thomas he is a delicate little flower.
Not that there would be any problem of he was.

[ 04. September 2014, 03:56: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The idea is that by taking away their masculinity they're easier to subvert.
What qualities of "masculinity" would be taken away? What feminine qualities would be added? And in what way would that be bad? If feminine qualities are bad, why are they good for women?

Feminine qualities in women are indeed good, just not in men. Effeminacy in a man is in a sense shameful thing which is why the ancients, for example, often castrated and fucked their slaves. By emasculating them they were easy to subvert. Modern ideas of sexuality and gender do the same thing. They make boys into girls and girls into boys. The idea isn't even to make all equal, it's an attempt to subvert the alpha male.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The alpha male. That is amusing. By definition, there is 1 per any group. The rest of you are his bitches.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Don't go getting all pedantic.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Feminine qualities in women are indeed good, just not in men. Effeminacy in a man is in a sense shameful thing which is why the ancients, for example, often castrated and fucked their slaves. By emasculating them they were easy to subvert. Modern ideas of sexuality and gender do the same thing. They make boys into girls and girls into boys. The idea isn't even to make all equal, it's an attempt to subvert the alpha male.

"Feminine" and "masculine" qualities are not immutable things handed down from on high. They are cultural constructs that have little to do with biological women and men, not to mention transpeople and intersex people. Being an "effiminate" man is not naturally, essentially, or inevitably shameful -- it's only shameful in a culture that for whatever fucked-up reason places less value on women than on men and imputes to women certain qualities it deems less valuable than others. But there is nothing naturally shameful or degrading about wearing a skirt (ask the Scots!) or treating people tenderly (ask any loving father) or holding hands (ask lots of men from around the world) or skipping (ask a happy five-year-old boy).

In other words, despite being a man, you could not be more wrong.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The idea is that by taking away their masculinity they're easier to subvert.
What qualities of "masculinity" would be taken away? What feminine qualities would be added? And in what way would that be bad? If feminine qualities are bad, why are they good for women?
Feminine qualities in women are indeed good, just not in men. Effeminacy in a man is in a sense shameful thing which is why the ancients, for example, often castrated and fucked their slaves. By emasculating them they were easy to subvert. Modern ideas of sexuality and gender do the same thing. They make boys into girls and girls into boys. The idea isn't even to make all equal, it's an attempt to subvert the alpha male.

Could you please answer more completely on what masculine qualities are being subverted?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Don't go getting all pedantic.

I'm not. My point is that there are many levels of submission that have naught to do with "feminine" qualities. Indeed, modern society, especially capitalistic ones, cannot exist without submission in some form. No subversion of "masculinity" needed.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Modern ideas of sexuality and gender do the same thing. They make boys into girls and girls into boys.

And yet, not that many of the homosexual men I know fit the stereotypes of 'effeminate' homosexuals.

Oh sure, SOME do. I suppose stereotypes develop for a reason. Although some of the men in question are probably actually transgender, not homosexual.

But it's perfectly possible to be a thoroughly masculine, even hyper-masculine, male and be homosexual. Gareth Thomas has already been mentioned. I actually know a few big, strong gay rugby players, and there's enough of them that the Bingham Cup has just been on. Look it up.

There are big, tall, strong, leather-wearing cigar-smoking blokes who would fit all of your stereotypes of an alpha male, except that they enjoy sex with men rather than women.

Very occasionally, I encounter someone who suggests that somehow me being gay means I might want to be a women. I just roll my eyes at that. It's completely untrue. And conflating homosexuality and transgender-ness is just wrong. It is perfectly possible for transgender people to wish to transition from looking homosexual to looking heterosexual OR from looking heterosexual to looking homosexual.

I'm sure you'd manage to point to something about me and say "see, that's what a girl would (stereotypically) do", but I've no doubt as to my maleness. I've got plenty of traits you would consider stereotypically male as well. The main one I apparently lack is a desire to reduce women to sexual objects that exist for my gratification and to perform household chores for me.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I am very much heterosexual when it comes to sex. Gender-wise I'm not sure. I think I'm a homosexual man in a woman's body.

Ever since I was very young I have wished I was born a man. I am a girlie girl (love handbags and nail varnish) who thinks and acts in every other way like a man. I love to go down the pub and have a laugh with the blokes.

[Smile]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Could you please answer more completely on what masculine qualities are being subverted?

