WOW and homo-/bisexuality

[Maximius]

Not all sexual traits need be adaptations. And just because a trait is not concerned with reproduction does not mean it does not play an important role in the life of the organism. Sexuality, not just but especially human sexuality, goes beyond mere reproduction, it also ties into questions of social relations and individual identity. Ever see one male dog "humping" another male dog? Its a dominance display that uses sexuality at its leverage.

 

Its hard to argue that homo/bi sexuality are somehow simply genetic mishaps, due to the fact that many human cultures have openly accepted them as natural parts of their lives. We would then have to accept that the Classical Greeks and Roman civilizations were filled with genetic mutations, as bisexuality was widely accepted in both cultures to greater and lesser degrees over time. In Rome for example, relationships between young men and older men were thought to be healthy for both. However, when that young man became an adult, at the time of his fathers demise by Roman custom, it was no longer acceptable for him to be involved in such a relationship, it was time for him to find a younger partner. In fact, Julius Caeser was infamous for his sexual oscillations, Cicero wrote that he was "Every womans man, and every mans woman.", essentially calling him a "slut!" Not the picture of the political and military genius we think of today. Such things may make most of us go "Eeeeewww" but then that was their world, not ours. Its being ahistorical to judge the whole of human history, which has had numerous examples of cultures openly accepting of homo/bi sexuality, by our current Western/Christian rooted standards. Even in our societies non-hetero sexuality has has periods of greater and lesser acceptance.

 

Our nearest living relatives, the bonobos, are wildly bisexual in nature as well, using sex and sexual play as a sort of "social currency" to keep the family unit ummm, close. Next in line, the common chimp, also engages in sexual border crossings but only up to a certain age IIRC. Once the adolescent becomes an adult, its pretty strictly hetero sexual though I would have to recheck my facts on that last point.

 

My understanding is that human sexuality is a combination of genetic and psychological factors. Partly formed by our genetics and partly formed by our culture. Whatever it is, my position is that full freedom of sexual expression is part and parcel of human rights. I support those communities who seem to "broadcast" their orientation at times because for so long in Western Euro/American culture (and others!) these peoples have been harshly repressed. Sometimes they can get annoying, sounds like the WOW clan is doing that a bit, and they need to be constructively criticized like anybody else, but on the balance Im happy to live in a time when they feel comfortable enough to come out of the closet.

Edited February 27, 2006 by Maximius

[Domarius]

Uhh..yes. Give me an example of something that is possible to do which you can't choose to do.

Even the major natural instincts like sex, reproduction, eating, drinking, sleeping, you can choose not to do them.

Yes but what you said is still not true. We aren't completely unshackled from these things.

 

If you desire any of those abovementioned things, you have to consiously push the desire out of your head. When the strength of the desire increases, so does the amount of effort required to push it out.

 

So you get pre-occupied with this and operate less efficiently until the desire is sated.

 

Just ask anyone who's tried to go on a diet. All they can think about is food.

 

Everybody can ignore these things to varying degrees, and I suppose buddist monks are the best at that, but they still affect us.

[sparhawk]

I support those communities who seem to "broadcast" their orientation at times because for so long in Western Euro/American culture (and others!) these peoples have been harshly repressed. Sometimes they can get annoying, sounds like the WOW clan is doing that a bit, and they need to be constructively criticized like anybody else, but on the balance Im happy to live in a time when they feel comfortable enough to come out of the closet.

 

The major problem I have with them is, that they don't need to force it that way. This feels to me like people who absolutely cant take "I don't care" for an answer and try to force you in a position you don't want just because they can't accept that you don't care one way or the other. Something like "If you are not my friend you must be my enemy."

Aparently it seems that some people can't live without that and have to obtrude it on everybody in all situations. When I play an online game I don't care wether somebody is a nazi, or a catholic or jewish or gay. If the game is not about such topics, it is simply irrelevant and thus it should not be made an issue as if it actually were relevant in that context. If they want to m ake a statement, they should go to an appropriate forum (or a counter forum) and do it there.