Fatherhood, headship, breadwinner status etc. All those kind of things.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Could you please answer more completely on what masculine qualities are being subverted?
Fatherhood, headship, breadwinner status etc. All those kind of things.

Well, that's okay then. I'm the head of my household.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The only place I part company is that I don't leap to the conclusion you have, which is not in the text, that there are NO entirely straight or entirely gay people.

I neither stated any such opinion, nor did I attribute it to the article we are discussing, nor do I in fact hold it. I would however question what "being entirely gay" even means, just as I would question what "being entirely straight" means. I have never felt the slightest sexual attraction to men. But I find that the connection between genital stimulation and orgasm is pretty "mechanical" for me, and consequently I expect that another men could stimulate me to orgasm. I might have to look away and not think about what is happening, but it would likely work. Does that mean I'm not "entirely straight"? I also have the professional opinion, based on psychology and neuroscience, that with properly targeted frequent and pleasurable genital stimulation by another man I likely could learn to look forward to gay sex. Or to put it differently, I may be rational, but I also am an animal, and operant conditioning usually works quite well on animals. Does that mean I'm not "entirely straight"? Perhaps it does mean that. Perhaps there are "pure straights" who neither could blend out the source of their genital stimulation nor would respond in any way to sexual operant conditioning. I do not know, and I know no ethical way of arriving at that knowledge. But it doesn't really matter to me, personally. Neither how I identify myself (straight) nor what I consider to be morally licit (straight sex between married people) relies fundamentally on how biologically flexible I or other people are in their sexuality.

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Conservatives have jumped on Queer Theory with glee, and used it to back their gay cure agenda. They'd love nothing better than to eliminate "gay identity," not in the cause of liberation, but as a first step to eliminating homosexuality itself.

Indeed. However, please note what you appear to be saying there. It sounds like you are saying that it is OK to suppress a truth (biological flexibility concerning sex) if this aids what you consider to be a good cause (the acceptance of homosexuality by society). I think that is evil. Both "liberal" and "conservative" agendas should be based on what is true about sex, first and foremost. That leaves plenty of space for fights about how to morally and socially "manage" sex, IMHO. But to suppress truth is always a mistake, and it will eventually come back to haunt you.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The only place I part company is that I don't leap to the conclusion you have, which is not in the text, that there are NO entirely straight or entirely gay people.
I neither stated any such opinion, nor did I attribute it to the article we are discussing, nor do I in fact hold it. I would however question what "being entirely gay" even means, just as I would question what "being entirely straight" means. I have never felt the slightest sexual attraction to men. But I find that the connection between genital stimulation and orgasm is pretty "mechanical" for me, and consequently I expect that another men could stimulate me to orgasm. I might have to look away and not think about what is happening, but it would likely work. Does that mean I'm not "entirely straight"?

I would say no, for exactly the same reason that I would say the complete absence of any sexual activity with another male before the age of 33 does not mean I only 'became gay' at the age of 33. Surveys have shown that conservative Christians frequently associate homosexuality with actual homosexual activity. The same surveys have shown that LGBT people do not.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Boogie: I am very much heterosexual when it comes to sex. Gender-wise I'm not sure. I think I'm a homosexual man in a woman's body.

Ever since I was very young I have wished I was born a man. I am a girlie girl (love handbags and nail varnish) who thinks and acts in every other way like a man. I love to go down the pub and have a laugh with the blokes.

Years ago, when I hadn't been living in Brazil for so long, I stayed in the house of friends for a couple of weeks while I was looking for a place to live.

They had two children aged 4 and six, and one evening I said to my friends: "You go to cinema, enjoy yourselves, I'll take care of the children." So, I cooked for them, played games with them and put them to bed.

The next day, I spoke about this with another friend. She said to me: "This is so great about you Europeans, that you can show your feminine side like this!" Stereotyping aside, I believe she was wrong.

I love cooking and taking care of children, but I don't feel female when I do these things. I feel very much a man when I do this. Just as much as when I go to a game of football with the blokes.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Very nice example, Le Roc. It suggests to me that we can begin to drop these labels. To talk of 'gay identity' or 'male identity' seems farcical to me, because so coarse-grained. Everybody is complex, and made up of different strands, although of course, the traditional roles expected of men and women are simplifications, and could be described as false selves.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

3M Matt & IngoB,

I was thinking about this topic today and thinking that perhaps my own experiences are quite a relevant example.

In my teenage years the people I found sexually attractive were all male (I'm male). So I knew that the statement "I am sexually attracted to some guys" was true. But I didn't know whether the statement "I am sexually attracted to some girls" was true or not. I had never met a girl I was sexually attracted to, but neither had I met all the girls in the world. So I had no proof that there wasn't some girl 'out there' somewhere for me that I could fall in love with get happily married to, etc. So I thought of myself as "bisexual, maybe gay". Being well aware that my family and society would make my life all kinds of difficult if I choose a guy rather than a girl, I sincerely hoped that a girl would eventually happen along that I liked and that I would turn out to be bisexual rather than gay and that thus I could find a girl and marry her. Eventually, after about 15 years of thinking "well maybe I'll find a girl I like eventually", I forced myself to do the math and tally up the total number of guys I had found sexually attractive over the years (plenty) and the total number of girls (zero). So eventually I had to say to myself "hey, you better stop kidding yourself, you're not 'bisexual', you're gay." The social pressure, especially coming from a Christian background, to not be gay is extremely strong. No one chooses to be gay if they've got the option to choose not to be!

So the question of 'labels', of whether I am 'bisexual' or 'gay' has been something that has deeply affected my life for years. And this was due to social prejudice - it was because the label of bisexual held out hope of a socially acceptable life that the label of gay didn't hold. It is my sincere hope that in the future that people like me will not have to suffer through what I did. If the prejudice can be removed then the future me would have simply fallen in love with a guy and gotten married to him and lived happily ever after without spending years grappling with the question of whether there might be a girl out there somewhere for me. That future me wouldn't care if he was 'bisexual' or 'gay', he'd just be happy to have found someone to love.

But just because the labels had gone away, that future me wouldn't be any less gay (I'm defining 'gay' here as 'being sexually attracted solely to members of the same sex'). Whether or not society put labels on it, my innate psychology/biology would have still not found any girls attractive. The difference is that I wouldn't have cared about the fact that I found no girls attractive and may possibly not even have noticed that I found no girls attractive. Taking away the social prejudice and its consequent labels would have saved me years of pain and soul-searching and made my life much much better, but it wouldn't have made me any less gay. I believe that the same would apply to the vast majority of people who currently regard themselves as "gay".

When we look back in history at civilizations such as Rome, who were accepting of gay relationships, and consequently had no labels for 'straight', 'gay' and 'bisexual', what we actually find is that same-sex acts were a whole lot more common than they are now. There are surviving hints from that time of a small minority of men who were solely attracted to men (ie gay), but that was seemingly considered unusual at that time, and the majority of men were what we would label 'bisexual' insofar as they were quite happy to have sex with either males or females, and the remainder (a significant minority) were straight. What this suggests to me is that naturally a huge proportion of humans are somewhere on the bisexual continuum, and that if our culture wasn't so anti-gay then a lot of the people who currently claim they are "straight" would actually be behaving as bisexuals. While a minority would still be biologically/psychologically attracted to only guys or only girls (and thus be truly 'gay' or 'straight'), the majority would be bisexual.

It is also quite possible that cultural influences play a very strong role and that thus in our current culture that strongly endorses straight relationships has managed to truly make straight at psychological level a lot of people who would have been bisexual had they been raised in a different culture. This could explain an apparent difference in numbers between seeming (high) levels of bisexuality in ancient Rome and (low) percentage of people in the present admitting to bisexuality in anonymous surveys. So, yes, I'm saying that the conservative Christians may be right about it being potentially possible to culturally indoctrinate a lot of people into being straight who otherwise wouldn't be straight. (But remember gay people in the present are people on whom that existing programme of cultural pressure and prejudice and indoctrination has already failed to work, so trying to apply it to them again and expecting a different result as ex-gay therapy tries to do is a fools errand) So it's possible that when you take away the cultural teachings of straightness as the norm and prejudices against same-sex acts, that subsequently a lot more straight people will become bisexual at a psychological level, and then will act on it.