[oDDity]

Maximus, you need to draw a bigger distinction between bisexuality and homosexuality. They are not interchangable.

Homosexuality is an absolute, it's genetic, you are born homosexual.

Bisexuality is completely different. It can be socially engineered by the people and culture your grow up in and around.

Yes but what you said is still not true. We aren't completely unshackled from these things.

We are, we have the biltiy to do anything that is possible to do, and what you went on to say didn't disprove it.

No matter how hard the choice to starve yourself do death, you still have it, and many people have done just that for various causes.

[OrbWeaver]

Homosexuality is an absolute, it's genetic, you are born homosexual.

Bisexuality is completely different. It can be socially engineered by the people and culture your grow up in and around.

 

Says who? Most psychologists agree it is a continuum - most people are at one end or the other (homo or hetero), some are slap bang in the middle (bi) and some are in the middle with a bias towards one end or another (bi with a preference for men or women).

[New Horizon]

Bisexuality is completely different. It can be socially engineered by the people and culture your grow up in and around.

 

Maybe in some cases, but not in all. I don't go around blurting it over a loud speaker, but I'm bisexual. Perhaps one or two of my friends know, and that's only because they asked me directly. I don't feel the need to define myself by my sexuality. It's not who I am, it's only who I do.

 

That being said, I am closer to the heterosexual end of the scale. Can't really give that scale a proper number, but maybe something like...70/ 30, or 60/40. Who knows. That part of me has been irrelevant for the last 11 years anyway, considering I've been in a steady relationship with Mary for that time.

 

As for being conditioned, I really can't think of how I would have been conditioned to be bisexual. I grew up on an Island where being gay was considered 'evil'. I didn't even know that bisexuality existed until my teens, the concept was not something many would have talked about. Life is pretty 'black and white' here. At any rate, I knew my feelings were different from as early as I can remember...probably 5 or 6. It wasn't clearly defined, but I just knew that I liked girls...and in some cases, a few boys.

 

Over time, this will all be less and less of an issue.

[Vadrosaul]

If I have no sexual interest in males at all, where it's not even a consideration for me, where do I fit on this magical scale?

[sparhawk]

Obviously at the far end of one side. Generally most issues in nature are not Black and White. There is always a continuum.

[Macsen]

I find that those who go out of their way to constantly deny that they have gay tendencies, or constantly belittle gays, are usually the most sexually repressed. On the other hand, I find that people who drop the fact that they are gay into most convos, make an 'act' of it, and go on about it endlessly very annoying. I also find the new type of preening males who spend most of their time down the gym or doing their hair pretty annoying, they look like they want to sleep with themselves.

 

No one's interested in your sexuality but the person you're rolling about in bed with that night, it doesn't have to be a big glossy badge. So to go back to the topic of this thread, yeah they should ban those WOW guilds.

[OnionBob]

Heterosexuality is normal for the species, as far as nature is concerned, virtually the only point of any species is to reproduce, and homosexuality is not conducive to that - just the opposite - so it is a genetic defect, and bisexuality is a lifestyle choice made by members of the first two groups.

Gays ought to be glad that it's been discovered they're actually mutated freaks, it means they are accepted in society much more than in the past, when it was thought they were just depraved weirdos who made the deliberate decision to fuck each other in the ass.

 

 

Hi.

 

Please define these terms for me, I'm not quite sure I understand your argument.

 

1. "Nature".

2. "Point", as in "the point of any species".

3. "Lifestyle choice".

 

Thanks in advance.

[oDDity]

Maybe in some cases, but not in all. I don't go around blurting it over a loud speaker, but I'm bisexual. Perhaps one or two of my friends know, and that's only because they asked me directly. I don't feel the need to define myself by my sexuality. It's not who I am, it's only who I do.