Some things I take away from this:
1) Anyone who thinks that people in the present are gay from 'choice' I regard as completely delusional and totally out of touch with reality. The idea that anyone growing up in our strongly anti-gay culture would make a 'choice' to be gay when they could chose otherwise is just hilariously stupid.
2) The percentage of bisexual people is probably quite large and much bigger than most people give it credit for.
3) As society becomes more accepting of gay people, the bisexual people will be freer to be themselves, and there will probably become more of them as the social conditioning that is currently turning them straight ceases to operate. And people who are actually gay, like myself, won't have years of our life ruined by wondering if really we might be a little bit bisexual and instead we can just marry a guy and get on with our lives.
5) I think Peter Tatchall is thinking about this issue of the emergent bisexual population, and that explains most of his article. He envisages a future where people currently trapped in a label of 'straight' are free to actually express their desires, where the people currently labelled 'gay' don't have to do decades of soul-searching to confirm they aren't really just 'bisexual', and where the people currently labelled 'bisexual' aren't stigmatized and aren't constantly asked "are you sure you're not just 'gay'?" A future where people can just honestly be themselves, and love whomever they love, without self-doubt, fear, questioning, and prejudice... That's a future I can support, and which I imagine most other LGBT people can too, which I think is why there's no outcry about Tatchall's article like you apparently think there should be.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I also have the professional opinion, based on psychology and neuroscience, that with properly targeted frequent and pleasurable genital stimulation by another man I likely could learn to look forward to gay sex. Or to put it differently, I may be rational, but I also am an animal, and operant conditioning usually works quite well on animals. Does that mean I'm not "entirely straight"? Perhaps it does mean that. Perhaps there are "pure straights" who neither could blend out the source of their genital stimulation nor would respond in any way to sexual operant conditioning. I do not know, and I know no ethical way of arriving at that knowledge.

You're hardly the first to think of that. Plenty of ex-gay conversion therapies have implemented methodologies based on this reasoning. It turns out not to work. Nor is it ethical IMO.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
quetzalcoatl: It suggests to me that we can begin to drop these labels. To talk of 'gay identity' or 'male identity' seems farcical to me, because so coarse-grained.

Coarse-grained yes, but the label 'male' still has meaning to me. Like I said, I feel male. So I guess it means something. I tried to show in my example that it isn't linked to 'male' or 'female' activities. And LQBGTXNI ... people show us that it isn't directly linked to having a penis either. Yet, the feeling of maleness is very real.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
quetzalcoatl: It suggests to me that we can begin to drop these labels. To talk of 'gay identity' or 'male identity' seems farcical to me, because so coarse-grained.
Coarse-grained yes, but the label 'male' still has meaning to me. Like I said, I feel male. So I guess it means something. I tried to show in my example that it isn't linked to 'male' or 'female' activities. And LQBGTXNI ... people show us that it isn't directly linked to having a penis either. Yet, the feeling of maleness is very real.

I think that's fine, and I should not have used the term 'false self'. It isn't that.

If it has meaning for you, then it does. I suppose I'm objecting to a kind of imposed identity; so men 'should' do X and Y, and not A and B.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
quetzalcoatl: I suppose I'm objecting to a kind of imposed identity; so men 'should' do X and Y, and not A and B.

I definitely agree with your objection to this.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, growing up in working class Manchester, the injunctions on men were fierce. Do this, don't do that, wear this but not that, say this, but not that, don't cry, don't be girly, keep your pecker up, etc.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Indeed. However, please note what you appear to be saying there. It sounds like you are saying that it is OK to suppress a truth (biological flexibility concerning sex) if this aids what you consider to be a good cause (the acceptance of homosexuality by society). I think that is evil. Both "liberal" and "conservative" agendas should be based on what is true about sex, first and foremost. That leaves plenty of space for fights about how to morally and socially "manage" sex, IMHO. But to suppress truth is always a mistake, and it will eventually come back to haunt you.

"Appear" is the right word, 'cause it's a straw man. I referred to identity, not biology.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
You're hardly the first to think of that. Plenty of ex-gay conversion therapies have implemented methodologies based on this reasoning. It turns out not to work. Nor is it ethical IMO.

Really?! Step one would be to buy a nice whorehouse and hire a good number of top notch hookers for the free and frequent entertainment of the "patients". I very much doubt that conservative Christians would consider that to be a good plan, and certainly you won't get it past some medical ethics committee. The only real data on such attempts out there is likely from some desperate dad financing a whore for his son in an attempt to turn him. But unless that dad happens to be a psychologist, I doubt that it will be anything but a once off, stressful and sordid affair unlikely to effect anything. Operant conditioning isn't magic, you need to keep at it for a long time and use the right setting. Trying to do this properly would require rather deep pockets and considerable organisation, as well as a comprehensive lack of Christian sexual morals, of course...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Indeed. However, please note what you appear to be saying there. It sounds like you are saying that it is OK to suppress a truth (biological flexibility concerning sex) if this aids what you consider to be a good cause (the acceptance of homosexuality by society). I think that is evil. Both "liberal" and "conservative" agendas should be based on what is true about sex, first and foremost. That leaves plenty of space for fights about how to morally and socially "manage" sex, IMHO. But to suppress truth is always a mistake, and it will eventually come back to haunt you

Truth. Perhaps the most misused word in the a Western world.
You appear to be claiming a physiological flexibility where many would see it as a psychological phenomenon.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

"Truth" is certainly overplaying the thing at issue. What little data we have on (genuine) orientation shift appears to suggest that it's spontaneous and rare.

In any case, it has no bearing on the snake oil peddled by the gay cure movement, who want to destroy identity as a first step to reprogramming LGBT people. As testified by occupiers throughout history, if you want to break a people, you first attack their culture and sense of identity.

That's the warning folk like Tatchell need to heed. This isn't an academic exercise. It can be harnessed by their enemies and used against them.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
That's the warning folk like Tatchell need to heed. This isn't an academic exercise. It can be harnessed by their enemies and used against them.

What enemies? The British situation is that most of the remaining public fall into three camps. The first are the Blue Rinse Brigade, generally post retirement, and who are turning to Nigel Farrage because not even the Tory Party is going to speak for them. The second consists of people in pulpits and a tiny minority of their audience. The homophobes are even losing the football terraces. And if they start back up again, it'll be almost everyone under 40 against the homophobes.

Tatchall almost certainly has a better grasp of the overall situation in Britain than you or I. And what he's talking about is two things. First undoing an injustice that sprang up in defence. (That injustice being bi-erasure). Second the final nail in the coffin of the opposition. People not caring. Homophobia being seen as incomprehensible.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
What enemies? The British situation is that most of the remaining public fall into three camps. The first are the Blue Rinse Brigade, generally post retirement, and who are turning to Nigel Farrage because not even the Tory Party is going to speak for them. The second consists of people in pulpits and a tiny minority of their audience. The homophobes are even losing the football terraces. And if they start back up again, it'll be almost everyone under 40 against the homophobes.

Far from everyone under 40, sadly: Stonewall found that homophobic bullying is endemic in British schools.

As for the rest, the Church of England is institutionally homophobic, and produced a report (Pilling) that kept an open mind on praying away the gay. It's a state church, controls a third of English schools, and is increasingly moving into welfare. Evangelicalism is also a powerful force within the British elite (HTB and the rest).

The situation's better in Scotland, worse in Northern Ireland.

quote:
Tatchall almost certainly has a better grasp of the overall situation in Britain than you or I. And what he's talking about is two things. First undoing an injustice that sprang up in defence. (That injustice being bi-erasure). Second the final nail in the coffin of the opposition. People not caring. Homophobia being seen as incomprehensible.

Right with ya on bi-erasure, but Tatchell went beyond increasing bisexual visibility, to eliminating a gay identity. Of course he's doing it for libertarian reasons, but con-evo groups jump on this stuff, and twist it for their own agenda.

Tatchell is undoubtedly heroic, and very often right, but as illustrated by his disastrous '90s campaign to out bishops, he's got a blind spot when it comes to how religion works.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

I think one reason for the wide disagreement on what the article is saying is a misunderstanding of "sexual identity" and what it means for different groups.

Certainly what I've read so far on this discussion is consistent with my experience over the years: "sexual identity" referring more to how someone manages the social expression of their sexual preferences rather than those preferences themselves.

So rather than having "gay" as one of the most important aspects of self-identity, it becomes less important compared to "sporty", "intelligent", etc. Rather than hanging out with other gay men for companionship and support (and strength of numbers when needed), he might instead hang out with the jocks (translation: athletic types), the chess club, folk dancers, heavy metal band groupies, etc. That's possible because people are seen more for what they choose to do in the world rather than their sexual preferences.