 

That being said, I am closer to the heterosexual end of the scale. Can't really give that scale a proper number, but maybe something like...70/ 30, or 60/40. Who knows. That part of me has been irrelevant for the last 11 years anyway, considering I've been in a steady relationship with Mary for that time.

 

As for being conditioned, I really can't think of how I would have been conditioned to be bisexual. I grew up on an Island where being gay was considered 'evil'. I didn't even know that bisexuality existed until my teens, the concept was not something many would have talked about. Life is pretty 'black and white' here. At any rate, I knew my feelings were different from as early as I can remember...probably 5 or 6. It wasn't clearly defined, but I just knew that I liked girls...and in some cases, a few boys.

 

Over time, this will all be less and less of an issue.

 

I'm willign to conceed that some bisexuals may be born like that, and some become bisexual during their life, if they live in a permissive society.

Still, you don't necessarily have to be blatantly 'lured' into bisexuality by someone something that you vcan point you finger at and say 'thats why I became bisexual', I guess your neural pathways can form in that direction given certain subtle stimuli in childhood - benign things or situations you wouldn't even remember.

Either that or virtually everyone is a latent bisexual, and will become a fully fledged one given the right environment, but that doens't work either, since as you say, you were brought up in a place where it should never have surfaced.

[Fingernail]

STOP IT ALL OF YOU YOU'RE TURNING ME ON THIS ISN'T FAIR

[New Horizon]

STOP IT ALL OF YOU YOU'RE TURNING ME ON THIS ISN'T FAIR

 

*wink wink, wiggle wiggle*

[oDDity]

Hi.

 

Please define these terms for me, I'm not quite sure I understand your argument.

 

1. "Nature".

2. "Point", as in "the point of any species".

3. "Lifestyle choice".

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Nature = THe natural process of evolution.

The point - Obviously there is no design here, but what drives evolution forward is reproduction, and therefore its the most essential part.

Lifestyle choice = a deliberate decision to live you life a certain way. Some people simply try bisexuality to see what it's like, because they want something different.

[Macsen]

New Horison your an anomaly of nature how dare you contaminate this thread with your back-door canadian liberalism!

[OnionBob]

Nature = THe natural process of evolution.

The point - Obviously there is no design here, but what drives evolution forward is reproduction, and therefore its the most essential part.

Lifestyle choice = a deliberate decision to live you life a certain way. Some people simply try bisexuality to see what it's like, because they want something different.

 

Right. So it's biological reductivism all the way.

 

Essentialism - that is, the appeal to some kind of essential "whatness" of a given entity (to paraphrase Diana Fuss, I think) - has often been deployed to combat discrimination against gay people. However your post is a great example of the dangers of employing it. By appealing to one of the arch scientific quasi-spiritual narratives, in this case evolution, those seeking to denigrate or devalue homosexuality in some way are able to strategically position it as some kind of genetic anomaly.

 

The truth is that despite what you claim in your earlier post, there is no universally accepted "proven cause" for homosexuality in the same way there is no proven cause for almost any other matter of embodied experience, be it schizophrenia, cancer or liking red sweaters (interestingly homosexuality is often scientifically investigated in the way same way that a disease might be, which is what invited the first two parallels I just deployed). Genetics probably comes into it, but there is a vast network of micro and macrosociological structures implicated in the development of sexuality and expressions of that sexuality.

 

This does not mean, however, that sexuality is something that is necessarily a matter of choice, and I find it staggering to believe that someone supposedly gifted with some kind of intelligence, enough to operate a computer to some degree of skill, can believe the idea that someone can just choose to become, for instance, bisexual. If you aren't attracted to someone, you aren't. It's that simple. If you've been straight all your life, you're no more likely to suddenly start wanting to sleep with men any more than you're likely to suddenly develop a sexual preference for cupboard doors or car windshields. You might come to terms with a a latent or repressed desire at a later point in your life, one that is not, i stress again, necessarily rooted in some kind of basic biological instantiation, but you will not create one from some kind of cartesian, objective and rational choice, maybe by leafing through gay porn in the same way you might read copies of What Hi-Fi? before you go out to buy a new stereo.