I've seen this happen over the years, with race and gender as well as sexual preference (though it still is by no means universal.) Where in the past a group might have a token black, hispanic or woman (for whom that would often be the primary way others saw them) now such differences tend to be less significant - how people do their work and how they act are given much more importance than race, religion, gender, etc.

So to me this is all about how we relate our sexual preferences to society, rather than changing those preferences. Part of that (hanging out with the chess club rather than a group of gay friends, for example) then also allows for more fluidity in preferences because your social circle isn't defined by (and therefore threatened by) who you are attracted to.

Attraction is quirky: in my experience it is rare than any one person is attracted to all women or all men, for example, regardless of whether they consider themselves heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or other. There are many other factors, some social, some unexpected. We can look at our history and see trends (as Orfeo has described) but that doesn't always prepare us for what may happen later (as Gwai found out.)

So "gay", "straight", "lesbian", "bisexual", and other terms aren't going away because they no longer describe peoples' attractions, but rather because that isn't how people tend to be categorized in an accepting world. A few people may find a sudden unexpected attraction to someone of a type they hadn't previously expected (we've seen some stories like that on the ship) but that doesn't mean that everyone can change on a whim, or even that they are making a conscious choice about what sort of person they find attractive.

I used to imagine that I would marry a tall, willowy, blond woman who loved backpacking and outdoor sports. Ha! What I hadn't imagined was how important intelligence, facial expressions, thought patterns, world perspective, self-awareness, and other more intangible characteristics were to me. Since such attributes aren't necessarily gender-specific, I very well might have found a man (or person of indeterminate / unspecified gender) with such attributes equally attractive in spite of my previous history.

Life's like that sometimes.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
[...] Certainly what I've read so far on this discussion is consistent with my experience over the years: "sexual identity" referring more to how someone manages the social expression of their sexual preferences rather than those preferences themselves. [...]

Great summary, and in a century or two, we may have reached that point. I hope we do.

In the here and now, we're not even close. The vast majority of the globe rejects LGBT equality. We shouldn't downplay the progress that's been made, but nor should we overestimate it. Gains in the West have provoked a furious backlash, in Nigeria, Uganda, and in Russia. It's only a matter of time before the backlash that fundies incited abroad is broadcast back home. That is, after all, its purpose.

Until there's an equal rights hegemony, eliminating an LGBT identiy, however well intentioned, will be shanghaied by conservatives and used against LGBT civil rights. It's already happened.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Really?! Step one would be to buy a nice whorehouse and hire a good number of top notch hookers for the free and frequent entertainment of the "patients".

Ex-gay groups commonly encourage their patients into heterosexual marriages. Presumably the patient receives regular heterosexual sex during those marriages. Perhaps they come to be conditioned to look forward to the sex, but it doesn't seem to make them any less gay long term and the marriages don't seem to last.

I imagine however that prostitutes are a reasonably frequently used tool. It's not hard to imagine a father, upon hearing his son claim to be gay, believing that his son just doesn't understand how good it feels to be with a woman and subsequently sending his son to a prostitute for some 'education' in the hope that it will 'make a man of him'.

Examples I've heard of ex-gay groups pursuing the methodology of sexual conditioning during the therapy process itself, have generally used porn rather than real people. Participants are stimulated to orgasm while watching porn involving a person of the opposite sex, and are conditioned to be sexually not stimulated (eg by receiving an electric shock whenever they start getting an erection) when watching porn involving a person of the same sex.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
IngoB: Really?! Step one would be to buy a nice whorehouse and hire a good number of top notch hookers for the free and frequent entertainment of the "patients".

Are you sure this has never been done? Not buying the whorehouse, but I guess the services of prostitutes have been used in this 'conversion therapy'.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I remember gay clients who had been advised by a psychiatrist to see a prostitute. Bonkers.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I remember gay clients who had been advised by a psychiatrist to see a prostitute. Bonkers.

This was pretty common advice in the 1950s and 1960s. Completely ineffective, but common.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

Great summary, and in a century or two, we may have reached that point. I hope we do.

That was, I think, the point of the original article: we are heading in that direction, especially in the younger generations. I've seen similar things happen enough in limited situations to know that the shift is possible, though it isn't always easy. (It takes conscious effort on the part of everyone involved to shift their expectations and thought processes.)

In the end it is about treating people as people, rather than abstract categories.

quote:

In the here and now, we're not even close. The vast majority of the globe rejects LGBT equality.

...