 

Furthermore, an appeal to evolution and the earlier reference to homosexuals as "freaks" of evolution is curious. If you believe that the teleology of evolution is entirely arborial and linear, and that it accelerates towards some kind of (infinitely receding) "perfect" end, and that homosexuality is merely an unsuccessful footnote to the development of the species, you're forgetting that we do not live in a culture in which eugenic control of the right to reproduce is the only thing that affects what is contributive to the "greater good". You're basically implying that the only people who contribute to society are people who have children. In some societies and in some crowded restaurants I'd go as far to say that the opposite is true. There are plenty of gay people in history who have contributed to society and the richness of your life without having to squeeze out any kids.

 

So here's a new question for you: why is it that only "depraved weirdos" want to "fuck each other in the ass"? What makes the desire to do that depraved? What makes those who do it weirdos? Here's a hint: you can't appeal to religion to justify this one. You're on your own. And here's another hint: just because sexual activity that doesn't contribute to procreation is not "furthering the propagation of the species" doesn't make it somehow wrong. I'm sure you wouldn't turn down a blowjob any time fast. Unless, of course, it was from a guy.

[Schatten]

I don't get it why people still make such a big fuss about it. If a bunch of myoptic players had formed the "Amazing Myoptic Morons" guild, I somehow doubt they would have been banned for this.

 

And oDDity, I may not be up to date on this, but to my knowledge genetic affinity to homosexuality is not proven, only speculated and highly disputed.

[Maximius]

The major problem I have with them is, that they don't need to force it that way. This feels to me like people who absolutely cant take "I don't care" for an answer and try to force you in a position you don't want just because they can't accept that you don't care one way or the other. Something like "If you are not my friend you must be my enemy."

Aparently it seems that some people can't live without that and have to obtrude it on everybody in all situations. When I play an online game I don't care wether somebody is a nazi, or a catholic or jewish or gay. If the game is not about such topics, it is simply irrelevant and thus it should not be made an issue as if it actually were relevant in that context. If they want to m ake a statement, they should go to an appropriate forum (or a counter forum) and do it there.

 

 

I know what you mean, there is nothing so annoying as a person or persons who has a legitimate point but who then uses that point as a bludgeon to force everyone to hear their woes. People such as these often seem to have an agenda outside of simply informing others about themselves or defending themselves, they are Crusaders who want to win allies or attack foes. You are right, they should take it to a forum designed around that topic.

[oDDity]

Essentialism - that is, the appeal to some kind of essential "whatness" of a given entity (to paraphrase Diana Fuss, I think) - has often been deployed to combat discrimination against gay people. However your post is a great example of the dangers of employing it. By appealing to one of the arch scientific quasi-spiritual narratives, in this case evolution, those seeking to denigrate or devalue homosexuality in some way are able to strategically position it as some kind of genetic anomaly.

I can't devalue it, since I attach no value to in in the first place, no more than I attach to colourblindness.

 

The truth is that despite what you claim in your earlier post, there is no universally accepted "proven cause" for homosexuality in the same way there is no proven cause for almost any other matter of embodied experience, be it schizophrenia, cancer or liking red sweaters (interestingly homosexuality is often scientifically investigated in the way same way that a disease might be, which is what invited the first two parallels I just deployed). Genetics probably comes into it, but there is a vast network of micro and macrosociological structures implicated in the development of sexuality and expressions of that sexuality.

There is proof of many defects are purely genetic, there's no reason why homosexuality can't be one of them, extensive research has been done on it, and it has been established that it is genetic.