Until there's an equal rights hegemony, eliminating an LGBT identiy, however well intentioned, will be shanghaied by conservatives and used against LGBT civil rights...

Those who are threatened by equal rights and/or insist on discrimination / persecution (for any reason, not just Dead Horse issues) will always find an excuse.

But again the point of the article as I read it was that such labels would become superfluous when we stop trying to fit everyone into one of the categories and just accept them as they are. That's a very different perspective from the claim that, because we won't need such labels in the future, that the underlying differences don't really exist.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
But again the point of the article as I read it was that such labels would become superfluous when we stop trying to fit everyone into one of the categories and just accept them as they are. That's a very different perspective from the claim that, because we won't need such labels in the future, that the underlying differences don't really exist.

Agreed. The point is that the differences won't matter.

To say that the differences don't really exist would seem to me like the claim sometimes made, in relation to race/racism, of being "colourblind" as if not seeing that one person has light skin and one person has dark skin.

It's defying reality to say that there is no difference in skin colour. The real issue is what significance someone ascribes to the difference. I'd say the significance is limited to a couple of things like propensity to get sunburnt and best colours of clothing to wear.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Don't go getting all pedantic.
I'm not. My point is that there are many levels of submission that have naught to do with "feminine" qualities. Indeed, modern society, especially capitalistic ones, cannot exist without submission in some form. No subversion of "masculinity" needed.

Wasn't there some study done on chimps in which it was noted that beta males were much more efficient in passing along their genes because alpha males occupied so much time competing for alpha status that the betas could sneak around and court all the female chimps?

Posted by 3M Matt (# 1675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
groups pursuing the methodology of sexual conditioning during the therapy process itself, have generally used porn rather than real people. Participants are stimulated to orgasm while watching porn involving a person of the opposite sex, and are conditioned to be sexually not stimulated (eg by receiving an electric shock whenever they start getting an erection) when watching porn involving a person of the same sex.

From a Psychological perspective this is clearly absolutely nuts. Sexuality is complicated and rooted in perception of self, ideas about Gender, masculinity and femininity...all sorts.

The idea that some simple Skinner inspired response conditioning is going to be of any use at all is just daft.

The root psychological causes of being gay (or for that matter) straight has very little to do with what visual imagery makes you aroused.

That's just patently obvious. Consider a man who has a stunningly attractive wife, but can't get aroused by her, but has no problems getting aroused by his possibly less physically attractive mistress.

Sexuality is just far more complicated than what gets you off...

"Everything in life is really about sex, apart from sex, which is really about power"

Author unknown..but a great quote.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Kelly Alves: Wasn't there some study done on chimps in which it was noted that beta males were much more efficient in passing along their genes because alpha males occupied so much time competing for alpha status that the betas could sneak around and court all the female chimps?

(Ssssh! You're spilling the beans here.)

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
That's just patently obvious. Consider a man who has a stunningly attractive wife, but can't get aroused by her, but has no problems getting aroused by his possibly less physically attractive mistress.

You say this as if there is some objective measure of attractiveness. The very fact that the man isn't aroused by his "stunningly attractive" wife suggests that TO HIM she isn't "stunningly attractive", even if YOU would happily take his place.

The very fact that some people are attracted to men and some to women puts the sword to the entire notion that we all agree on what is attractive. As does every preference we might have in relation to age, build, height, skin tone, eye colour or a million other things.

[ 05. September 2014, 11:01: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, the idea of 'possibly less physically attractive' is a nonsense really. I know men who like slim boyish women, and others who don't; there is no objective measure.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I'm aware of a considerable number of women who find Johnny Depp devastatingly handsome.

Can't see it myself. Don't get me wrong, I think he's a really excellent actor, very talented. I've just never fantasised about him asking me out on a date.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:
That's just patently obvious. Consider a man who has a stunningly attractive wife, but can't get aroused by her, but has no problems getting aroused by his possibly less physically attractive mistress.
You say this as if there is some objective measure of attractiveness. The very fact that the man isn't aroused by his "stunningly attractive" wife suggests that TO HIM she isn't "stunningly attractive", even if YOU would happily take his place.

The very fact that some people are attracted to men and some to women puts the sword to the entire notion that we all agree on what is attractive. As does every preference we might have in relation to age, build, height, skin tone, eye colour or a million other things.

Wow. I agree.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0