 

This does not mean, however, that sexuality is something that is necessarily a matter of choice, and I find it staggering to believe that someone supposedly gifted with some kind of intelligence, enough to operate a computer to some degree of skill, can believe the idea that someone can just choose to become, for instance, bisexual.

OK, so explain the widespread cultural bisexualty of the ancient greeks and Romans. It was mainly nurture, not nature.

 

 

You're basically implying that the only people who contribute to society are people who have children. In some societies and in some crowded restaurants I'd go as far to say that the opposite is true. There are plenty of gay people in history who have contributed to society and the richness of your life without having to squeeze out any kids.

That's just luck. Homosexuality is detremental, however, given the complex nature of humans and our society, human homosexuals can still contribute in other ways, but the actual homosexuality itself is a defect and worthless, just like colourblind people can still contribute, but their defect is inherently worthless and it would be better, in an ideal world, if it didn't exist.

Likewise, it would be better, in an ideal world, if everyone was heterosexual.

 

So here's a new question for you: why is it that only "depraved weirdos" want to "fuck each other in the ass"? What makes the desire to do that depraved?

I didn't say they were depraved weirdos, I said that's how they were percieved in the past, before it was discovered they had a reason for ther actions, i.e, genetics.

[OnionBob]

I can't devalue it, since I attach no value to in in the first place, no more than I attach to colourblindness.

 

Yes you do. Fortunately it does not take much academic training to read the well-hidden nuance in the term "freak".

 

There is proof of many defects are purely genetic, there's no reason why homosexuality can't be one of them, extensive research has been done on it, and it has been established that it is genetic.

 

No it hasn't.

 

OK, so explain the widespread cultural bisexualty of the ancient greeks and Romans. It was mainly nurture, not nature.

 

There's a couple of very simple reasons why this does not work. First and foremost is that it is a rather vague stereotype of ancient classical society often deployed but rarely backed up with any kind of real evidence. Yes, bisexuality is seen in ancient roman and greek cultural texts. But who says it was more "widespread" (again, a charged term of supplementarity) then than it is now? Who says it was more common for people to be bisexual than heterosexual (or homosexual)? And perhaps people weren't as miserable and repressive then, and those people who were bisexual were able to express it without some hideous little troll coming along and screaming at them for being in some way unnatural?

 

That's just luck. Homosexuality is detremental, however, given the complex nature of humans and our society, human homosexuals can still contribute in other ways, but the actual homosexuality itself is a defect and worthless, just like colourblind people can still contribute, but their defect is inherently worthless and it would be better, in an ideal world, if it didn't exist. Likewise, it would be better, in an ideal world, if everyone was heterosexual.

 

Why is homosexuality detrimental? The only thing that makes homosexuality detrimental is the network of social structures positioning it as an Other to be repressed through whatever means necessary, whether that be through religious narratives, or dogmatic, reductivist secular popular scientism. In other words, there is no real reason why homosexuality should be considered detrimental to society or to individuals other than the fact that gay people have to put up with a lot of shit from people who for some reason or other think that their sexuality is in some way invalid. So in an "ideal world" homosexuality wouldn't exist - don't you think that a pluralism of life experiences and narratives makes for a more interesting world?

 

You might want to consider reassessing your rather underdeveloped and reduced understanding of evolution, especially in your use of it to justify some quite breathtakingly blinkered social prejudices.

 

I didn't say they were depraved weirdos, I said that's how they were percieved in the past, before it was discovered they had a reason for ther actions, i.e, genetics.

 

Maybe so, but your rather viciously homophobic rhetoric elsewhere in the thread makes it clear that you don't particularly have to be told twice to have a go at recreating those kinds of perceptions. Also, I will gently reiterate once more - no "genetic reason" for homosexuality has been "discovered". Maybe some suggestions have been found in genetics - at most - but I challenge you to find a good source on a piece of research that proves categorically that what you say is true, and is acknowledged by the medical, academic and lay communities as a whole. You will not find one. Nobody has ever proven either way what is "the cause" of a person's sexuality, and I heartily recommend you read up on the plethora of information that has been written in the last twenty or thirty years on the various ways in which sexuality and gender is or is not instantiated, performed, enacted, or naturalised. There are plenty of more complex ways of interrogating the sexuality debate out there, and indeed the divide between nature and culture, which has arguably imploded and been made unstable by a lot of theoretical and scientific propositions. You just have to bother to read them.

[sparhawk]

STOP IT ALL OF YOU YOU'RE TURNING ME ON THIS ISN'T FAIR

 

Do we have a supressed gay here? Come on, you can come out here. We will tell nobody and it will just be among us.

[sparhawk]

If you aren't attracted to someone, you aren't. It's that simple. If you've been straight all your life, you're no more likely to suddenly start wanting to sleep with men any more than you're likely to suddenly develop a sexual preference for cupboard doors or car windshields.

 

I don't think it is that simple. I'm pretty sure that you can grow into it just like you may or may not like some food at one time and later on you suddenly may like it because your taste changes. I don't see much difference in sexuality either, only that it may be more restrictive because of social interactions and the perceived emberassement coming along with it. It's also interesting that apparently women had a much lesser problem with lesbian tendencies than man, which may be another indicator that this is also tightly related to your social environment.

 

So here's a new question for you: why is it that only "depraved weirdos" want to "fuck each other in the ass"? What makes the desire to do that depraved? What makes those who do it weirdos?

 

That's an interesting question. Especially when you consider history as well. Would that mean that ancient greeks were all "weirdos" because it was an accepted lifestyle? Somehow this doesn't really fit.

[sparhawk]

I didn't say they were depraved weirdos, I said that's how they were percieved in the past, before it was discovered they had a reason for ther actions, i.e, genetics.

 

So basically you are saying "Now that we know that these poor sods can't be any different we have to treat them properly, according to their disease, and don't see them as weirdos anymore." That's not really much better as saying they are weirdos in the first place.

[oDDity]

You may not like it, but that's the way the world has moved on.

Of course, some people still haven't moved on, and still think gays are evil personifications of depravity, possessed by the devil, and will rape, or at least try to 'convert' any young boys they find, with their stinking shit-covered cocks.

[oDDity]

Why is homosexuality detrimental? The only thing that makes homosexuality detrimental is the network of social structures positioning it as an Other to be repressed through whatever means necessary, whether that be through religious narratives, or dogmatic, reductivist secular popular scientism. In other words, there is no real reason why homosexuality should be considered detrimental to society or to individuals other than the fact that gay people have to put up with a lot of shit from people who for some reason or other think that their sexuality is in some way invalid. So in an "ideal world" homosexuality wouldn't exist - don't you think that a pluralism of life experiences and narratives makes for a more interesting world?

 

You might want to consider reassessing your rather underdeveloped and reduced understanding of evolution, especially in your use of it to justify some quite breathtakingly blinkered social prejudices.

Homosexuality in itself is detremental, in large does it's completely fatal to a species.

Imagine of every lion born from now on was homosexual. THat would mean the end of their species, sicne they would no longer have the insinct or urge to mate with the opposite gender.

THey can't make informed decisions like humans, so for any other animal species homosexuality is a terrible genetic flaw, liable to wipe out a species if it was widespread enough.

In humans, as I've said, it is not so bad, since we can make decisions independant of our instinct, but that's just sheer luck as I've said, it just so happens that in one species out of all species on the planet, homosexuality has a lesser effect, because that species has a way to overcome it.

The fact still remains that it's a potentially fatal gentic disorder, and before humans came along, it was capable of killing all complex life on the planet.

YOu're trying to imply I'm homophobic, but I can distinguish homosexuality from the homosexuals it affects. You can't blame someone for having a genetic disorder, and I don't, but that doesn't mean I have to like the disease they're afflicted with, and I don't.